Half-golem Magic immunity

[Magic Rub]

Each side of this discussion has a very valid argument. However the bottom line for me is this. By LokiDR's interpretation of the rules IMO the PC would become far too powerful, it would be unfair to the other PC's & possibly unbalancing to the game. It would be a potential future (& possibly irremovable) thorn in my side. By the other interpretation, that of a fixed magic immunity, (IMO) there would be sufficient drawbacks that the other PC's would not feel that the Half-golem PC has an unfair advantage. I can change the ruling to "up-grade" the magic immunity to a SR like ability thus enabling the PC to raise & lower the immunity, should it appear that the Half-golem PC is getting the short end of the stick. But I don't feel that if I granted that ability from start that I should one day be able to say to him "Sorry man, you can't do that any more. It's just not working out for me." that would just be cruel. I have still left the option open for the character to be resurrected if it is needed, which is fair IMO.
I think (& this is just off the top of my head, & definitely needs further thought) that I'll still allow the Half-golem PC to use select magical items... ie: +X weapons, +X Armour & Goggles of Minute Seeing would be fine, but say boots of speed would not. Basically any weapon or item that doesn't directly magically effect a character would be fine. But when the magic directly affects the character like boots of speed, it would not work. I would need to look at each item individually & make a suitable judgement for each. But again, I'll need to think about this aspect a little more.

 

[LokiDR]

Originally posted by Magic Rub But I don't feel that if I granted that ability from start that I should one day be able to say to him "Sorry man, you can't do that any more. It's just not working out for me." that would just be cruel. I have still left the option open for the character to be resurrected if it is needed, which is fair IMO.

That seems to be a complete solution to me.

What ECL are you going to apply?

 

[Magic Rub]

What ECL are you going to apply?

I'll worry about that when/if he makes up his mind on if he wants to take the template.

 

[LokiDR]

So long as a person knows what they are getting into, and make the decision, it is fair.

Balance is question of always outshining others. I would fix this with large LA. But so long as you make sure the player doesn't outshine (or be outshined) by others, balance is statisfied.

The general reason I would go with the more powerful definition of Magic Immunity is for consistancy. Drow are very strong. In 2e, they were given horrid drawbacks to try to balance them. In 3e, they only have appropriate drawbacks but have and ECL to balance them out. I see Magic Immunity as the same sort of situation.

 

[Artoomis]

This is the rules forum, so let's try quoting some rules. Note that I am using the SRD since I can easily quote that source, but you'll find these in the MM as well, of course.

Magic Immunity seems to be only defined on a per creature basis - there is no generic definition. The following is every instance of "Magic Immunity" in the SRD.

Magic Immunity (Ex): Golems completely resist most magical and supernatural effects, except where otherwise noted below.

Magic Immunity (Ex): Flesh golems are immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects, except as follows. Fire- and cold-based effects slow them (as the spell) for 2d6 rounds, with no saving throw. An electricity effect breaks any slow effect on the golem and cures 1 point of damage for each 3 points of damage it would otherwise deal. For example, a flesh golem hit by a lightning bolt cast by a 5th-level wizard gains back 6 hit points if the damage total is 18. The golem rolls no saving throw against electricity effects.

Magic Immunity (Ex): Clay golems are immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects, except as follows. A move earth spell drives the golem back 120 feet and deals 3d12 points of damage to it. A disintegrate spell slows the golem (as the slow spell) for 1d6 rounds and deals 1d12 points of damage. An earthquake cast directly at a clay golem stops it from moving that round and deals 5d10 points of damage. The golem gets no saving throw against any of these effects.

Magic Immunity (Ex): A stone golem is immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects, except as follows. A transmute rock to mud spell slows it (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds, with no saving throw, while transmute mud to rock heals all of its lost hit points. A stone to flesh spell does not actually change the golem’s structure but makes it vulnerable to any normal attack for the following round (this does not include spells, except those that cause damage).

Magic Immunity (Ex): An iron golem is immune to all spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects, except as follows. An electricity effect slows it (as the slow spell) for 3 rounds, with no saving throw. A fire effect breaks any slow effect on the golem and cures 1 point of damage for each 3 points of damage it would otherwise deal. For example, a iron golem hit by a fireball cast by a 5th-level wizard gains back 6 hit points if the damage total is 18. The golem rolls no saving throw against fire effects.

For comparison and clarity:

Spell Immunity (Su): Rakshasas ignore the effects of spells and spell-like abilities of 8th level or less, just as if the spellcaster had failed to overcome spell resistance.
Vulnerable to Blessed Crossbow Bolts (Ex): Any hit scored with a blessed crossbow bolt instantly slays a rakshasa.

Rakshasas have Spell Immunity, not Magic Immunity

From this, it seems clear that Magic Immunity is unique to Golems (and perhaps other non-MM monsters), and cannot be compared to other abilities. It is effective against both helpful and hurtful spells - at least as written in the Core Rules. Of course, golems are not free-willed, so this makes perfect sense.

Edit: to be fair, the language, "...Golems completely resist ..." could be read to mean an active resistance that could be lowered, but that's a stretch, really, especially as the word "completely" implies a more passive resistance that cannot be lowered.

 

[LokiDR]

Rakshasas have Spell Immunity, not Magic Immunity

From this, it seems clear that Magic Immunity is unique to Golems (and perhaps other non-MM monsters), and cannot be compared to other abilities. It is effective against both helpful and hurtful spells - at least as written in the Core Rules. Of course, golems are not free-willed, so this makes perfect sense.

Edit: to be fair, the language, "...Golems completely resist ..." could be read to mean an active resistance that could be lowered, but that's a stretch, really, especially as the word "completely" implies a more passive resistance that cannot be lowered.

As I recall, the original version of Spell Immunity read like Magic Immunity. Then the sage and later FAQ ruled that this effect worked like SR that could not be beaten. This was integrated into the SRD, and the version you quoted. This very same arguement could be used to clarify Magic Immunity. After all, Immunity doesn't mean immunity in at least one case.

 

[Artoomis]

As I recall, the original version of Spell Immunity read like Magic Immunity. Then the sage and later FAQ ruled that this effect worked like SR that could not be beaten. This was integrated into the SRD, and the version you quoted. This very same arguement could be used to clarify Magic Immunity. After all, Immunity doesn't mean immunity in at least one case.

You recall incorrectly. The language I quoted is identical to that contained in the first printing of the MM.

Applying the Sage's interpretation of Spell Immunity to Magic Immunity is quite a stretch. They are different abilities.

Really, I would love to hear a good argument, but one that's based on fact, not supposition. I quoted all the actual rules.

As for the FAQ, searhing both the main FAQ and the Monsters FAQ yields only the followng for Spell Immunity:

Can I use spell immunity to make myself immune to the
detect magic spell? How about other spells such as see
invisibility or dispel magic?

No. Spell immunity gives the subject an unbeatable SR
against the specified spell. Since none of the spells named here
are subject to spell resistance, spell immunity is useless against
them.

If a cleric casts spell immunity and chooses, say, fireball,
would the spell stop a heightened fireball? Or a fireball that
has been subjected to another metamagic feat?

Yes, a fireball that has been modified by metamagic is still a
fireball. The metamagic fireball also can be counterspelled by a
normal fireball.

I see nothing that supports making Magic Immunity anything less than just what it says - immunity. Not SR that you can voluntarily drop.

It's not the same as Spell Immunity - which, since it gives unbeatable SR per the spell description, can be lowered voluntarily.

 

[LokiDR]

Can a magic immune creature walk through a wall of force?
Can a magic immune creature ignore a maze spell?
Does a magic immune creature get damaged by a transmute stone to mud on the cavern ceiling above them?


It seems the rules are scarce here. I find nothing in the Monster FAQ about what exactly is affected by Magic Immunity. So we are left with supposition. If your answer to the above 3 questions was "no", then you make the assumption that magic immunity is completely unrelated to Spell Resistance. I take the opposite approach. If a spell doesn't allow for SR, then your magic immunity doesn't protect you from it.

Riddle me this, if you would: if a creature is immune to all magic, why is that magic is needed to hit it? We are talking about creatures that all have DR. Does that make sense to you, because it doesn't to me.

Artoomis, you want a nice simple answer. There isn't one. I would say "completely resist" can imply active resistance. I would say that the abilities Spell Immunity and Magic Immunity are different, but related. If there is a question about magic bringing about some effect that might affect a golem, I will defer to previous rulings on SR for consistancy.

 

[Artoomis]

Originally posted by LokiDR Can a magic immune creature walk through a wall of force?
Can a magic immune creature ignore a maze spell?
Does a magic immune creature get damaged by a transmute stone to mud on the cavern ceiling above them?

Excellent questions. This is different from SR - so I'd look instead to indirect vs. direct effects.

Wall of Force? Tough one. I'd say they can walk through because it is purely a magical effect.

Maze? Nope. Direct magical effect.

Rack to mud? Sure - the mud itself is not magical.

It seems the rules are scarce here. I find nothing in the Monster FAQ about what exactly is affected by Magic Immunity. So we are left with supposition.

True.

If your answer to the above 3 questions was "no", then you make the assumption that magic immunity is completely unrelated to Spell Resistance. I take the opposite approach. If a spell doesn't allow for SR, then your magic immunity doesn't protect you from it.

Not unreasonable, but unrelated to the root question here - "Can you voluntarily lower it?" SR rules are not really a help here, it's too different.

Riddle me this, if you would: if a creature is immune to all magic, why is that magic is needed to hit it? We are talking about creatures that all have DR. Does that make sense to you, because it doesn't to me.

Logic does not have to apply to magic.

Artoomis, you want a nice simple answer. There isn't one. I would say "completely resist" can imply active resistance. I would say that the abilities Spell Immunity and Magic Immunity are different, but related. If there is a question about magic bringing about some effect that might affect a golem, I will defer to previous rulings on SR for consistancy.

That's not unreasonable. But note I am not looking for an easy answer necessarily, merely one grouned if the rules (this is the rules forum). Much of the previous argument was not well-founded in the rules and contained statements that were clearly incorrect.

Anyway, it's nice to finally see a rules-based argument using the correct rules.

 

[Cheiromancer]

One tiny bit of evidence that Magic Immunity is not the same as infinite SR is the Minotaur's immunity to maze spells. SR doesn't help vs a maze, so immunity doesn't always reduce to SR.

Another little tidbit (even flimsier, if that is possible) is the Bloodhound's (MotW) extraordinary ability to Ignore Magical Barriers. This is expressed as a spell resistance against magical barriers (wall of force, entangle, prismatic wall, and so forth). I don't recall if this has been the subject of errata, but "wall of force" shouldn't be in there; either that, or the Bloodhound's ability has something to do with immunity to certain kinds of magic, and not merely SR.