LostSoul
Adventurer
Most of the in-game divination spells should get the axe, or, at the least, they should be heavily nerfed.
I'd like to hear more.
Most of the in-game divination spells should get the axe, or, at the least, they should be heavily nerfed.
Not. Even. Close. If a DM designs a dungeon with a lair guarded exclusively by golems and the wizards have any clue at all that this is going to be the case then only specialist evokers (already the weakest mages) are going to be slowed by the Spell Immunity.
Almost the entire Conjuration school ignores spell resistance and immunity. Which mean that four the unholy five combat conjurations (Grease, Web, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, and Evard's Black Tentacles) all work on golems with no questions asked. Stinking Cloud, of course fails because Golems are constructs. But also because Golems are constructs, they have terrible saving throws. Of the SRD listed ones, only the CR 16 42 Hit Dice giant stone golem has a save in excess of +6 - and for a CR 10 monster to have saves of +2 and +3 means they are going down like a chump to a low level spell like Glitterdust - even a humble Web will hold all except the big monster a few rounds.
The wizard is laughing at the golems, punking CR 10 monsters that were designed to be his bane with second level spells - and that without using all the versatility @Victim suggests (must spread XP around...) to simply avoid the golems above.
1. You missed the part where in the golem section it says that all golems are immune to magical and supernatural effects unless otherwise noted.
1. You missed the part where in the golem section it says that all golems are immune to magical and supernatural effects unless otherwise noted.
<snip>
This is the biggest problem with people bagging on 3e. They never bothered to learn its rules and make mistakes. Then judge the system based on their mistakes.
"Magic immunity" is defined in each golem entry as only providing immunity to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. Those spells don't allow spell resistance, so they all work just fine. Even if you try to say the first entry supersedes the others, it obviously doesn't since it says "unless otherwise noted" and it is "otherwise noted" in every single entry below.
You are generally correct in those spells don't instantly kill the golems, but they generally render them non-threatening enough that the wizard's party can take them out.
Depends on whether or not you're playing 3.0 or 3.5. Golems in 3.0 were immune to most of those effects. But 3.5 nerfed their immunities down to being immune to spells and spell-like abilties that were subject to spell resistance. I'm not even entirely sure that was intentional. I have this nagging suspicion that they were just trying to be more precise with the language, but that may be an uncharitable reading of it.
No its not, its noted in the entry for Golems in general as immunity to everything they are not specifically weak to. So unless they are listed as vulnerable to it in their specific entry they are immune to it. So unless you find; vulnerability GLITTERDUST or something similar in their specific entry it doesnt touch them.
So those spells dont actually, in any way nerf the other members of the party. Rather they assist the other members of the party in stopping the golem from turning the wizard into an ugly bit of PC paste on the floor.
Yes?
And so rather then making the wizard superior to the other classes it actually makes him DEPENDENT (or inferior) to the other classes. Yes?
Because without them, sooner or later the golem catches him and makes wizard pizza. Right?
1. You missed the part where in the golem section it says that all golems are immune to magical and supernatural effects unless otherwise noted.
Grease? Covers a 10 foot area and has a DC10 balance check. Maybe you slowed him down. For one round, or 2. AND? You didnt win. You slowed him down.
Web? Must be anchored to 2 diametrically opposed points within 20ft of each other. Making it pretty much only useful in small corridors. And even then it doesnt beat the golem, it slows it for a round or two. A strength check lets you move 5 feet for every 5 points by which you beat a DC10 on a STR check. Most golems have no problem rolling a 15 or 20 on a STR check and gain it only affects a 20 foot area.
Glitterdust? In the MM do you see a weakness to glitterdust listed in any golems description? I dont. That means it doesnt work. See part 1.
Black tentacles can grapple them but cant actually HURT anything but a flesh golem. And that not very much.
So... you've slowed it down, and mildly annoyed the flesh golem.
How do you actually WIN? So far you didnt hurt squat and certianly didnt defeat them.
This is the biggest problem with people bagging on 3e. They never bothered to learn its rules and make mistakes. Then judge the system based on their mistakes.
The language I quoted was copy and pasted from the 3.5 monster manual.
They are immune to any spell or supernatural ability unless otherwise stated in their entry. Period.
Golem :: d20srd.org
"Immunity to Magic (Ex) A clay golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.".
Not so much. The other players could just as easily be wizards, and summon a few monsters to deal with the golem. It just means the wizard can't solo the golems if he's low enough level that he has to rely on mid-level spells to deal with them.
That text in the introductory part of the golem section is mostly a 3.0 holdover that never got sufficiently updated. The specific rules in each golem section are definitely weaker than the 3.0 text and would be most applicable. Yours is the less likely interpretation of the 3.5 designers' intent.
OK.
Let's go by the actual 3.5 rules. The rules for Golems, not any houseruled version.
The rules for Golems are right here.
The actual rules for Golems immunity to magic are listed in two places.
The first place says
Immunity to Magic (Ex)Each type of Golem then proceeds to have its own description. In every single case this is clarified to read:
Golems have immunity to most magical and supernatural effects, except when otherwise noted.
Immunity to Magic (Ex)
A [type] golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.
Which means that Golems are vulnerable to spells that do not provide spell resistance. Because they don't hit the golem directly. (Incidently, this is standard spell immunity). That word most is important. Because most spells do allow Spell Resistance. Immunity to Magic is just another name for the standard term Spell Immunity.
But in the 3.5 case it is entirely consistent that any specific golem listed is not immune to spells that don't allow SR. And indeed the clarified immunity to magic passage under each golem makes no sense if they are actually immune to spells like Glitterdust. First the word most (an explicit change from 3.0) is entirely redundant if your reading is correct. Second, there is no point explicitely calling spells that allow spell resistance if the golem is intended to be immune to all spells.
So the rules that screw up the whole argument dont really matter and dont count? Thats your position?
Because the Rules as Written in the published, hardcover book arent actually intended to mean what they say in plain english?
Please tell me i am somehow misunderstanding your point.
Problem is, there's times when a Thief just can't get by a given door no matter what she does - it's defended such that it needs magic to open. If Knock still makes the MU no better than the Thief the party ain't getting through that door. Not without a whole lot of noise, anyway.That's a poison pill. That would make invisibility (or any equivalently designed utility spell) degrade in relative performance very quickly as characters level.
A better solution is for the utility spell to not be an auto-success (like traditional knock) but allow the wizard to use his caster level as if he were a rogue skilled in the ability being mimicked by the utility spell. Then the utility spell allows the caster to double for the rogue on the rogue's terms - having to succeed or fail on a roughly equivalent check.
That issue is much more easily fixed by simply taking item creation away from PCs in practical terms - make it expensive, make it very very time-consuming, and thus make it an obvious second choice vs. getting out in the field and finding loot.It would also fix the 3e's issue of cheap utility wands too - by incorporating caster level, they quickly increase in expense reducing their relative value.
NO. It means they are immune to ANY SPELL OR SUPERNATURAL EFFECT THAT THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED AS BEING VULNERABLE TO IN THEIR MONSTER ENTRY.
Words have meanings. And they mean what they mean. Not what you want them to mean. THe word you are missing is most. .
In the sort of system I'm talking about (and I'm assuming that @Ratskinner 's Capes, and @Neonchameleon 's 3:16 are similar), the GM is obliged to follow the leads of the players - so as to avoid the second-guessing you're properly worried about.
I know its hard to admit when you have made a mistake but in this particular case you were making a mistake.
Accept it, learn from it, and thus get better in the future. It works much better then sticking with a proudful belief that the fault was in the rules that millions of people played with happily.
You need better - or different - bait.It directly avoids a problem I've seen in play: The DM writes an adventure/campaign, the players roll up characters, the DM starts play and drops out "the big hook"....only to watch the players all either ignore it or outright reject it on the grounds that "my guy wouldn't care about that" or "why would my guy think he could do anything about that."
Sometimes. Other times I've had the party well over halfway through an adventure before the players even realize they're in a canned module rather than something I dreamed up myself. Other times again I've shoehorned a canned module into my games because one or more players indicated interest in playing it.Ratskinner said:I've particularly noted this phenomenon when a DM tries to incorporate a published module into a larger campaign.