D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

[timASW]

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.

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.

 

[timASW]

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)

Golems have immunity to most magical and supernatural effects, except when otherwise noted.

​

Each type of Golem then proceeds to have its own description. In every single case this is clarified to read:

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.​

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.

And you'll notice I didnt argue Web or Grease. They dont affect it directly so yes, I would houserule that they work. But it would be a HOUSERULE. The RAW is that they do not work.

But all they do is slow it down. They dont beat it. So they dont really matter for the point of this discussion.

This seems to be revolving around GLITTERDUST. Which is hilarious because sure it blinds him for a while if you allow it to work (against RAW) but it still doesnt BEAT HIM. It makes him take longer to pound your mage into paste because he'll miss some. But you still havent HURT IT.

Not one bit, not one point. Your wizard hasnt won the fight. All any of these spells do is make it temporarily easier for a martial character to win the fight for him. .

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.

No its not all at all consistent. The specific monster entry lists what that monster SPECIFICALLY is vulnerable too. It does not in any way trump the general entry for spells not specifically listed, as that is the point of the general entry in the first place.

And actually it wouldnt make one shred of sense for them to be vulnerable to glitterdust in the first place, rather then vice versa.

Its a stone or iron statue. It doesnt have eyes. How the hell does DUST affect it? Theres no eyeballs, no nerves connecting them, no brain its attached to, no pain reflex of things in the eye, no tear reflex to flush the eye, because THERE IS NO EYE.

So how exactly are you going to claim that it "makes sense" for a creature like a golem to be affected by glowing dust in the eyes?​

 

[billd91]

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.

You should check out the latest 3.5 FAQ. A question on page 102 makes it entirely clear that golems are not immune to magic that isn't subject to spell resistance. But I can see a few misconceptions in your interpretations in this discussion.

Your "order of operations thing" is backwards. Specific beats general. The entry for golems is in general terms. "Most" is further clarified by the more specific spells and spell-like abilities subject to spell resistance. That too is in plain English, and more specific and easily interpreted English to boot.

Playing so that spells that aren't subject to SR affect golems IS playing by the rules... As written for 3.5.

 

[FireLance]

Apropos of nothing, is it too much to hope that forensic analysis of the RAW is one of the things that won't make it into 5e?

Yeah, I thought so too.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lanefan

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Just to expand on Billd91's point, the official 3.5 FAQ can be found here. And is very clear and consistent in explaining that everyone else in this thread is right and you are wrong.

The entries for all the golems in the MM say that golems
have magic immunity, which is supposed to allow golems to
completely resist most magical and supernatural effects
except for specific ones listed in each golem’s description.
(Most of those heal, slow, or damage the golem.) Can you
cast beneficial spells on a golem? For example, can you turn
a golem invisible? Can you teleport one? Could you cast
darkness on a golem? How about fly or reverse gravity? To
put it another way, if you are not trying to directly cause
damage or drastically alter the golem (such as with
polymorph), will the spell work? Clearly, if you cast
darkness on yourself and the golem attacks you, once it
moves into the area of darkness, it can no longer see you.
But can you cast darkness on the golem? Could a golem use
a magic item, such as a ring of invisibility?
As noted in each golem’s entry, a golem resists any spell or
spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. (In previous
versions of the D&D game, golems were impervious to most
supernatural effects as well, but that is no longer the case.)
[Snip for length]
​

The golem description in the MM says that golems are
immune to magic, but the individual golem descriptions say
they’re only immune to spells or spell-like abilities that
allow spell resistance. Which one is right?
The “immunity to magic” entry in the opening text of the
golem entry (page 134 of the MM) is only a general description
of that special quality. Each golem’s specific immunity to
magic entry provides the actual rules mechanics for
adjudicating that immunity.
For example, a clay golem is immune to fireball (because
that spell allows spell resistance), but not to Melf’s acid arrow
(because it doesn’t allow spell resistance). It would be immune
to disintegrate, except for the special note that follows
indicating the effect of a disintegrate spell on a clay golem

Do conjuration spells such as Evard’s black tentacles
have an effect on golems?
The easiest way to find out if a golem is affected by a spell
is to check the spell to see if it allows spell resistance; if it does,
then the golem is immune to the spell. Many conjuration
spells—including Evard’s black tentacles—do not allow for
spell resistance, so they would work normally against a golem

Can a dragon’s breath weapon harm a golem?
Yes. Although the golem main entry describes “immunity
to magic” as granting immunity to “most magical and
supernatural effects,”individual golem entries clearly state that it applies only to “any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance.” Thus, golems are affected normally by a dragon’s breath weapon unless the golem’s entry states otherwise.
​

Are golems immune to the warlock’s eldritch blast?
Since it is a spell-like ability that allows spell resistance,
golems are immune to the warlock’s eldritch blast. The
warlock who faces a clay golem with nothing but his eldritch
blast is in just as much trouble as the sorcerer with nothing but
magic missile and lightning bolt in his arsenal. The vitriolic
blast eldritch essence invocation (CAr, page 136) allows the
warlock to overcome this problem, since vitriolic blast ignores
spell resistance.

​

The FAQ is completely in line with the rules of 3.5. And is part of the official rules.

 

[timASW]

Words have meanings. And they mean what they mean. Not what you want them to mean. THe word you are missing is most. .

Yes words have meaning. The word your missing is ANY in the description.

This is simply wizard powergamers with bad DM's who didnt understand the rules and let them get away with murder claiming the rules were at fault.

I'm sorry but thats not the case. Your DM was at fault. And if you were the DM then you were at fault. You didnt understand the rules, didnt learn them, and let spell casters get away with murder.

Thats no a fault of the rules. Its a fault of your DM'ing.

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.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

Yes, although Capes doesn't have a GM. A player puts out "conflicts" and play revolves around who gets to actually narrate the resolution of the conflicts. The more interest a conflict generates, the more payoff there is for the winner(s) (and loser(s), though in a more roundabout way.) The "physical" powers and traits that characters have are less relevant in this regard than their drives and motivations.

I have, for some time, considered a "D&D" style version of Capes, with a DM. It presents some interesting conundrums from a design perspective, but I'm not yet sure they aren't surmountable. Certainly, in such a thing, the DM would need to create conflicts that directly impact the PCs motivations just to get the PCs to step up to the plate.

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." I've particularly noted this phenomenon when a DM tries to incorporate a published module into a larger campaign.

 

[billd91]

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.

Clearly, it is hard to admit when you've made a mistake. Presented with the clear position of the game's publisher contradicting your own, you've continued to stick by your mistaken position. The 3.5 rules are definitely different from 3.0's with respect to the golem magic immunity. That doesn't mean they're better, but they are different.

I don't know what to say. When presented with black from the people with the authority to say black, you're saying white on this topic.

 

[Lanefan]

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."

You need better - or different - bait.

That said, it's the DM's job to hit curveballs like that; and there's always different ways to approach any given story.

I've particularly noted this phenomenon when a DM tries to incorporate a published module into a larger campaign.

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.

Lanefan