The "That's Unrealistic!" Retort Compendium

[Saeviomagy]

Because the amount of force it takes for you break off the finger with the sledgehammer is at least equalled by the force that the golem would have to exert to make that same finger make a 90deg angle...without an articulated joint.

And not only doesn't it break- thanks to the animating magic- it bends as if it were articulated, which it isn't.

It's legs smashed off, it crawls. It's hands cut off, it swings it's stumps.

RAW or by legend, it is not impeded from doing so; for most of the combat, it attacks relentlessly and without being hindered by it's damage.

RAW so does every other creature in the game.

I'll just take your reasoning to justify why critical hits DO work: it's magic. That's just how it works.

So basically it's down to personal preference: no logic is going to work once we've come this far.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, a couple of things. The lions don't kill with claws, they kill with teeth. But, that's a quibble. The other quibble is that a huge creature can be a LOT bigger than an elephant.

Teeth, like I said, came to 1 inch or so.

But, really, it's your second point which tends to ping my "BS Meter". I'm pretty darn sure that if someone attacked an elephant with a sword, he'd get squished.

But only "pretty darn sure". I'm also pretty darn sure that anyone who faces 10 armed alert men will die. But it's only pretty darn sure: it's not certainty, and so the fantasy can continue.

Fortunately, my ability to suspend disbelief is pretty healthy and it only bugs me if I start thinking about it too much. So, don't do that.

Like I said: you're only "pretty darn sure".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll just take your reasoning to justify why critical hits DO work: it's magic. That's just how it works.

Of course, that doesn't conform to the rules- you're writing out a creature's immunity which reflects their structure* (which you're free to do in your game)- whereas my position does.

* present in creatures of other types as well: plants, oozes, elementals to name a few, and for different reasons.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The resultant golem is 100% animated by magic. However, since the physical form is the anchor for the magic, enough damage to the physical form will disrupt the magic...just like erasing part of the magic circle that holds an extraplanar being in place or at bay means the barrier falls.

The only difference is that a golem is far more durable than a magic circle.

This doesn't change that it still has structural weak points

What does a spine do? It supports the rib cage; it is an anchor point for things like hips or shoulders; it protects the spinal chord.

...none of which a golem has, because there is nothing inside a golem except solid matter or trapped air (depending on its construction method).

Uhhhh.

The spine does a lot more then that.

Look, you keep missing the main point:

If it stands. If it exists. It has a structural weak point. It has nothing to do with magic; if it is made up of a structure, it has a weak point in that structure, especially as an animated statue.

A construct is just that - it's constructed. It has joints. At the end of the day, regardless of how they're animated, golems need legs to walk on and arms to punch with. They still rely on the musculature of the corpse / statue to move and act. Skeletons have joints. So do constructs. Hit anything with a form and structure at the right spot and you can do more damage than hitting it in a generic spot.

Look at it from a structural engineering standpoint.

Give any jerk enough C4 and a working knowledge of how to arm and operate a radio detonator, and he can bring down a building. This is analogous to the musclebound fighter or barbarian with a sword the size of a door and Power Attack. He swings that thing with so much force that he's going to get results. Sometimes, his swing connects in just the right spot and he really gets results (critical hits).

But a demolitions expert can bring that same building down with a far smaller quantity of explosives. Why? Because he knows where and how to place them to collapse the load-bearing structures of the building, rendering it incapable of continuing to stand. This is our rogue with a dagger and a heart full of hate. So long as he's in a position to really choose his target, every strike is placed into just the right spot to get the job done with minimal force and effort.

Although a stone golem may be a single contiguous mass of granite, certain points on its body bear its weight more heavily than others (I'm looking at you, hips). Bring enough stress to bear on those sections, and the thing can't support that weight anymore.

Of course, at the end of the day, this whole argument is about HP, easily the most vague and abstract thing that has ever existed in D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If it stands. If it exists. It has a structural weak point. It has nothing to do with magic; if it is made up of a structure, it has a weak point in that structure, especially as an animated statue.

I agree- a normal stone statue would have millions of them, due to a property of many types of minerals called cleavage which allows for breaks along weak intersections in it's crystalline structure.

However, if a stone golem had such weaknesses, it would crumble to rubble as soon as it tried to move. Ergo, the magic that animates them suspends this design flaw from having any effect.

A normal metal statue would have millions of them, due to a properties like lack of ductility and metal fatigue.

However, if a metal golem had such weaknesses, it would tear itself to pieces as it tried to move. Ergo, the magic that animates them suspends this design flaw from having any effect.

Although a stone golem may be a single contiguous mass of granite, certain points on its body bear its weight more heavily than others (I'm looking at you, hips). Bring enough stress to bear on those sections, and the thing can't support that weight anymore.

By definition, a solid piece of stone has no hips.

By definition, each time a golem bends one of it's nonexistent joints, it would be applying enough force to do exactly what you're suggesting would cause a break, a structural failure, were it not for the animating magic.

And if the magic is preventing natural forces from having their usual effects on points that should snap when the golem moves itself, there's no reason why the same force applied to those same sections from outside should have any more special in-game effect than basic HP damage.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

But again, by your same logic, undead and golems are undestroyable. You can't even chip it due to the magic animating it.

If magic prevents it from being damaged via sneak attack, why does it allow normal attacks to go through?

 

[Dausuul]

Because the amount of force it takes for you break off the finger with the sledgehammer is at least equalled by the force that the golem would have to exert to make that same finger make a 90deg angle...without an articulated joint.

And not only doesn't it break- thanks to the animating magic- it bends as if it were articulated, which it isn't.

But you're operating on the presumption that the animating magic works in a very specific way. You assume there are two spells at work, one which applies raw brute force to make the joint move, and a second that keeps it from breaking while moving. Furthermore, this second force provides ongoing protection even when the joint is not moving, and it protects against unexpected outside shocks as well as the "known" internal stress of motion.

I don't see any reason to make these assumptions. Whatever magic reshapes the golem's "joints," it might make them more resistant to outside shocks--but it could just as easily make them less resistant, or not affect the resistance either way. The process might involve a very careful balancing of forces and stresses, which could be totally disrupted by one good hard whack at the right moment.

And, as I said above, adventurers are obviously not just knocking chips off the golem with their swords. If they were, it would take hours or days to wear it down to the point of non-functionality. Whatever they're doing, they must be taking some kind of "short cut." If it isn't targeting the weak points to break the golem apart, then what is it?

 

[Janx]

so are folks arguing Danny's theory on WHY you can't sneak attack a golem, or that you want the rule changed based on reasonable arguments on why it should work?


There's historical description on the physical nature of golems. Namely being an animated statue, and not a "robot" with joints and mechanisms.

It's mere speculation and fiction-crafting as to the pseudo-scientific nature of their animation. The goal of such being to justify the rules.

If you don't like Danny's explanation, offer a different one. If you don't like the rule, the House Rules forum is down the street.

This thread was about offering real world examples that support the rules.

Offering well reasoned explanations to support changing the rules isn't in the scope of this thread.

Maybe it should be forked?

 

[Dausuul]

If you don't like Danny's explanation, offer a different one. If you don't like the rule, the House Rules forum is down the street.

Better yet, specify what edition you're talking about. Sneak attacking golems requires a house rule in 3E, but it's rules as written in both 4E and Pathfinder.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But again, by your same logic, undead and golems are undestroyable. You can't even chip it due to the magic animating it.

That is not even CLOSE to what I'm saying. I'm not saying golems are immune to damage.

I'm saying that, due to the magic that created it, no spot on a golem is more suceptible to damage than any other point, making it immune to damage boosting effects. You can chip away, and get a good whack on it, but by virtue of it's creation ritual, it is not subject to suffering EXTRA damge by striking it's weak points- if such points existed at all after it's creation, the golem's own movement would destroy it.