|
|
Post by delta on Jan 11, 2022 0:26:15 GMT -6
In the Greyhawk supplement, Golems are given immunity to magic/spells. The language given is this: - Flesh: "Affected only by +1 magic weapons, spells have no effect... [two exceptions]"
- Stone: "Affected only by +2 magic weapons, spells which affect rock... [two exceptions]"
- Iron: "Affected only by +3 weapons and no other magic... [two exceptions]"
In two of these cases, the no-effect reference is to spells, whereas in the latter case it's to magic. Do you think the general intent is to only prohibit spells (and permit other monster abilities, magic devices, etc.), or to prohibit all magic? Or does it vary by golem type? (Ignore the couple of exceptions in each case.) |
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Jan 11, 2022 11:34:30 GMT -6
When thinking through issues like this, I substitute "fantastic" for "magic/al," and conceive of it in light of Chainmail usage/notions.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 11, 2022 15:22:53 GMT -6
The wording isn't ideal, but re-reading the descriptions makes me think the intention was to narrow magical effects to what seemed logical given the material each golem is made of, regardless of whether the source is a spell, magic item, or magical ability like dragon's breath: Each golem is healed by one kind of magical effect, two are slowed by another effect. Iron golems are hasted by lightning. Stone golems in addition are affected by spells that affect rock. Flesh golems are I assume damaged by fire, but since there is no comma between "fire" and "cold", it could be interpreted differently.
That being said, I think I'd allow Dispel Magic to act as a stun or Hold Person spell when used successfully against a golem. I'd also allow iron golems to be affected by spells that affect only metal, which didn't exist at the time of the write-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jan 11, 2022 15:33:07 GMT -6
"Affected only by +3 weapons and no other magic" probably implies a broad intent for 'magic' to include more than just spells.
However, I personally prefer these sorts of things to be strictly limited to spells and things that actually cite a spell to explain their effect, to avoid issues about what fantastical things are actually 'magic' vs. Just don't exist in our world.
So on that interpretation, a golem immunity would help against a Fire Ball spell or wand (since its effect is directly that of the spell) but not Red Dragon breath, a dragon could fly or use its breath in an anti-magic shell, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 11, 2022 18:04:25 GMT -6
... a dragon could fly or use its breath in an anti-magic shell, etc. That's an interesting case you bring up there. You know that in AD&D the expanded description of anti-magic shell explicitly says it blocks breath weapons? In your opinion, do you think that's informative of original intent, or not? |
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jan 14, 2022 20:25:59 GMT -6
... a dragon could fly or use its breath in an anti-magic shell, etc. That's an interesting case you bring up there. You know that in AD&D the expanded description of anti-magic shell explicitly says it blocks breath weapons? In your opinion, do you think that's informative of original intent, or not? Oh, hmm, that didn't click.
I honestly have no idea. I suppose it's likely... the similarity between Chainmail Dragon fire and Chainmail Wizard 'missiles' (Lightning/Fire) could suggest that Gygax saw them as the same basic effect.
I still prefer a more limited view personally.
|
|
