Can elementals hit golems?

[delta]

Can spell-conjured elementals effectively strike golems for damage?

Note the following, which may or may not be relevant to your answer:

• Golems appear in the Greyhawk supplement (p. 18)
• They're "Affected only by +1/+2/+3 weapons [by type]"
• They are not damaged by any spells or magic (link)
• Elementals in that same book are only hit by +2 weapons or better (p. 34)
• Spell-conjured elementals are the 16 hit dice type

[Mordorandor]

Jan 23, 2022 20:55:57 GMT -6 delta said:

Can spell-conjured elementals effectively strike golems for damage?

Yes. A fantastic monster can effect any monster, normal or fantastic.

AD&D, I believe, is the first to introduce a graduated notion of fantastic monster, noting which fantastic monsters strike as “+” weapons.

[talysman]

Yes, for basically the same reason, although I express it differently: the enchanted weapon requirement appears to me to be a way of making certain monsters immune to mundane attackers. That is, we don't want mobs of zero-level peasants taking down a golem or elemental with their fists. Fantastic creatures, or at the very least those who are likewise immune to mundane weapons, should be able to attack other such creatures. Otherwise, we get a situation where two flesh golems can't harm each other nor can an iron golem harm a flesh golem.

I guess the question a GM needs to ask when interpreting the rule is: Are creatures who are "only hit by magical weapons" vulnerable because the weapon makes the attacker more skilled than normal, or because the weapon's magic makes the attacker equivalent to an enchanted being? If the former, would that mean that a non-magical to-hit bonus is equivalent to a magical to-hit bonus, for example a custom-made well-balanced and unusually-sharp +2 sword?

[delta]

Jan 23, 2022 21:26:55 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

AD&D, I believe, is the first to introduce a graduated notion of fantastic monster, noting which fantastic monsters strike as “+” weapons...

I'll point out that the Greyhawk supplement states that Elementals can be hit by either +2 magic weapons, or creatures with magical abilities, or creatures with 4 or more hit dice (p. 34). Which is copied without change into the AD&D Monster Manual, and is thus out-of-synch with the later DMG rule.

(Coincidentally, we discussed pitfalls around edition changes like that today on our WDMs talk show.)

[delta]

Okay, given that the poll is currently running with a unanimous response (7 of 7 "yes"), let me do something I normally don't in these polls and offer a counteragument for conversation sake.

The thing I expected someone to poke at is that the spell-conjured elemental is a spell. Per Sup-I the elemental can be dispelled and so forth. Therefore, if a spell-conjured elemental can hit a golem for damage, then it presents a unique loophole -- a wizard can't damage any golem through any means whatsoever, except by conjuring an elemental. So if you know there's a golem around, then the wizard is absolutely compelled to memorize conjure elemental -- and, I think an elemental pretty quickly beats up most golems, too (e.g., a lone earth elemental should waste a flesh golem in 4 rounds, stone 7, iron 11).

I'm actually kind of uncomfortable with that loophole that undermines the golem defensive powers. Anyone else?

[Mordorandor]

Jan 25, 2022 11:20:07 GMT -6 delta said:

Okay, given that the poll is currently running with a unanimous response (7 of 7 "yes"), let me do something I normally don't in these polls and offer a counteragument for conversation sake.

The thing I expected someone to poke at is that the spell-conjured elemental is a spell. Per Sup-I the elemental can be dispelled and so forth. Therefore, if a spell-conjured elemental can hit a golem for damage, then it presents a unique loophole -- a wizard can't damage any golem through any means whatsoever, except by conjuring an elemental. So if you know there's a golem around, then the wizard is absolutely compelled to memorize conjure elemental -- and, I think an elemental pretty quickly beats up most golems, too (e.g., a lone earth elemental should waste a flesh golem in 4 rounds, stone 7, iron 11).

I'm actually kind of uncomfortable with that loophole to the golem defensive powers. Anyone else?

I'll bite ...

I see this as a feature, not a loophole. For example, having and using a key for a door that is described as opening only when such key is used isn't taking advantage of a loophole.

Besides, other Elementals available through magic items aren't as powerful as those conjured by the Conjure Elemental spell.

One needs to be 9th level (exceedingly powerful to begin with) to have access to 5th level spells, and then also decide to prepare the one and only spell available at that level. Which means they must know a Golem is around, and the reward for having knowledge is being able to take advantage of it.

Also, the Elemental is not the spell; the spell conjures the Elemental, which if loose (breaks control) is a real threat to the Wizard.

Lots to consider. 

[talysman]

Jan 25, 2022 11:20:07 GMT -6 delta said:

Okay, given that the poll is currently running with a unanimous response (7 of 7 "yes"), let me do something I normally don't in these polls and offer a counteragument for conversation sake.

The thing I expected someone to poke at is that the spell-conjured elemental is a spell. Per Sup-I the elemental can be dispelled and so forth. Therefore, if a spell-conjured elemental can hit a golem for damage, then it presents a unique loophole -- a wizard can't damage any golem through any means whatsoever, except by conjuring an elemental. So if you know there's a golem around, then the wizard is absolutely compelled to memorize conjure elemental -- and, I think an elemental pretty quickly beats up most golems, too (e.g., a lone earth elemental should waste a flesh golem in 4 rounds, stone 7, iron 11).

I'm actually kind of uncomfortable with that loophole to the golem defensive powers. Anyone else?

Here are two counter-counterarguments:

1. I cast Animate Dead on a bunch of corpses to make zombies. Can the zombies attack the golem? Or are they dispelled?
2. I cast Charm Person on a fighter and give him a +3 magic sword I found but can't use myself. Can the fighter attack the golem? Or is the Charm Person spell dispelled?

The way I interpret it: Immunity to spells means spells cast on the golem. It may include some magical area effects, like the effects of a Wall of Fire, but even there, the golem doesn't dispel the Wall of Fire; other monsters are still affected by the fire.

Spells cast on other things or that create other things do not directly affect the golem, so the golem's immunity to spells doesn't matter. Otherwise, there's be a whole truckload of spells that wouldn't work the way you expected: Walls created with Wall of Iron would disappear, warriors polymorphed into giants or dragons (or, for that matter, frogs) would suddenly return to their ordinary form when they attacked the golem, conjured demons would for some reason be unable to attack.

Note also that the Monster Summoning VII spell in Greyhawk directly contradicts the idea that stone and iron golems are immune to spells, since these can be summoned by the spell. I think we just have to accept that the golem entry doesn't take into account the full description of all spells, but was just meant to be a way to describe a general immunity.

[delta]

No one ever suggested that golems dispel magic.

[talysman]

Jan 25, 2022 14:34:23 GMT -6 delta said:

No one ever suggested that golems dispel magic.

But what I'm getting at is: you'd need an explanation like "golems dispel magic" to explain why they would be immune to attacks from conjured elementals. You could come up with another explanation, like "golems are surrounded by a permanent, mobile Protection from Evil effect that keeps elementals from attacking them," but again, you have to address whether this would affect other conjured or summoned creatures. If they have Protection from Evil, that would block attacks by zombies... so, are they immune to zombie attacks?

Plus, we have to look at the individual elemental types.

• Golems can't be immune to fire elementals, because they aren't immune to fire spells, which slow flesh and stone golems and heal iron golems.
• Earth elementals use their fists on enemies, not magic.
• Air elementals pick up opponents and throw them, rather than using magic directly on enemies.
• Invisible stalkers (conjured by a spell, just like elementals, and later retconned as being air elementals) also make physical attacks.
• Water elementals also make physical attacks, but it would make sense to say golems are immune to drowning.
• Other elementals like djinn, efreet, and salamanders can be summoned by Monster Summoning spells.

Which of these conjured monsters are golems immune to, and why? If the answer is "all of them", then why? If it's "just elementals, no matter how they are conjured or summoned, because they are magical themselves", then why are physical attacks from elementals included? And why do golems suddenly gain any immunity to fire when used by fire elementals, when they aren't otherwise immune?

Edit to Add: I guess I should say that I'm not saying you can't rule that elementals can't affect golems, but these are all issues you have to consider if you do. You have to have an idea of why golems are immune to them, just to describe what happens when a player conjures an elemental and sends it to attack, and you have to be ready for when players extrapolate from that failed attack to figure out which other spells aren't going to work.

[delta]

Sorry, the premise of that line of thought seems orthogonal to my concern.

[Mordorandor]

Jan 25, 2022 20:46:31 GMT -6 delta said:

Sorry, the premise of that line of thought seems orthogonal to my concern.

In the same spirit as Talysman (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), let me approach it from a different angle.

Delta, are you thinking a conjured Elemental is similar to a Fire Ball spell in that both these spells target the Golem?

Because I think what Talysman might be getting at is, in the same way a Wall of Iron doesn't target the Golem, like the Charm Person doesn't target the Golem but targets the Fighter wielding the +3 magic item that targets the Golem, the Conjure Elemental spell doesn't target the Golem. 

Whereas it seems you're implying the Conjure Elemental spell targets the Golem ...?

[Desparil]

Jan 25, 2022 20:55:01 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

Jan 25, 2022 20:46:31 GMT -6 delta said:

Sorry, the premise of that line of thought seems orthogonal to my concern.

In the same spirit as Talysman (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), let me approach it from a different angle.

Delta, are you thinking a conjured Elemental is similar to a Fire Ball spell in that both these spells target the Golem?

Because I think what Talysman might be getting at is, in the same way a Wall of Iron doesn't target the Golem, like the Charm Person doesn't target the Golem but targets the Fighter wielding the +3 magic item that targets the Golem, the Conjure Elemental spell doesn't target the Golem. 

Whereas it seems you're implying the Conjure Elemental spell targets the Golem ...?

My understanding of the original premise is that Delta was wondering - in OD&D, and therefore lacking the AD&D chart which clearly establishes the number of Hit Dice a monster must have to strike a different monster requiring a +X weapon to harm - is an elemental powerful enough to harm a golem? In particular, since an elemental only requires a +2 weapon in order to be hit, is it in some sense magically weaker and thus unable to harm creatures which require +3 weapons to hit?

[Mordorandor]

Jan 25, 2022 23:46:20 GMT -6 Desparil said:

Jan 25, 2022 20:55:01 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

In the same spirit as Talysman (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), let me approach it from a different angle.

Delta, are you thinking a conjured Elemental is similar to a Fire Ball spell in that both these spells target the Golem?

Because I think what Talysman might be getting at is, in the same way a Wall of Iron doesn't target the Golem, like the Charm Person doesn't target the Golem but targets the Fighter wielding the +3 magic item that targets the Golem, the Conjure Elemental spell doesn't target the Golem. 

Whereas it seems you're implying the Conjure Elemental spell targets the Golem ...?

My understanding of the original premise is that Delta was wondering - in OD&D, and therefore lacking the AD&D chart which clearly establishes the number of Hit Dice a monster must have to strike a different monster requiring a +X weapon to harm - is an elemental powerful enough to harm a golem? In particular, since an elemental only requires a +2 weapon in order to be hit, is it in some sense magically weaker and thus unable to harm creatures which require +3 weapons to hit?

That's very helpful, Desparil.

I think I'll circle back to my original statement about the codification of magical ontology being more of an AD&D thing. While I think Gary begins to go that route in Supp-1, I don't think he's arrived there yet.

The text on Elementals in Supp-1 is:

"ELEMENTALS: Elementals are impervious to normal weapons and to magical weapons under +2. They are impervious to attack by creatures which do not have magical abilities, i.e. Kobolds, Orcs, etc., unless the attacking creature is of 4 or more hit dice in strength."

Delta noted "Elementals in that same book are only hit by +2 weapons or better." This is partially true. They are only hit by magical weapons that have a modifier of +2 or better. 

The first sentence of the text for Elementals makes that point. This text is speaking specifically to weaponry.

The second sentence of the text then notes two other points about Elementals.

(a) Elementals are impervious to creatures that don't have magical abilities, which is something we already know from Chainmail, since only fantastic combatants can affect fantastic combatants, unless...

(b) Normal monsters have 4 or more HD.

By nature of (a), nothing is changed re: fantastic combatants affecting fantastic combatants, and I'd go so far as to say Golems are affected by any fantastic monster, no matter how small or large, no matter the HD, no matter what weapon of which modifier is needed to hit them, etc. 

And as for Elementals specifically, by nature of (b), any "normal" monster with 4 or more HD can affect them. First thought of a "normal" monster with so many HD is a Dinosaur?

I'm sure others can think of other monsters that fit that category.  


EDIT: I believe the rigor that is eventually applied to "+" weapons originates from an assumption that no matter how powerful PCs get, they're never considered fantastic combatants unless using fantastic attack modes, such as "+" weapons or spells. Before AD&D, this rigor applies primarily (perhaps solely) to + weapons used by normal combatants. Only later does that + weapon rigor then get applied to fantastic monsters to then further their own abilities to hit other fantastic monsters.

[talysman]

Jan 25, 2022 20:55:01 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

Jan 25, 2022 20:46:31 GMT -6 delta said:

Sorry, the premise of that line of thought seems orthogonal to my concern.

In the same spirit as Talysman (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), let me approach it from a different angle.

Delta, are you thinking a conjured Elemental is similar to a Fire Ball spell in that both these spells target the Golem?

Because I think what Talysman might be getting at is, in the same way a Wall of Iron doesn't target the Golem, like the Charm Person doesn't target the Golem but targets the Fighter wielding the +3 magic item that targets the Golem, the Conjure Elemental spell doesn't target the Golem. 

Whereas it seems you're implying the Conjure Elemental spell targets the Golem ...?

You're right about what I'm saying, although I'd add that traditionally immunity to spells or magic only protects against spells that target the immune figure, or against the effects of an area spell. If a GM wants to change that, fine, but they should consider why that no longer applies.

But I think what delta is saying, especially given the comment about that being "orthogonal to my concern", is that he's only concerned with balance and ... well, not exactly "cheating", but players getting around an intended boundary. If I'm interpreting his reasoning correctly, he sees the "immune to spells" feature as forcing a party of adventurers to switch to a specific kind of tactics (physical attacks,) which combined with the immunity to mundane and +1 magic weapons means that only high-level parties armed with appropriate weapons can deal with golems.

In other words, the restrictions are meant to force parties to include experienced fighters instead of being all magic-users.

Under this line of reasoning, allowing a magic-user to conjure an elemental to take care of the golem means the m-u doesn't need to cooperate with other class types to defeat a golem, and in fact can dispatch the golem rather quickly, making what the GM designed as a difficult set-piece battle into a trivial obstacle. If your primary concern as a GM is to be able to judge how long and how tough an encounter is going to be, then anything that alters encounter duration and difficulty is a shortcut around the adventure's design and thus is a flaw in the system.

I guess delta is just a bit surprised that so many people who responded to the poll didn't look at it the same way. I am definitely in the camp of "shortcuts, especially those I didn't anticipate, are a feature, not a flaw". So, of course, nothing I can say will be of any use here. I just don't see a good reason to prevent spells not targeted at a golem from working as intended.

[Mordorandor]

Jan 26, 2022 14:13:07 GMT -6 talysman said:

Jan 25, 2022 20:55:01 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

In the same spirit as Talysman (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong), let me approach it from a different angle.

Delta, are you thinking a conjured Elemental is similar to a Fire Ball spell in that both these spells target the Golem?

Because I think what Talysman might be getting at is, in the same way a Wall of Iron doesn't target the Golem, like the Charm Person doesn't target the Golem but targets the Fighter wielding the +3 magic item that targets the Golem, the Conjure Elemental spell doesn't target the Golem. 

Whereas it seems you're implying the Conjure Elemental spell targets the Golem ...?

You're right about what I'm saying, although I'd add that traditionally immunity to spells or magic only protects against spells that target the immune figure, or against the effects of an area spell. If a GM wants to change that, fine, but they should consider why that no longer applies.

But I think what delta is saying, especially given the comment about that being "orthogonal to my concern", is that he's only concerned with balance and ... well, not exactly "cheating", but players getting around an intended boundary. If I'm interpreting his reasoning correctly, he sees the "immune to spells" feature as forcing a party of adventurers to switch to a specific kind of tactics (physical attacks,) which combined with the immunity to mundane and +1 magic weapons means that only high-level parties armed with appropriate weapons can deal with golems.

In other words, the restrictions are meant to force parties to include experienced fighters instead of being all magic-users.

Under this line of reasoning, allowing a magic-user to conjure an elemental to take care of the golem means the m-u doesn't need to cooperate with other class types to defeat a golem, and in fact can dispatch the golem rather quickly, making what the GM designed as a difficult set-piece battle into a trivial obstacle. If your primary concern as a GM is to be able to judge how long and how tough an encounter is going to be, then anything that alters encounter duration and difficulty is a shortcut around the adventure's design and thus is a flaw in the system.

I guess delta is just a bit surprised that so many people who responded to the poll didn't look at it the same way. I am definitely in the camp of "shortcuts, especially those I didn't anticipate, are a feature, not a flaw". So, of course, nothing I can say will be of any use here. I just don't see a good reason to prevent spells not targeted at a golem from working as intended.

That's an interesting view. And helpful explication.

I go back to my other post then about loopholes. I don't know if this is a case of a loophole for two reasons.

(a) If a specific monster can affect a specific monster, it may be a feature/design, not a loophole. (Is Kryptonite a loophole or a feature?)

(b) I don't think it was Gary's intent in Supp-1 to say Golems are impervious to the attacks of fantastic/magical monsters. In fact, by stating the qualifier (being impervious to normal monsters except those with 4+ HD), it implies the axiom that they are vulnerable to fantastic monsters.

Impervious to magic does not equal impervious to fantastic/magical monsters.  

In my view, because fantastic monsters can hit other fantastic monsters regardless of "+" immunities, it never occured to me this would be an issue.

"+" weapons are a means to allow normals to act as fantastic fighters. By wielding one, they now play in the fantastic space.* 

*This explicitly differs from Chainmail, where a Hero fights on the fantastic table even though it's never stipulated that s/he does so by wielding magic weapons. (In fact, by having a magic sword offer an extra die to hit, it implies a Hero is assumed to be without magic weaponry.) The very nature of the Hero is fantastic, and so the Hero affects fantastic monsters with normal weapons by his/her very nature of being a fantastic type.

Delta, curious to hear your thoughts on some of these ideas.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 25, 2022 11:20:07 GMT -6 delta said:

The thing I expected someone to poke at is that the spell-conjured elemental is a spell. Per Sup-I the elemental can be dispelled and so forth. Therefore, if a spell-conjured elemental can hit a golem for damage, then it presents a unique loophole -- ...

Alternatively, consider: A staff conjured Elemental is not a staff, nor is a scroll conjured Elemental a scroll, nor a spell conjured Elemental a spell.

The method of conjuration, the means, is the staff, scroll, or spell. The end achieved by whichever means is then that an honest to goodness, first-class Elemental is brought into play.


Edit:
Golems and Elementals could certainly destroy each other on the FCT--Golems might even fight on the FCT as Elementals Possibly the invulnerability to +1/+2/+3 magic weapons feature is specific to the ACS?

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 26, 2022 17:26:51 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

"+" weapons are a means to allow normals to act as fantastic fighters. By wielding one, they now play in the fantastic space.* 

*This explicitly differs from Chainmail, where a Hero fights on the fantastic table even though it's never stipulated that s/he does so by wielding magic weapons. (In fact, by having a magic sword offer an extra die to hit, it implies a Hero is assumed to be without magic weaponry.) The very nature of the Hero is fantastic, and so the Hero affects fantastic monsters with normal weapons by his/her very nature of being a fantastic type.

See also Protection from Normal Missiles spell (M&M p26).

It's clear that a normal arrow fired by a D&D-hero is not a normal missile.

[Mordorandor]

Jan 26, 2022 20:14:09 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Jan 26, 2022 17:26:51 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

"+" weapons are a means to allow normals to act as fantastic fighters. By wielding one, they now play in the fantastic space.* 

*This explicitly differs from Chainmail, where a Hero fights on the fantastic table even though it's never stipulated that s/he does so by wielding magic weapons. (In fact, by having a magic sword offer an extra die to hit, it implies a Hero is assumed to be without magic weaponry.) The very nature of the Hero is fantastic, and so the Hero affects fantastic monsters with normal weapons by his/her very nature of being a fantastic type.

See also Protection from Normal Missiles spell (M&M p26).

It's clear that a normal arrow fired by a D&D-hero is not a normal missile.

Agreed. And if I understand the progression tables correctly, 3rd-level+ fighting-men, 6th-level+ clerics, and 7th-level+ magic-users are fantastic combatants, meaning they can hit fantastic monsters without the need for fantastic attack modes.

(And thus obviates Delta's concern entirely, as the 7th-level Wizard simply needs to use his/her normal Dagger to harm the Golem.)

I've always played OD&D in this way.

What I'm not clear on is whether or when Gary (i.e, the Supp-1 ecosystem) adjudicates PCs as fantastic types.

I wonder if Gary/Supp-1 applied a like-minded caveat about player-controlled characters and their inability to function like monsters (for example, special monster hirelings losing the ability to see in the dark) to also mean they never function as fantastic types without the aid of some fantastic attack mode.

Which eventually came to be expressed as the "This does not apply to characters of any sort," asterisk on the "Creatures Struck Only by Magic Weapons" table.

That is to say, I wonder if Gary took the reference of "(not above normal) men" to mean "those above normal men who are not controlled by players."

All speculation of course.

[delta]

Okay, it's possible that I've been biased by Gygax's relation of his encounter with the Iron Golem in "A Memorable Dungeon Expedition Undertaken by the Wizards Mordenkainen & Bigby" (link). In that encounter:

• Mordenkainen summons an Efreet and it does nothing against the golem.
• He hits it with his staff multiple times, and that does nothing.
• He casts transmute rock to mud under its feet, and it even refuses to fall into that.

Now, on the one hand, a person could interpret this as a "special" golem, and in Rob Kuntz's writeup in AD&D Module WG5 it gets a special levitation power and so forth. But on the other hand, I think it's the first ever golem in the game, so it's weird to think of it as "special" in that sense. It seems somewhat more natural to think that the intent is that a golem really-honestly can't be affected by anything a wizard throws at it, and no rules-lawyering can get around that (with the added WG5 abilities being retcons to rationalize what happened in that case; e.g., it doesn't make sense to later say it has levitation but didn't use it to grab the wizards perched on top of the giant columns).

It's particularly interesting that none of the several top-tier wizards involved think to try throwing an elemental at it -- even on a second encounter when they come back fully prepared for its presence.

I'm halfway curious what Rob Kuntz would say today about any other second-order stuff a wizard PC might think to throw against his Iron Golem. Could you tornado it away with control weather? Trick it with illusions like projected image? Box it in with a wall of iron? Etc. I suspect he'd say "no".

[retrorob]

Elementals are enchanted monster, ie. magical creatures. As magic weapon is needed to hit them, I think they can hit golems and other magical/enchanted monsters. Simple as that.

But I agree the Kuntz's golem poses a problem

[waysoftheearth]

One might (based on zero evidence) speculate that: given the Kuntz golem was a "first ever" for its type perhaps it had no formal (or final) game stats yet? Its first use could easily have been a tad overzealous, and therefore it was later pulled back for serial production? Just kicking tyres...

[Mordorandor]

Jan 27, 2022 3:39:18 GMT -6 retrorob said:

Elementals are enchanted monster, ie. magical creatures. As magic weapon is needed to hit them, I think they can hit golems and other magical/enchanted monsters. Simple as that.

But I agree the Kuntz's golem poses a problem

That Golem strikes me as a “Rob Kuntz variant.” His unicorns probably breathed fire too.