PDA

View Full Version : Polymorph Any Object: 100 cu. ft./level?!



Aquillion
2007-11-07, 04:47 AM
While I was looking something up, I noticed something that I'd always overlooked before. In the description for Polymorph Any Object, the 'target' line reads:

Target: One creature, or one nonmagical object of up to 100 cu. ft./level

100 cubic feet per level. That is to say, a level 20 wizard can PAO an object covering an area of over a third of a mile in every direction.

First, why is its size limit so big? Were they worried about it not being powerful enough? I can't even begin to imagine what they intended players to be using that 100 cu. ft. / level limit on. PAOing castles? Cities? Entire dungeons?

I am picturing something a bit like this:

DM: You stand before the dread tomb of Crytor, a huge, ancient complex from ages past, filled with traps and deadly monsters. Unless you can defeat...
Wizard: Hey, how big did you say it was?
DM: Oh, I don't know, big. Say, a third of a mile along all three dimensions.
Wizard: Gotcha. I Polymorph Any Object it into a toad.
DM: You... what?
Wizard: The dungeon. I polymorph it into a toad. *points to the spell description* And then I step on it.Note that if he had polymorph any object'ed it into an identical, smaller dungeon the size of a housecat, it would have had a duration of 'permanent'. Also note that creatures inside are not reduced in size along with it, so... sucks to be them.

Second, does this limit apply to the end result of what you PAO the object into? As the spell is written, it really appears that it doesn't, and that you can just PAO an object to an arbitrarily large size (this will reduce the calculation you use to determine duration, but as long as you only change the size, the object will still get +5 for same kingdom, +2 for same class, +2 for same or lower intelligence, and will remain at that size permanently.

Even if you decided that the 100 cu. ft. / level limit applies to the end result, you could still make a person up to a third of a mile in height, and there would be no problems. Additionally, worrying about duration is a bit unnecessary when you can, say, walk into a town and make a pebble suddenly grow to 100 cu. ft. / level and crush the entire place. In a dungeon, you could easily crush everything in a room while standing safely outside it. You could also go around dropping pebbles a third of a mile in all dimensions on towns. You can create mountains.

And if you don't assume that that 100 cu. ft. / level is a restriction on the end result, you can just make a pebble large enough to fill an entire plane. You could make yourself that big, if you want to.

AslanCross
2007-11-07, 04:56 AM
This is why the sanity of even allowing the use of this spell is questionable.

Aquillion
2007-11-07, 04:57 AM
Don't get me wrong, I knew PAO was broken. I didn't realize that it could be used to destroy entire dungeons and crush everything inside, or to destroy an entire plane with a standard action.

AslanCross
2007-11-07, 05:01 AM
Arguably, though, the possible existence of magical wards within the dungeon might prevent PAO from actually working. Furthermore, I'd rule the dungeon isn't a single object. He may be able to do that to a tree or to a side of a mountain, but not an intricate structure.

...

...That said, I'm officially banning this spell from my games. Thank you for the heads up.

Khanderas
2007-11-07, 05:12 AM
Target: One creature, or one nonmagical object of up to 100 cu. ft./level

100 cubic feet per level. That is to say, a level 20 wizard can PAO an object covering an area of over a third of a mile in every direction.

100 cubic feet times 20 = 2000 cubic feet. Or an object 20 feet long, 10 feet high and 10 feet deep. Not 1/3 mile sqared.
Weather it is balanced now, I do not know, but the math is now correct(er)


EDIT: 1 mile = 5280 feet (googled it up. whee). 1/3 of a mile is then 1760 feet. And then a cube with that dimension on all sides would be 1760 x 1760 x 1760 = 3 099 360 feet cubed

3.1 million cube feet > 2 thousand cube feet by about 1500 times.

Bored at work ? Yup.

Jayabalard
2007-11-07, 07:26 AM
Target: One creature, or one nonmagical object of up to 100 cu. ft./level

100 cubic feet per level. That is to say, a level 20 wizard can PAO an object covering an area of over a third of a mile in every direction. Recheck your math

100 cubic feet per level at level 20 is 2000 cubic feet; if you make that into a cube, that's a space that just about fills a 12.6' x 12.6' x 12.6' cube or you could do a space that is 10' x 10' x 20' if you are ok with a non-cube. That doesn't seem particularly overpowering to me, especially at 20th level.

a mile is 5280', and a third of that 1760' ... so a third of a mile in every direction is a cube with dimensions 1760 x1760 x1760, or 5,451,776,000 cubic feet (the above poster with his 3 million only squared it, rather than cubing it).

Khanderas
2007-11-07, 08:26 AM
I was sure I did cube it, but I guess I brought it on myself for not doublechecking my math after correcting somone else :smallbiggrin:

Dausuul
2007-11-07, 09:19 AM
Of course, this sort of thing just highlights the idiocy of having some spell volumes measured in cubic feet and others in 10-foot cubes. This has got to be the third or fourth time I've seen someone make this mistake. Why couldn't they just have said "must fit within a 10-foot cube?"

Polymorph any object is one of the most broken spells in the game, but area of effect is not the reason.

Hario
2007-11-07, 11:02 AM
I wonder if you use sculpt spell you can create a bunch of extra effects say you needed to change 3 people into pillars, one casting with sculpt spell could do it.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 11:10 AM
Ummm excuse me... this is where a trained and veteran DM needs to walk up to the player trying to bull this load of bullplop, takes his hand, and smacks him upside the head.


Polymorph Any Object means you Polymorph a SINGLE OBJECT PERIOD.

Not MULTIPLE OBJECTS WHICH MAKE UP A MAP.

a SINGLE OBJECT!



A dungeon is comprised of millions of objects.

Look at your wall. Do you honestly consider a wall a single object? Your wall is comprised of at least 2 separate sheets of plyboard, 4 sheets of sheetrock or whatever is used, at least 4 major support beams, and 12 minor support beams.

A standard roman support column is comprised of at least 8-22 separate pieces of marble.

Each piece is considered AN OBJECT.


Again, this spell is called Polymorph Any Object, NOT Polymorph Billions of Objects that make up a work of something or another.

Lochar
2007-11-07, 11:13 AM
Do you consider that keyboard you're typing on one single object?

I mean, it's made up of over a hundred different pieces of molded plastic, a slew of springs, and some paint.

Each which can be considered a different object.


Oh, and please don't scream.

Catch
2007-11-07, 11:16 AM
Again, this spell is called Polymorph Any Object, NOT Polymorph Billions of Objects that make up a work of something or another.

An atom is an object. A creature is made up of billions of atoms.

I can only target one of them at a time, I guess.

Hario
2007-11-07, 11:21 AM
An atom is an object. A creature is made up of billions of atoms.

I can only target one of them at a time, I guess.

...and transform it into a red dragon... bound to the creature whose atom you just mixed xD...

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 11:21 AM
Do you consider that keyboard you're typing on one single object?

Technically it is multiple objects, and you chose the wrong argument to pose on that one, because I have to routinely take the keys apart and clean my keyboard.

I am all too familiar with how many freakin objects are in my keyboard:

136 Keys, 136 plungers (one for each key), 1 metal bar for the space bar, 136 separate little magnets, 4 wrapped cords in various areas that connect to one keyboard chip-board (whatever it's called), which is concealed in two separate casings (top and bottom), for a total of:

416 objects.


I mean, it's made up of over a hundred different pieces of molded plastic, a slew of springs, and some paint.

Each which can be considered a different object.


Not as far as this spell is concerned, and anyone who plays this spell with such lunacy needs to be introduced to something called "Wild Magic Zones."


The entire purpose of Polymorph ANY Object being restricted to ONE SINGLE OBJECT, is to prevent players from Polymorphing a "Treasure Pile" of copper into a "Treasure Pile" of 1 million coins of platinum.

If you start giving people this ridiculous idea that a concept is an entire object then you're going to have serious problems down the line with other spells.


Oh, and please don't scream.

I wasn't screaming I was emphasizing with youthful proclamation. :biggrin:

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 11:22 AM
An atom is an object. A creature is made up of billions of atoms.

I can only target one of them at a time, I guess.

Line of Sight prevents this, since you cannot view atomic structure nor conceive of it.

Indon
2007-11-07, 11:23 AM
An atom is an object. A creature is made up of billions of atoms.

I can only target one of them at a time, I guess.

Now that is a version of Polymorph Any Object which isn't too powerful.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-07, 11:23 AM
An atom is an object. A creature is made up of billions of atoms.

I can only target one of them at a time, I guess.

I polymorph that hydrogen atom into uranium! AHAHAHAHAHAH!

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 11:25 AM
Now that is a version of Polymorph Any Object which isn't too powerful.

:polymorph an atom into a split atom:

But you still can't do that because of line of sight issues ;D

Indon
2007-11-07, 11:25 AM
I polymorph that hydrogen atom into uranium! AHAHAHAHAHAH!

A few months of casting and you might be able to create a loud *POP* with the nuclear reaction you could start with them.

Edit: And splitting a single atom is not all that powerful. It takes many, many atom-splitting reactions built into a chain reaction to produce an explosion of any potency.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 11:29 AM
A few months of casting and you might be able to create a loud *POP* with the nuclear reaction you could start with them.

Edit: And splitting a single atom is not all that powerful. It takes many, many atom-splitting reactions built into a chain reaction to produce an explosion of any potency.


OH ok :D



I think though people get the point. Polymorph an Object is made to allow people to transmute a giant block of granite, such as a granite wall produced by a mage escaping a party.

But it is not made to allow people to disrupt the foundation of a castle by polymorphing an entire wall that is made up of thousands of blocks of granite + mortar.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-07, 11:35 AM
A few months of casting and you might be able to create a loud *POP* with the nuclear reaction you could start with them.

Edit: And splitting a single atom is not all that powerful. It takes many, many atom-splitting reactions built into a chain reaction to produce an explosion of any potency.

I weep for the catgirls who suffered for my failed attempt a joke...



I think though people get the point. Polymorph an Object is made to allow people to transmute a giant block of granite, such as a granite wall produced by a mage escaping a party.

But it is not made to allow people to disrupt the foundation of a castle by polymorphing an entire wall that is made up of thousands of blocks of granite + mortar.

Right. If you can't do that with transmute rock to mud, why with polymorph? Honestly though, have any of you ever seen a player try to go against the spirit of the rules as badly as the OP describes? I haven't... maybe I'm lucky.

Catch
2007-11-07, 11:35 AM
Line of Sight prevents this, since you cannot view atomic structure nor conceive of it.

Line of Sight means there is nothing obscuring your view of your target--no solid objects. If you can't draw a straight line between you and your target, you don't have line of sight. Since nothing is obstructing the line between you and an atom, the ability to see atomic structure isn't required.

And if you wanted to be picky, a Wizard could always Fabricate himself a Scanning Tunneling Microscope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope)

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 11:39 AM
I weep for the catgirls who suffered for my failed attempt a joke...

Kelleron the Brownie of Light comes to the rescue and joyfully lays on hands upon all of the catgirls who suffered.

:biggrin:



Right. If you can't do that with transmute rock to mud, why with polymorph? Honestly though, have any of you ever seen a player try to go against the spirit of the rules as badly as the OP describes? I haven't... maybe I'm lucky.

Yes, actually. Over the years, many of the reports where I've seen this kind of idiocy have come from reports concerning RPGA sanctioned games. And really is one of the main reasons why I loathe that gaming association. It's like it tries to breed this kind of lunacy in Players and DMs alike. :shudders:


I also had a fool try to do something similar with a similar spell in one of my games. Although I relented, he got more than he deserved and learned never to question me again. WUAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Hario
2007-11-07, 11:40 AM
I polymorph that hydrogen atom into uranium! AHAHAHAHAHAH!

Batman: "I see you have found me superman, too bad one of your atoms is now made of krytonite... Mwhahahaha!"

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 11:41 AM
Line of Sight means there is nothing obscuring your view of your target--no solid objects. If you can't draw a straight line between you and your target, you don't have line of sight. Since nothing is obstructing the line between you and an atom, the ability to see atomic structure isn't required.

And if you wanted to be picky, a Wizard could always Fabricate himself a Scanning Tunneling Microscope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope)

Line of Sight refers specifically to being able to view said targeted object. Period. A wizard cannot view an atom regardless of it's position without an atomic microscope. And unless a player demonstrates his capacity to understand the concept of atomic structures, Atomic Structures, and specific atoms within said structures, will remain a piece of out of character knowledge.

Catch
2007-11-07, 11:46 AM
Line of Sight refers specifically to being able to view said targeted object. Period.

Not quite:


To determine line of sight, draw an imaginary line between your space and the target's space. If any such line is clear (not blocked), then you have line of sight to the creature (and it has line of sight to you). The line is clear if it doesn't intersect or even touch squares that block line of sight


A wizard cannot view an atom regardless of it's position without an atomic microscope. And unless a player demonstrates his capacity to understand the concept of atomic structures, Atomic Structures, and specific atoms within said structures, will remain a piece of out of character knowledge.

This is D&D we're talking about here. Why are you bringing logic to the table?

AKA_Bait
2007-11-07, 11:49 AM
Line of Sight refers specifically to being able to view said targeted object. Period. A wizard cannot view an atom regardless of it's position without an atomic microscope. And unless a player demonstrates his capacity to understand the concept of atomic structures, Atomic Structures, and specific atoms within said structures, will remain a piece of out of character knowledge.

Honestly, if you believe the Aragorn is only 5th level article then that should be a pretty easy check for any wizard capable of casting the spell with any ranks in Knowledge: Physics. :-)

Indon
2007-11-07, 12:46 PM
Batman: "I see you have found me superman, too bad one of your atoms is now made of krytonite... Mwhahahaha!"

You just know they must have done that as a superman villain idea some time.

"Now you see, Superman, as I slowly transmute your body into kryptonite, you become weaker and weaker!"

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 01:01 PM
This is D&D we're talking about here. Why are you bringing logic to the table?

Spells which require you to view the object, and are thus affect by line of sight, are also affected by darkness spells or areas bereft of light -- any means by which you are prevented from viewing the object you are trying to magically manipulate prevent you from magically manipulating that object (providing the spell has a line of sight, or sight requirement attached).

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 01:02 PM
Honestly, if you believe the Aragorn is only 5th level article then that should be a pretty easy check for any wizard capable of casting the spell with any ranks in Knowledge: Physics. :-)

But not everyone has ranks in physics, and fewer still know enough to justify manipuating atomic structures like they're Firestorm.

tyckspoon
2007-11-07, 06:25 PM
The entire purpose of Polymorph ANY Object being restricted to ONE SINGLE OBJECT, is to prevent players from Polymorphing a "Treasure Pile" of copper into a "Treasure Pile" of 1 million coins of platinum.

If you start giving people this ridiculous idea that a concept is an entire object then you're going to have serious problems down the line with other spells.



I wasn't screaming I was emphasizing with youthful proclamation. :biggrin:

Although there's nothing stopping them from melting down that pile of copper, recasting it into one bigarsed ingot, and Polymorphing *that* into gold or platinum. Or turning random chunks of dungeon rubble/broken statuary into diamonds (this is probably how the party acquires the material components for their Resurrections, actually.) But all that proves is that magic can completely destroy the wealth guidelines, and that's not new information.

Idea Man
2007-11-07, 07:11 PM
Ahhh, but PaO cannot make any materials "...of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantium. It cannot reproduce the special properties of cold iron...". You could use the spell to make a killing in some lesser market, if there were a shortage, but that's a little different.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 07:33 PM
Ahhh, but PaO cannot make any materials "...of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantium. It cannot reproduce the special properties of cold iron...". You could use the spell to make a killing in some lesser market, if there were a shortage, but that's a little different.

That's true I had forgotten about that. In either case, I knew there were a multitude of reasons why my players stopped using the spell.

:biggrin:

tyckspoon
2007-11-07, 08:13 PM
I could get all technical about the actual intrinsic value of something like gold or diamonds (you need a pretty advanced society before gold is good for anything besides looking pretty, for example.. I guess being spell components for a number of quite powerful spells does give diamonds value), but that would be obnoxious. Fair enough. That does make it more likely that an adventuring party will just decide to leave that multi-ton pile of copper coins where it is instead of sucking down all the encumbrance or displacing all sorts of more useful things in their bags of holding.

Aquillion
2007-11-07, 11:24 PM
Regarding the cubic feet thing: Whoops. Well, there still isn't any maximum on the size of what you polymorph the subject to, which is the really broken part. The limitations on targets only refers to what it has to be to initially cast the spell... Stone to Flesh, after all, doesn't say that it works on statues, while Flesh to Stone doesn't work on living people.

That lack of a maximum size is a fairly serious oversight. Granted, the entire spell is a fairly serious oversight, but still.

Regarding the 'one non-magical object' bit: I don't think anyone would seriously argue with the fact that the spell can affect a dollhouse (although not, perhaps, the things inside.) Putting the cubic feet thing aside for the moment (which actually renders the whole point moot unless you're using it on a really, really small shack), why would it be able to affect a dollhouse and not an actual house? Granted, the house may have some loose bits attached that don't count as "one object", but there is a definite underlying frame there that is every bit as much a single object as a dollhouse is; you could affect that and leave all the loose bits alone.

And for making money, note that unlike Fabricate, PAO does not require skill checks to make objects that would require them when made by hand. You can easily produce masterwork weapons and armor out of scrap metal or rocks, for instance... although at the level when you can cast it, the profits might not be worth the time and effort just to sell them. You would want to make it into a bunch of weapons and armor connected by narrow, tiny, easily-broken bits of metal (like those mass-produced plastic game pieces in our world, the ones you snap off of the frame they were moulded with), but as long as you do that, you could produce arbitrary many masterwork items with a single casting.

tyckspoon
2007-11-07, 11:36 PM
And for making money, note that unlike Fabricate, PAO does not require skill checks to make objects that would require them when made by hand. You can easily produce masterwork weapons and armor out of scrap metal or rocks, for instance... although at the level when you can cast it, the profits might not be worth the time and effort just to sell them. You would want to make it into a bunch of weapons and armor connected by narrow, tiny, easily-broken bits of metal (like those mass-produced plastic game pieces in our world, the ones you snap off of the frame they were moulded with), but as long as you do that, you could produce arbitrary many masterwork items with a single casting.

Masterwork has a fairly significant value- 300 gp for weapons and armor, less but still quite hefty on other stuff. If your GM won't let you turn something into a chunk of metal worth 300 gold, he probably won't let you apply craft improvements that provide equal value. You could try polymorphing things into exotic animals and monsters, then sell those to trainers; that sort of transformation is explicitly mentioned in the examples in the spell, and as I recall trainable monsters are worth a fair bit. There's probably even a profitable transformation that is permanent.

The 'standard' way of making money off your spells is still casting Walls of Iron or Stone (or Ice, if you're somewhere where water is at a premium) and selling the results as bulk commodities, I believe. You've got better things to do with an 8th level slot.

Aquillion
2007-11-08, 03:04 AM
Masterwork has a fairly significant value- 300 gp for weapons and armor, less but still quite hefty on other stuff. If your GM won't let you turn something into a chunk of metal worth 300 gold, he probably won't let you apply craft improvements that provide equal value. You could try polymorphing things into exotic animals and monsters, then sell those to trainers; that sort of transformation is explicitly mentioned in the examples in the spell, and as I recall trainable monsters are worth a fair bit. There's probably even a profitable transformation that is permanent.

The 'standard' way of making money off your spells is still casting Walls of Iron or Stone (or Ice, if you're somewhere where water is at a premium) and selling the results as bulk commodities, I believe. You've got better things to do with an 8th level slot.Well, a sane DM probably wouldn't be letting you use Polymorph Any Object in the first place, at least not without extensive prior understanding. But going by the RAW, only the creation of expensive materials is banned; expensive objects, creatures, and so on are allowed (and you could presumably manipulate expensive materials, just not do anything that leaves you with more than you started with.)

Another curious point of note:
A nonmagical object cannot be made into a magic item with this spell. Magic items arenít affected by this spell.Does anyone see the loophole in that? Nonmagical objects cannot be made magical, and you can't affect magical items at all. That'd be a pretty secure safeguard... if the spell only affected objects. :smalltongue:

Technically, therefore, as it is written, you can polymorph a creature into any object, magical or not. Arranging for that to last forever could be difficult, but you can still turn a friend into a Ring of Three Wishes and use it... hmm, would that hurt your friend when they turn back? Maybe it should be a mouse or some such thing, just to be on the safe side.

tyckspoon
2007-11-08, 03:14 AM
Another curious point of note:Does anyone see the loophole in that? Nonmagical objects cannot be made magical, and you can't affect magical items at all. That'd be a pretty secure safeguard... if the spell only affected objects. :smalltongue:

Technically, therefore, as it is written, you can polymorph a creature into any object, magical or not. Arranging for that to last forever could be difficult, but you can still turn a friend into a Ring of Three Wishes and use it... hmm, would that hurt your friend when they turn back? Maybe it should be a mouse or some such thing, just to be on the safe side.

Polymorph Any Object
Transmutation
Sor/Wiz 8
Target: One Player
Saving Throw: None
SR: No.

Upon casting this spell, the DM makes a ranged touch attack to hurl a book at the offending player. If the attack hits, the player's character takes 1d6 damage/character's caster level. The spell has no other in-game effect regardless of whether the book hits or misses.

WorthingSon
2007-11-08, 01:04 PM
So off topic kinda... but would PAO work on Constructs?

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 01:13 PM
So off topic kinda... but would PAO work on Constructs?

According to the spell description I'm reading:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm


Magic items arenít affected by this spell.

The answer is no (usually).

Almost all constructs are magical in nature. I believe the only ones considered non-magical are ones made with some sort of engineering skill.

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-08, 01:27 PM
Constructs are creatures, not objects. You can cast Polymorph Any Object on a construct.

Telonius
2007-11-08, 01:30 PM
I see some agricultural potential for this spell. 100 cubic feet of dandelion seeds or grass seeds could turn into 100 cubic feet of (insert random expensive crop or spice) seeds.

EDIT: Though that might fall afoul of the "one object" limit. Maybe a bag of it?

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 01:48 PM
Constructs are creatures, not objects. You can cast Polymorph Any Object on a construct.

When a player says that, that's when a DM needs to take his DMG and smacks said player upside the head for good measure. Or at least, that's what I'd do.

The intent is expressly clear in the magical concept. Especially when you take the whole statement into context:


A nonmagical object cannot be made into a magic item with this spell. Magic items arenít affected by this spell.

The term object being used as all inclusive, the context is pretty clear concerning the magical nature of items interfering with this spell prevents the spell from working in such a manner.

No DM should allow a magical construct to be affected by this spell. By calling a magical construct a creature, the player is using the definition of the word creature in the loosest manner possible.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 01:49 PM
I see some agricultural potential for this spell. 100 cubic feet of dandelion seeds or grass seeds could turn into 100 cubic feet of (insert random expensive crop or spice) seeds.

EDIT: Though that might fall afoul of the "one object" limit. Maybe a bag of it?

It'd be better to use polymorph any object onto a seed to make it grow into a seeding version of a plant.

MCerberus
2007-11-08, 01:55 PM
It'd be better to use polymorph any object onto a seed to make it grow into a seeding version of a plant.

Or rock to gold would have a 9 duration factor.

Telonius
2007-11-08, 01:57 PM
Plant Growth is a 3rd-level Druid spell. A tag-team Wizard and Druid could start an agricultural revolution! Or, depending on their alignment, become the largest suppliers of narcotics in Greyhawk.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 02:05 PM
Plant Growth is a 3rd-level Druid spell. A tag-team Wizard and Druid could start an agricultural revolution! Or, depending on their alignment, become the largest suppliers of narcotics in Greyhawk.

that's....

......actually a very innovative idea......


If you had done that in my game I'd have given you 1exp for each seedling grown.

:biggrin:


Of course you'd then have to contend with the local law enforcement. WUAHAHHAHAHAHHA

Alex12
2007-11-08, 02:06 PM
Question: I'm looking in the SRD, and not seeing an end volume. Target pretty clearly states the starting volume, but what's stopping me from turning a single brick into an entire planet(or something of similar volume)? (I mean, aside from a manifest desire to not get crushed)

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 02:12 PM
Question: I'm looking in the SRD, and not seeing an end volume. Target pretty clearly states the starting volume, but what's stopping me from turning a single brick into an entire planet(or something of similar volume)? (I mean, aside from a manifest desire to not get crushed)

this is a really poorly written spell entry, I give you that. However, I take it while you can change size classes of the object, I find it impossible to change the size below the:

S - small category

or above the largest size category available in the DMG list of Size categories (size categories are referenced in the table).

One creature, or one nonmagical object of up to 100 cu. ft./level

would also be a good barrier.

Jack Mann
2007-11-08, 02:45 PM
Actually, Dalboz, in 3rd, constructs are specifically creatures, not objects. This actually prevents more abuse than it allows.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 02:48 PM
Actually, Dalboz, in 3rd, constructs are specifically creatures, not objects. This actually prevents more abuse than it allows.

OMG that's insane. How did they playtest this edition!? That's absolutely reprehensible!

Edit: well I guess I'm wrong I guess Constructs are affected by PaO. This 3rd edition is an awful game system.

Telonius
2007-11-08, 02:56 PM
OMG that's insane. How did they playtest this edition!? That's absolutely reprehensible!

Edit: well I guess I'm wrong I guess Constructs are affected by PaO. This 3rd edition is an awful game system.

What's so bad about a Construct being treated as a creature? You'd have some very weird situations with Warforged and Inevitables otherwise.

EDIT: In terms of game design, objects have neither wisdom nor charisma scores. Constructs have no constitution scores. Mindless creatures, such as zombies or golems, have wisdom and charisma scores, but no intelligence score. Intelligent constructs, like Inevitables, have intelligence, wisdom, and charisma; but still no constitution score. Living constructs, like Warforged, are a special subset of constructs that have a constitution score.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 03:10 PM
What's so bad about a Construct being treated as a creature? You'd have some very weird situations with Warforged and Inevitables otherwise.

EDIT: In terms of game design, objects have neither wisdom nor charisma scores. Constructs have no constitution scores. Mindless creatures, such as zombies or golems, have wisdom and charisma scores, but no intelligence score. Intelligent constructs, like Inevitables, have intelligence, wisdom, and charisma; but still no constitution score. Living constructs, like Warforged, are a special subset of constructs that have a constitution score.

This is the problem I have with that idea:


Golems are magically created automatons of great power. Constructing one involves the employment of mighty magic and elemental forces.

The animating force for a golem is a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. The process of creating the golem binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golemís creator.



The animating force can be considered a creature, I won't argue that. However, the Animating Force is trapped inside an artificially and magically imbued item. It's like a magic jar spell. By stating a golem is a Creature, when their bodies are clearly magical items, that's giving license to interpret any magically imbued item with a soul trapped inside it as a creature.

It is the worst perversion of the rule system I've seen yet.


I'd allow a flesh golem to be a creature, since flesh is more or less a creature born item of sorts. But this is just insane to allow the entire body of an Iron Golem to be considered a creature.

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-08, 03:16 PM
OMG that's insane. How did they playtest this edition!? That's absolutely reprehensible!

Edit: well I guess I'm wrong I guess Constructs are affected by PaO. This 3rd edition is an awful game system.

Definition of "Creature": Anything with Charisma and Wisdom scores. If you have no Charisma, you can't differentiate between yourself and your environment. If you have no Wisdom, you can perceive anything. You need both of these to be a Creature.

Deifnition of "Object": Anything without Charisma and Wisdom scores. Which means, yes, you can have Intelligence and still not be a creature (although... it'd have to be something really weird).

So a construct is a creature and a tree is an object.

Strict definitions prevent much more abuse than they allow.

NEO|Phyte
2007-11-08, 03:18 PM
By stating a golem is a Creature, when their bodies are clearly magical items, that's giving license to interpret any magically imbued item with a soul trapped inside it as a creature.

No it isn't. Its stating that golems (and other constructs) are creatures, rather than objects. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 03:19 PM
Definition of "Creature":

Anything with Charisma and Wisdom scores.

Deifnition of "Object":

Anything without Charisma and Wisdom scores.

So a construct is a creature and a tree is an object.

Strict definitions prevent much more abuse than they allow.

The body of the golem does not have charisma or wisdom scores, the spirit from the elemental plane of earth has the charisma and wisdom scores. WoTC confused the body with the spirit.

By that definition, a liches soul gem or whatever it has is considered a creature when his body is destroyed and the spirit goes back into the container.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 03:20 PM
No it isn't. Its stating that golems (and other constructs) are creatures, rather than objects. Nothing more, nothing less.

But they're not. Re-read the creation of the Golem. The body isn't actually part of the spirit. The "body" is a prison for the spirit.

This perversion of 3rd edition just goes to show how actual little thought WoTC put into this entire process.

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-08, 03:21 PM
The body of the golem does not have charisma or wisdom scores, the spirit from the elemental plane of earth has the charisma and wisdom scores. WoTC confused the body with the spirit.

By that definition, a liches soul gem or whatever it has is considered a creature when his body is destroyed and the spirit goes back into the container.

Okay, so humans aren't creatures either. After all, their bodies have no Charisma or Wisdom; it's their souls that do!

By this logic, only Outsiders and Elementals are creatures.

Telonius
2007-11-08, 03:22 PM
What's magical about the body? Rock isn't magical, and neither is iron. The only thing magical about a stone golem it is the spirit that's bounded to it. Without that magical essense, the golem is just a statue-shaped bunch of common rock. But with that essence, it's got a body and a directing influence. That sounds like a creature to me.

Consider the implications if a golem was considered an object. You could use Polymorph Any Object on a bunch of stone to turn it into a golem. You could use Fabricate (a fifth level spell) to create a stone golem.

WrstDmEvr
2007-11-08, 03:22 PM
so... you could PAO a rock in a stone wall and make it max size, and still screw up the dungeon?

EDIT: or, food(grain of wheat, bread, etc.) into a giant piece of culinary perfection

Jack Mann
2007-11-08, 03:23 PM
Consider shield guardians, then, which have no animating spirit. Or simple animated objects. No spirit, just magic getting them to do what the creator wants.

If they were objects, they would have no charisma or wisdom scores. This means that they could not perceive the world around them, nor differentiate themselves from other creatures. This would not work out very well, now would it?

WorthingSon
2007-11-08, 03:23 PM
Actually, Dalboz, in 3rd, constructs are specifically creatures, not objects. This actually prevents more abuse than it allows.

Yes, because PAO's spell description states that it functions like Polymorph when it comes to affecting creatures. Which means that you cannot PAO a construct against it's will (see Polymorph... one WILLING creature).

NEO|Phyte
2007-11-08, 03:24 PM
But they're not. Re-read the creation of the Golem. The body isn't actually part of the spirit. The "body" is a prison for the spirit.
Guess what? The exact same thing could be said for EVERY creature that has a body/spirit duality (which is everything aside from Elementals and Outsiders (in 3e, anyway) IIRC).
The game doesn't give a pile of rats droppings about the fact that body and spirit are not the same thing in most cases. While one is bound to the other, you have a creature. Not a creature inside an object.

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-08, 03:25 PM
What's so bad about treating Constructs as creatures?

News flash: Not all Constructs have elemental spirits bound to them. Inevitables don't, for instance.

Second news flash: Golems are immune to Polymorphing anyway.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 03:27 PM
But they're not. Re-read the creation of the Golem. The body isn't actually part of the spirit. The "body" is a prison for the spirit.

This perversion of 3rd edition just goes to show how actual little thought WoTC put into this entire process.
That's absolutely ridiculous. "Perversion"? "Little thought"? "The body is just a prison for the spirit therefore it should be an object despite the fact that it behaves in all ways as a creature!!!"?

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i245/mgorinev/1182544494050.jpg

The flavor of golems aside, the end result is a thing that moves, punches, and has Wisdom and Charisma. Who cares if flavor-wise it's "a soul stuck into a body"? In terms of game effects, it's still a creature. An Animated Object is also a creature (and a Construct type creature). The reason a Lich's phylactery is NOT a creature is that the phylactery isn't animate and doing stuff.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 03:28 PM
Consider shield guardians, then, which have no animating spirit. Or simple animated objects. No spirit, just magic getting them to do what the creator wants.

If they were objects, they would have no charisma or wisdom scores. This means that they could not perceive the world around them, nor differentiate themselves from other creatures. This would not work out very well, now would it?

I have no idea where you got that, but it does not make any bit of sense. Constructs used to operate on a magical perception base. The spirits are not willing portions of contstructs, not under any circumstances, and in fact, are used primarily as the energy which powers the construct.

Constructs have 0 choice in perception or action. Constructs must obey their creators. That is why constructs such as Golems are called automatons.

Automaton means:

Main Entry: au∑tom∑a∑ton
Function: noun
Pronunciation: o -'tš-m&-t&n, -m&-"tšn
Inflected Form(s): plural -atons or au∑tom∑a∑ta/-m&-t&, -m&-"tš/
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, neuter of automatos
1 : a mechanism that is relatively self-operating ; especially : ROBOT
2 : a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions


They are programmed to identify and react to certain situations.

It is absolutely 100% irresponsible for WoTC to have re-written rules concerning Constructs. They created just as many problems as they "fixed".


It's absolutely insane. I'd say it's worse than that time they re-wrote the rules on Fire Arrows.

NEO|Phyte
2007-11-08, 03:30 PM
It is absolutely 100% irresponsible for WoTC to have re-written rules concerning Constructs. They created just as many problems as they "fixed".

What problems are those?

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-08, 03:31 PM
I just... don't get it. What's the problem? Constructs and Undead are creatures. They're not living creatures (a 'living creature' is anything with Constitution, Wisdom and Charisma). Constructs and Undead are still immune to any effect that specifies a living creature.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 03:32 PM
I have no idea where you got that, but it does not make any bit of sense. Constructs used to operate on a magical perception base. The spirits are not willing portions of contstructs, not under any circumstances, and in fact, are used primarily as the energy which powers the construct.

Constructs have 0 choice in perception or action. Constructs must obey their creators. That is why constructs such as Golems are called automatons.

Actually, no, that's just your preconception of them. Take a look at Inevitables, for instance.


They are programmed to identify and react to certain situations.
Not all of them are. You don't proram Animated Objects.


It is absolutely 100% irresponsible for WoTC to have re-written rules concerning Constructs. They created just as many problems as they "fixed".


It's absolutely insane. I'd say it's worse than that time they re-wrote the rules on Fire Arrows.
"Irresponsible"? HOW? Problems? Like WHAT? "Construct" is a creature type with a specific meaning. Some constructs are programmed. Some aren't.

The point is, anything that behaves like a creature gets treated by the game rules as a creature. Otherwise you wind up having objects... except they have attack rolls and move and the like. It'd be inconsistent and pointless.
"Construct" means it has certain properties and a certain kind of hit die. That's it. Your preconceptions of what *all* constructs should--for some unknown reason--be do not belong in the ruleset.

"It's absolutely insane" that things that do all the same things as other creatures are treated by the game rules like creatures?
If you say so, I guess.

Jack Mann
2007-11-08, 03:33 PM
I'm not talking about golems now. I'm talking about shield guardians and animated objects, which do not have elemental spirits bound in. Number of spirits bound here equals none. No bound spirits. Zip, zero, nada.

And yes, we know, they have no will of their own (except for inevitables, of course), which is represented by their lack of an intelligence score. Same with zombies or skeletons.

But they can still perceive the world around them, and pick out those parts that are not themselves (or their masters). If you put an enemy in front of a shield guardian, it hits it. This requires that perception, which requires a wisdom and a charisma score. Objects cannot do that. This is the difference between creatures and objects in 3rd edition. Are you suggesting that something with a wisdom score should be an object? Or that constructs should be incapable of perceiving its environment?

Indon
2007-11-08, 03:36 PM
What happens if you cast Animate Object on something, then Polymorph Any Object to turn it into

...a different kind of object?

...a much larger object?

...a wolf?

Telonius
2007-11-08, 03:38 PM
Okay, let's pull back a little from the golem issue, and take a look at another standard creature: the troll. In some stories, they were animated creatures made of rock, and turned back into rock if daylight hit them. Would you consider a troll's body to be an object, then?

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 03:40 PM
Start with heal spells which target creatures (just creatures)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heal.htm

and end with rules concerning the destruction of magical items (which now no longer apply because golems are considered creatures).

This is just insane.

Although it does seem that PaO did used to work on golems, except when it used to work on golems what would happen is they'd polymorph the metal/object of the golem body, thus releasing the magic and destroying the golem. Instead now what happens is the golem retains the spirit of the earth elemental!!!!!!! That's just screwed up!


not only that but I have serious problems with how the new 3rd edition PaO spell is written. In second edition even a permanently polymorphed object could be dispelled, restoring the object/creature/item back to normal.

There doesn't seem to be any comments about doing that to those afflicted by the 3e version of the spell on this website I'm reading (srd).

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 03:42 PM
Okay, let's pull back a little from the golem issue, and take a look at another standard creature: the troll. In some stories, they were animated creatures made of rock, and turned back into rock if daylight hit them. Would you consider a troll's body to be an object, then?

hrm.

I would consider the troll a creature if it were active (during nighttime), but when it's a rock I say it'd could be a standard object.

^_^

Alex12
2007-11-08, 03:43 PM
If you really want to be evil (and suicidal), PAO a pebble into a 2000ft^3 volume of anti-uranium.
Congrats, you just obliterated the planet.

NEO|Phyte
2007-11-08, 03:43 PM
not only that but I have serious problems with how the new 3rd edition PaO spell is written. In second edition even a permanently polymorphed object could be dispelled, restoring the object/creature/item back to normal.

There doesn't seem to be any comments about doing that on this website I'm reading (srd).

Still doable in 3e.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 03:44 PM
Still doable in 3e.

OH ok. This website srd.org isn't very explicit.

Telonius
2007-11-08, 03:47 PM
There are a few ways of undoing a polymorph any object. One is to cast polymorph on it again to change it back. Wish and Miracle will do the job if you want to spend XP. Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic will do it, too, if you can make the caster level check. Polymorph Any Object doesn't have an Instantaneous duration, so Dispel works just fine.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 03:48 PM
Start with heal spells which target creatures (just creatures)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heal.htm

That's nice... except that it doesn't work. Golems are not affected.


and end with rules concerning the destruction of magical items (which now no longer apply because golems are considered creatures).

This is just insane.
What rules? You destroy magical items by breaking them. You can break constructs.


Although it does seem that PaO did used to work on golems, except when it used to work on golems what would happen is they'd polymorph the metal/object of the golem body, thus releasing the magic and destroying the golem. Instead now what happens is the golem retains the spirit of the earth elemental!!!!!!! That's just screwed up!
Why would changing the shape of the body NECESSARILY release the elemental? That is a TOTALLY arbitrary fantasy preference. It's not some kind of logical mandate. Your personal preferences =/= what the rules should say. Oh, and PAO doesn't affect golems now.


not only that but I have serious problems with how the new 3rd edition PaO spell is written. In second edition even a permanently polymorphed object could be dispelled, restoring the object/creature/item back to normal.

There doesn't seem to be any comments about doing that on this website I'm reading (srd).
There are HUGE problems with how PaO is written. It's one of the worst spells on the book.
But your complaint isn't one of them. PaO has a potential duration of "Permanent". Spells with a Permanent duration can be dispelled--INSTANTANEOUS spells can't (because they're not around anymore, just their effects). Why are you complaining about game mechanics you apparently don't even understand?

NEO|Phyte
2007-11-08, 03:50 PM
OH ok. This website srd.org isn't very explicit.

As the spell has a duration other than 'Instantaneous', it is subject to things such as Dispel Magic.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 03:50 PM
OH ok. This website srd.org isn't very explicit.

Yes, it is. It's just that this isn't 2E, where the rules were slapdash and all over the freakin' place. PAO tells you it has a permanent duration. What that means is covered by the part of the text that tells you about spells, durations, permanent durations, &etc. Are you suggesting that every permanent spell describe how it interacts with Dispel Magic... even though they all do it in the same way?

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 03:54 PM
Yes, it is. It's just that this isn't 2E, where the rules were slapdash and all over the freakin' place. PAO tells you it has a permanent duration. What that means is covered by the part of the text that tells you about spells, durations, permanent durations, &etc. Are you suggesting that every permanent spell describe how it interacts with Dispel Magic... even though they all do it in the same way?

Considering the fact that half the spells which have permanent effects aren't disspellable, YES, quite frankly it should!

Aquillion
2007-11-08, 03:55 PM
"You can't magic missile my body. My body is just meat, an object. It's not a valid target for the spell!"

NEO|Phyte
2007-11-08, 03:55 PM
Considering the fact that half the spells which have permanent effects aren't disspellable, YES, quite frankly it should!

permanent effects != permanent duration.

Should the HP damage from a Fireball be dispellable after the fireball has gone off?

I just went through the SRD, there are 2 Permanent duration spells that are not subject to Dispel Magic, and this fact is explicitly stated.

Lochar
2007-11-08, 03:56 PM
Considering the fact that half the spells which have permanent effects aren't disspellable, YES, quite frankly it should!

A spell with duration instantaneous is not dispellable, as only the effects are there, not the originating magic.

A spell with duration permanent is dispellable, because the magic is still there, subject to being dispelled.

mostlyharmful
2007-11-08, 03:56 PM
so... you could PAO a rock in a stone wall and make it max size, and still screw up the dungeon?

EDIT: or, food(grain of wheat, bread, etc.) into a giant piece of culinary perfection

Yup. Ban this idiot thing with the biggest hammer you can get your hands on. The cheese and plot wreckage can be seen from SPACE

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-08, 03:56 PM
Considering the fact that half the spells which have permanent effects aren't disspellable, YES, quite frankly it should!

The exception to the rule is always stated. Anything that follows the rules really shouldn't have to be spelled out.

Permanent effects aren't the same thing as having a permanent duration.

You've never played anything other than second edition, have you?

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 04:00 PM
Considering the fact that half the spells which have permanent effects aren't disspellable, YES, quite frankly it should!

Like what? Name one. Permanent-duration spells are dispellable, period. There MIGHT be 1 or 2 exceptions... out of dozens.

Spells that have permanent, undispellable effects have a duration of INSTANTANEOUS.

This is, again, spelled out clearly in the rules covering spells and spell durations. They shouldn't repeat the same rule with every spell that uses it. That's like explaining what a Reflex save is in the text of every spell that offers one.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 04:03 PM
That's nice... except that it doesn't work. Golems are not affected.

Sorry but while some golems aren't affected by healing, others have absolutely 0 limitation, for example Iron Golems:
Immunity to Magic (Ex)
An iron 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.

A magical attack that deals electricity damage slows an iron golem (as the slow spell) for 3 rounds, with no saving throw.

A magical attack that deals fire damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for each 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. For example, an iron golem hit by a fireball gains back 6 hit points if the damage total is 18 points. An iron golem gets no saving throw against fire effects.

An iron golem is affected normally by rust attacks, such as that of a rust monster or a rusting grasp spell.


Clay golem explicitly states it's unaffected, but the iron does not.

That's a major problem with the rules. Either that or it's a problem with the transcription on this website.



What rules? You destroy magical items by breaking them. You can break constructs.

You actually break magic items? Breaking magic items should net arcane explosions. Especially when they're created using high level spells.

Or did WoTC get rid of that?



Why would changing the shape of the body NECESSARILY release the elemental? That is a TOTALLY arbitrary fantasy preference. It's not some kind of logical mandate. Your personal preferences =/= what the rules should say. Oh, and PAO doesn't affect golems now.

PaO of 2nd edition states explicitly that when a magical object is polymorph it loses the magical properties. A golem's magical properties are used to retain the spirit. When a golem's magical properties are negated, the spirit is released.

No such explicit statement is made concerning these 3rd edition rules, and that's insane to say the least.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm

This 3rd edition version is a poorly written spell.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 04:26 PM
Sorry but while some golems aren't affected by healing, others have absolutely 0 limitation, for example Iron Golems:
Immunity to Magic (Ex)

Clay golem explicitly states it's unaffected, but the iron does not.

That's a major problem with the rules. Either that or it's a problem with the transcription on this website.
Or it's a problem with your reading comprehension. The Iron Golem has IMMUNITY TO MAGIC. It is IMMUNE to spells that allow SR. Heal is one of these spells. Iron Golems get nothing out of heal. You fail, man.



You actually break magic items? Breaking magic items should net arcane explosions. Especially when they're created using high level spells.

Or did WoTC get rid of that?
Um, NO. See, again, that's YOUR PREFERENCE FOR FLAVOR, not something that should be a part of a basic system's rule. Magic items are common in 3.X--characters are reliant on them, and it's expected that they will have lots and lots of them as they go up in levels. Breaking magic items does NOT create "arcane explosions", because not only would that be stupid, it'd be bad for the game.


PaO of 2nd edition states explicitly that when a magical object is polymorph it loses the magical properties. A golem's magical properties are used to retain the spirit. When a golem's magical properties are negated, the spirit is released.

No such explicit statement is made concerning these 3rd edition rules, and that's insane to say the least.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm

This 3rd edition version is a poorly written spell.
PAO doesn't work on golems.
Oh, and a golem doesn't have to have a spirit bound into it. That's flavor. That's your preferred flavor. That doesn't mean the rules need to force it on everyone.

Telonius
2007-11-08, 04:27 PM
An iron golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance.

Cure Light Wounds and the rest of the cure spells:

Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 04:29 PM
Cure Light Wounds and the rest of the cure spells:

Contradictory statement that's further compounded by Iron Golems being subjected to Lightning Bolt.

Telonius
2007-11-08, 04:31 PM
You actually break magic items? Breaking magic items should net arcane explosions. Especially when they're created using high level spells.

Or did WoTC get rid of that?



It's still there with some major magic items and artifacts - Staff of the Magi, Staff of Power, Staff of Fiery Power. Magic swords and shields can be sundered without explosion, as can most other magic items. You won't rip a hole in reality if you destroy a Hat of Disguise.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 04:35 PM
It's still there with some major magic items and artifacts - Staff of the Magi, Staff of Power, Staff of Fiery Power. Magic swords and shields can be sundered without explosion, as can most other magic items. You won't rip a hole in reality if you destroy a Hat of Disguise.

What if it was a really big hat of disguise ;D You know, like Odin's Hat of Disguise!

Jack Mann
2007-11-08, 04:38 PM
Contradictory statement that's further compounded by Iron Golems being subjected to Lightning Bolt.

Golems are immune to all magic that allows spell resistance, with the specific exceptions noted in their descriptions. If the golem's entry does not list a spell, and it allows spell resistance, then that spell will not affect the golem. End of story.

Telonius
2007-11-08, 04:46 PM
Contradictory statement that's further compounded by Iron Golems being subjected to Lightning Bolt.

The statement is not contradictory, though there are two possible interpretations of the wording of the golem entry. Either the statement about magical attacks means that there is an explicit exception to the general rule stated. In this case, lightning is officially allowed to hit it. Or, second possiblity, there is no exception and the passage in the Golem entry is referring to other forms of magical attack, such as a Blue Dragon's breath weapon or a Ring of Shooting Stars' "Ball Lightning" effect. Not sure what the intent of the wording was, but either way it's not contradictory.

mostlyharmful
2007-11-08, 04:46 PM
What if it was a really big hat of disguise ;D You know, like Odin's Hat of Disguise!

That would be an artifact. with a nig Boom. but personally i'd be more worried about the Allfather of the Gods annoyed cos I ruined his Trilbe:smalleek:

Telonius
2007-11-08, 04:47 PM
What if it was a really big hat of disguise ;D You know, like Odin's Hat of Disguise!

I'm thinking Loki is more likely. Sundering Loki's Sombrero of Disguise probably won't rip a hole in the universe. But Loki will make you wish it did. :smallbiggrin:

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 04:47 PM
Golems are immune to all magic that allows spell resistance, with the specific exceptions noted in their descriptions. If the golem's entry does not list a spell, and it allows spell resistance, then that spell will not affect the golem. End of story.

They aren't identified as exceptions. They are identified as effects. The fact that the entry is written like this:


An iron 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.

A magical attack that deals electricity damage slows an iron golem (as the slow spell) for 3 rounds, with no saving throw.

A magical attack that deals fire damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for each 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. For example, an iron golem hit by a fireball gains back 6 hit points if the damage total is 18 points. An iron golem gets no saving throw against fire effects.

An iron golem is affected normally by rust attacks, such as that of a rust monster or a rusting grasp spell.


says the exact opposite.

Just read those first two sentences.

The second sentence contradicts the first sentence because not only does it NOT state that Golems are affected by these magical spells that allow resistance, but it expressly only refers to magical spells which would otherwise affect a golem. Meaning, they have to be spells that don't allow resistance to begin with.

ie.: A Lightning Bolt spell now no longer works on a golem because it allows resistance. But if a magical spell is cast which is lightning based is allowed to hit the golem then the golem is affected in this way.

HOWEVER the way the game mechanics are played out and demonstrated, Lightning Bolts do still affect Iron Golems, which means that this goes against the inherent statement within the first sentence stating Iron Golems are not affected by resistable spells.

The whole thing is one major web of contradictions.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 04:50 PM
I'm thinking Loki is more likely. Sundering Loki's Sombrero of Disguise probably won't rip a hole in the universe. But Loki will make you wish it did. :smallbiggrin:

:shoves a broken hat into your robe, then runs and hides:

Chronos
2007-11-08, 04:55 PM
You actually break magic items? Breaking magic items should net arcane explosions. Especially when they're created using high level spells.

Or did WoTC get rid of that?Wizards of the Coast didn't get rid of it. If it was ever there to begin with, it was TSR who got rid of it, because that rule wasn't in second edition, either. There were a couple of specific powerful items which went boom when broken, but there was never a general rule that snapping a +1 mace would cause an explosion.

You seem to be upset about things in 3rd edition contradicting things from 2nd edition, even when those things weren't in 2nd edition in the first place. Which makes it difficult to follow your arguments, and even more difficult to agree with them.

Reel On, Love
2007-11-08, 04:58 PM
Contradictory statement that's further compounded by Iron Golems being subjected to Lightning Bolt.

...yes. That's an EXCEPTION to the rule. That's why it's spelled out. Golems are immune to ALL spells that allow spell resistance, EXCEPT the ones SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED as affecting them.
The rules for spells that do X or Y affecting the golem is an override of the general rule re: golems and spells.
Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-08, 05:02 PM
You don't need to say "this is an exception to the rule" when you mention an exception to the rule. If something contradicts a general rule, the specific contradiction should be followed in that case.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 05:09 PM
Wizards of the Coast didn't get rid of it. If it was ever there to begin with, it was TSR who got rid of it, because that rule wasn't in second edition, either. There were a couple of specific powerful items which went boom when broken, but there was never a general rule that snapping a +1 mace would cause an explosion.

You seem to be upset about things in 3rd edition contradicting things from 2nd edition, even when those things weren't in 2nd edition in the first place. Which makes it difficult to follow your arguments, and even more difficult to agree with them.

Ok I admit that I've gotten some things wrong with 3rd edition, however, the rule about explosive destruction of magic items is in second edition. Though I do admit it is very difficult to find. The rules are detailed in whatever handbook has the barbarian class description.

It may also have a minor reference in the DMG, I'll check..

yep there it is, 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide: page 89. cross referncing table 29 on page 39.

Also, the dungeon master's guide goes into some amount of detail concerning Magical Items with Willpower and Intelligence (for domination).

I assume WoTC eliminated magical items with willpower and intelligence? Otherwise they'd be considered creatures too, wouldn't they? You can't have a Lawful Good aligned intelligence 16 Vorpal Sword without wisdom to determine if the actions are LG or not.



Also, the Iron Golem rules are clearly incomplete (they clearly do not give any exceptions to spells, and in fact, only alude to spells that fit the requirements. But since people are ignoring the requirements, then the requirements are moot to begin with).

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 05:12 PM
You don't need to say "this is an exception to the rule" when you mention an exception to the rule. If something contradicts a general rule, the specific contradiction should be followed in that case.

Except it doesn't say exception. In fact, the rule explicitly does not except any fire/electrical spells from the magical resistance.

IN otherwords, as the rules are written now: You cannot illicit effect on an Iron Golem using either spells: Lightning Bolt or Fire Ball. Because they are subject to spell resistance.

Only a natural lightning strike, volcanic eruption, or non-resistable magic would affect iron golems.

Kinda funny how explicit exceptions work when you realize they aren't there.

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-08, 05:14 PM
3rd edition was published before Wizards of the Coast purchased TSR. 3rd edition was published by TSR.

Say it with me: WotC did not 'get rid of' anything. TSR did!

And yes, you can have intelligent magic items. They're treated as Constructs, but are also treated as objects. Intelligent magic items are weird.

mostlyharmful
2007-11-08, 05:14 PM
Also, the dungeon master's guide goes into some amount of detail concerning Magical Items with Willpower and Intelligence (for domination).

I assume WoTC eliminated magical items with willpower and intelligence? Otherwise they'd be considered creatures too, wouldn't they? You can't have a Lawful Good aligned intelligence 16 Vorpal Sword without wisdom to determine if the actions are LG or not.

No. the intelligent items atre still in 3.5 but you have to add intelligence to an item. There's a 1% chance that any non-charged item you find will be intellegent i think. the rules are in the creating magic items section of the dmg

Edit: They have independant saving throws when they're targeted on their own. When they're "attended" they use the saving throws of whoever is using them at the time. And their allignment is the same as their creator.

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-08, 05:19 PM
No. the intelligent items atre still in 3.5 but you have to add intelligence to an item. There's a 1% chance that any non-charged item you find will be intellegent i think. the rules are in the creating magic items section of the dmg

Edit: They have independant saving throws when they're targeted on their own. When they're "attended" they use the saving throws of whoever is using them at the time. And their allignment is the same as their creator.

They use their own saving throws if they're higher. And I think they use their own Wisdom score if it's higher than their wielder, too.

mostlyharmful
2007-11-08, 05:20 PM
They use their own saving throws if they're higher. And I think they use their own Wisdom score if it's higher than their wielder, too.

Cool. that bit didn't sit right. Thank you.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 05:23 PM
3rd edition was published before Wizards of the Coast purchased TSR. 3rd edition was published by TSR.

Say it with me: WotC did not 'get rid of' anything. TSR did!

And yes, you can have intelligent magic items. They're treated as Constructs, but are also treated as objects. Intelligent magic items are weird.

Ok explain/justify this to me:

An intelligent Lawful Good Vorpal Sword (which has to have wisdom to have its alignment), is a magical item.

BUT

An Un Aligned Magically Created Vessel containing an errant spirit as a power source, and very low intelligence, with absolutely no conception of right or wrong, is somehow considered a creature?

I'm not being confrontational I just want to know WHY

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-08, 05:26 PM
Intelligent magic items are also creatures. They have the Construct type and everything.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 05:29 PM
3rd edition was published before Wizards of the Coast purchased TSR. 3rd edition was published by TSR.

Say it with me: WotC did not 'get rid of' anything. TSR did!

And yes, you can have intelligent magic items. They're treated as Constructs, but are also treated as objects. Intelligent magic items are weird.

The company was purchased in 1997 by Wizards of the Coast, which no longer uses the TSR name for its products.


3rd edition D&D was published in the year 2000. 3 years after WoTC took over TSR and "let go" almost everyone in TSR who was there prior to the 1997 take over.

WoTC changed the rules. Just having the logo of TSR does not change who was in power or when.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 05:31 PM
Intelligent magic items are also creatures. They have the Construct type and everything.

OK! That's all I wanted to know. I was a little confused by the exchange.

At least they are consistent in their insanity.

Chronos
2007-11-08, 08:49 PM
yep there it is, 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide: page 89. cross referncing table 29 on page 39.OK, home now, with access to my books. The rule you're referencing says that it's the DM's judgment, but the effect can be as minor as a foul smell. And even if it does damage, most things should still only do 1d8 points within a few feet, and more devastating effects are recommended only for those specific items (like a staff of the magi or staff of power, page 154) for which such effects are already listed. And even the retributive strike of those two staves only work if the wizard wielding them specifically and deliberately makes a retributive strike (not just for someone who wants to be rid of the thing).

Meanwhile, I'm confused about what you were trying to argue in the first place... In your (presumably 2nd edition) games, when you kill defeat a golem, does it explode? And is killing defeating a golem as simple as snapping a sword blade or burning a cloak?

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 09:07 PM
OK, home now, with access to my books. The rule you're referencing says that it's the DM's judgment, but the effect can be as minor as a foul smell. And even if it does damage, most things should still only do 1d8 points within a few feet,

no where does it say anything like that. The only thing it says it the damage shouldn't seriously injure a character if their sword breaks (and it's discussing the breakage of a sword in battle).

In whatever other supplement I have somewhere but can't find, I know it discussed that intentionally breaking items can have dire effects. I'm sorry I can't hunt down all these books for you, I'm having a hard enough time figure out where they are in these boxes.

I mean if you break a freakin high powered artifact without properly disenchanting it, dismanlting it, you need to be punished, severely. Loss of an arm or a leg would do nicely.


Meanwhile, I'm confused about what you were trying to argue in the first place... In your (presumably 2nd edition) games, when you kill defeat a golem, does it explode? And is killing defeating a golem as simple as snapping a sword blade or burning a cloak?

If you notice, in most games, where you defeat the golem, you don't actually break the magical enchantment unless you do a real good job of crushing him. That's why you can sell body parts of golems as magical pieces of whatever it is. But should you destroy the enchantment and actually BREAK the golem or any other magically created item, then there should be some explosive or unsettling reprocussions. Don't forget, the Golem is powered by a spirit that WANTS to be free, and will try to escape the moment it's cage weakens.

One of the main reasons why draconians all had nasty ends was due to the types of magic enchantements and mutilations committed upon the eggs.

I can't remember what my original argument was it's getting a little late for me and I can't see it on this reponse page...

Either way, magical items at least used to cause people some pause before trying to blow them up. If dungeon masters and players treated encounters with the deathly awareness they deserve you'd see far less munchkins runnin' around. I'm just ranting now with no direction so I'll stop.

WrstDmEvr
2007-11-15, 07:28 PM
going off of the golem arguement for a brief while;

Could I PAO somebodys internal organs causing them to explode?





Also, we should be grateful that they put in the non magical object rule. Otherwise this could happen:
Wizard casts delayed blast fireball, then PAO to make it a 25' radius sphere. If we convert that into inches, its a 300'' radius. Total volume is 56,520,000'' cubed.
Using the same ratios, we have a 1'' radius to a 240'' blast radius and 20d6 for a lvl 20 caster. So our object has a 72,000'' blast radius, or 6,000', as well as 56,520,000 * 20 d6, or 1,130,400,000d6.

I would like to point out the preceding could happen in 3.0 without rule bending, as there is no rule as to magical objects.

Chronos
2007-11-15, 10:22 PM
I would like to point out the preceding could happen in 3.0 without rule bending, as there is no rule as to magical objects.But there is a rule, in both 3.0 and 3.5, that magical properties of an item are never increased by enlarging or transmuting them. So yes, in 3.0, you might be able to make the fire bead huge, but it still just explodes into a 20-foot-radius.

BizzaroStormy
2007-11-15, 10:35 PM
An atom is an object. A creature is made up of billions of atoms.

I can only target one of them at a time, I guess.

But what about protons, neutrons and electrons?


Ooh ooh, what about Quarks!?!?!

Edit: I can only begin to imagine how many catguirls this thread has killed. *unzips pants* better go make some more.

tainsouvra
2007-11-16, 02:16 PM
They aren't identified as exceptions. They are identified as effects. Third edition doesn't work that way. Things work by a general rule unless stated otherwise, and it doesn't have to say "this is an exception" for that to be the case. It's how the books are written.

Have you read the third edition core books, or just skimmed the SRD as needed for a discussion?