OOTS #1159 - The Discussion Thread

[littlebum2002]

Where's the fun in that?

Besides, there's no actual contradiction: stone to flesh allows spell resistance, so it fails to have its normal effect because of the Immunity to Magic ability; then Immunity to Magic's own special condition for the specific spell suppresses Immunity to Magic; then stone to flesh can have its normal effect.

So what you're saying is you can turn a Stone Golem into a Flesh Golem, you just need to cast Stone to Flesh twice? Once to suppress their immunity to magic, and a second time to turn them into flesh?

[Doug Lampert]

It says in the SRD tissue paper golems have DR20/-, 2000 hp and regenerate 5 points per round.
They are also immune to all magic, even that without SR.

;->

Once and for all, just because it's in DanDWiki, does not make it SRD.

The WotC first party tissue paper golem is product identity and is not available on the web.

Edited to add: For example, the version above doesn't specify what bypasses the regeneration. Obviously, an ACTUAL WotC monster would specify that the tissue paper golem's regeneration is bypassed by cold damage. If you have a cold, they just crumple up and you can throw them in the trash.

[Jasdoif]

Where's the fun in that?

Besides, there's no actual contradiction: stone to flesh allows spell resistance, so it fails to have its normal effect because of the Immunity to Magic ability; then Immunity to Magic's own special condition for the specific spell suppresses Immunity to Magic; then stone to flesh can have its normal effect.

So what you're saying is you can turn a Stone Golem into a Flesh Golem, you just need to cast Stone to Flesh twice? Once to suppress their immunity to magic, and a second time to turn them into flesh?

Yes. The suppression only lasts for one round, so it's helpful to have multiple people able to cast stone to flesh....But if you have a DM who'll choose a method to transform a stone golem into a flesh golem, the spell and monster should interact that way. (You'd probably be better off having the second caster use disintegrate, but again: where's the fun in that?)

---

For example, the version above doesn't specify what bypasses the regeneration. Obviously, an ACTUAL WotC monster would specify that the tissue paper golem's regeneration is bypassed by cold damage. If you have a cold, they just crumple up and you can throw them in the trash.

I'm just glad they dropped the "mucus elemental's body infused with paper, and animated by a tissue sample from a disease-bearing outsider" concept....I can understand wanting to adapt that one episode of The Tick, but the golem thing was just gross.

[Riftwolf]

So what you're saying is you can turn a Stone Golem into a Flesh Golem, you just need to cast Stone to Flesh twice? Once to suppress their immunity to magic, and a second time to turn them into flesh?

DM: Well you've successfully rule-lawyered a stone golem to a flesh golem, and all it took was two 6th level spells and two PCs actions for the turn. You did remember you were supposed to be killing it, right?
Player 1: And flesh Golems are lower CR. We'll get less xp.
Player 2: Anyone else hear the golem maker laughing?

[littlebum2002]

DM: Well you've successfully rule-lawyered a stone golem to a flesh golem, and all it took was two 6th level spells and two PCs actions for the turn. You did remember you were supposed to be killing it, right?
Player 1: And flesh Golems are lower CR. We'll get less xp.
Player 2: Anyone else hear the golem maker laughing?

Yeah, but we managed to finagle the rules in a way to make the guy who determines how hard the game will be mad, and I'm sure that's a good idea.

[Larre Gannd]

DM: Well you've successfully rule-lawyered a stone golem to a flesh golem, and all it took was two 6th level spells and two PCs actions for the turn. You did remember you were supposed to be killing it, right?
Player 1: And flesh Golems are lower CR. We'll get less xp.
Player 2: Anyone else hear the golem maker laughing?

Nah, you would probably still get xp for the stone golem, since you used ingenuity to make it easier.

[Aquillion]

Nah, you would probably still get xp for the stone golem, since you used ingenuity to make it easier.

Can we get XP for the Stone Golem and the Flesh Golem?

[KrankenWagon]

Can we get XP for the Stone Golem and the Flesh Golem?

I'll give you a total xp equal to the Stone Golem's XP - the Flesh Golem's XP

[Jasdoif]

Can we get XP for the Stone Golem and the Flesh Golem?

If the flesh golem had no damage or other aftereffects from anything done to the stone golem, I think that would be fair. It wouldn't be that different from if you'd destroyed the stone golem and that triggered teleporting a flesh golem in. (How useful that would be depends on the mechanism involved; flesh golems start at CR 7 and stone golems start at CR 11, so an unadvanced flesh golem is unlikely to impact the encounter level in most cases.)

[Goblin_Priest]

It's unaffected by magic (at least magic that is subject to spell resistance) except as listed in the entry (some things that benefit it, and some that don't). Stone to flesh strips that quality from it--along with damage resistance--for one round.



http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm#stoneGolem

Immunity to Magic (Ex)

A stone 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 transmute rock to mud spell slows a stone golem (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds, with no saving throw, while transmute mud to rock heals all of its lost hit points.

A stone to flesh spell does not actually change the golem’s structure but negates its damage reduction and immunity to magic for 1 full round.

Eh, that's not how it's worded. It says "in addition", not "except". I'm pretty sure that, as it is written, stone golems are immune to the spell Stone to Flesh, though that's clearly not RAI.

[Snails]

DM: Well you've successfully rule-lawyered a stone golem to a flesh golem, and all it took was two 6th level spells and two PCs actions for the turn. You did remember you were supposed to be killing it, right?
Player 1: And flesh Golems are lower CR. We'll get less xp.
Player 2: Anyone else hear the golem maker laughing?

LOL. Yes, it is a funny way to look at it, but the rules never make sense if you attempt to be so literal. Not because being literal never works, but because there are multiple very literal interpretations of the RAW.

When the Order was at the bottom of that pit in the desert, and RC sent a summoned elemental in to kill them, how much experience do they earn for destroying that creature?

0 XP because it is just a summoned monster.
XP for the summoned monster as if it were just a normal encounter there to kill them, because that is how hard the challenge really was.
0 XP for the summoned monster, but full XP for "defeating" Redcloak.
0 XP for the summoned monster, but full XP for "defeating" Redcloak shared with MitD, because the MitD was a hidden ally that deserves some of the credit.

I could go on.

At the end of the day, just measure how hard the task seems, from the perspective of a reasonable Player/DM's a priori guess. Extraordinary cleverness or even bizarre luck that makes the encounter easy should not be a factor in awarding XP. You do not give the PCs extra XP for winning after making a foolish error or having really bad dice, right? These things average out. Do not nickel and dime XP when it turns out to be easy.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Eh, that's not how it's worded. It says "in addition", not "except". I'm pretty sure that, as it is written, stone golems are immune to the spell Stone to Flesh, though that's clearly not RAI.

The rules you quote explicitly state that Stone to Flesh "negates its damage reduction and immunity to magic for 1 full round. "

[hamishspence]

Yup. "Certain spells function differently" trumps spell immunity.

Thus, Lightning Bolts heal Flesh Golems, even if normally, Spell Immunity would mean the bolts have no effect on them because the spell allows Spell Resistance.

As we saw with Crystal.

[Goblin_Priest]

Yup. "Certain spells function differently" trumps spell immunity.

Thus, Lightning Bolts heal Flesh Golems, even if normally, Spell Immunity would mean the bolts have no effect on them because the spell allows Spell Resistance.

As we saw with Crystal.

That's clearly the intent. But grammatically, I'm under the impression, that both "they work differently" and "the golems are immune to it anyways" is how it's written.

[Peelee]

That's clearly the intent. But grammatically, I'm under the impression, that both "they work differently" and "the golems are immune to it anyways" is how it's written.

Grammatically it's fine. It's clear as intended and clear as written. Even if it seems confusing, one of the first rules of D&D (and, frankly, life in general) is that specific beats general.

[Kish]

It's not clear as intended, because the Player's Handbook and the Monster Manual list specific and different effects for casting Stone to Flesh on a stone golem.

It is clear that the answer is not "it does nothing, because the general rule says the golem is immune to magic." It is completely unclear whether the, singular, RAW answer would be "immunities suppressed for one round" or "turns permanently into a flesh golem." And saying that casting it once does the first and casting it twice does the second is just arbitrarily deciding to prioritize the Monster Manual above the Player's Handbook.

[Jasdoif]

It is completely unclear whether the, singular, RAW answer would be "immunities suppressed for one round" or "turns permanently into a flesh golem." And saying that casting it once does the first and casting it twice does the second is just arbitrarily deciding to prioritize the Monster Manual above the Player's Handbook.

It's not arbitrary: The Monster Manual is "the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities"; the Stone Golem's extraordinary ability takes precedence over the spell description.

[factotum]

It's not arbitrary: The Monster Manual is "the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities"; the Stone Golem's extraordinary ability takes precedence over the spell description.

Yeah, I would have to agree there. The Monster Manual is supposed to be the primary reference for monsters and other creatures in D&D, so I would assume it takes precedence over any other source when talking about the effects of spells and the like.

[Jasdoif]

Yeah, I would have to agree there. The Monster Manual is supposed to be the primary reference for monsters and other creatures in D&D, so I would assume it takes precedence over any other source when talking about the effects of spells and the like.

Just to be clear, if this situation was to come up at an actual game, I would say to throw out the bit from the spell about transforming a stone golem into a flesh golem entirely....Because there's no indication of how that's supposed to be accomplished. I mean...Do you just replace the stone golem on the grid with a standard flesh golem? Or do you advance the flesh golem to match the stone golem's hit dice (flesh golems start at 9HD, stone golems at 14HD)? If so, do you maintain the size (flesh golems become Huge at 19HD; stone golems at 22HD)? Or do you just replace the special abilities (slow with berserk, the different flavors of immunity to magic) but leave the stone golem otherwise the same as it was?

It's simply too much of a headache, no matter how comedic or valid the casting stone to flesh twice scenario is.

[Goblin_Priest]

Grammatically it's fine. It's clear as intended and clear as written. Even if it seems confusing, one of the first rules of D&D (and, frankly, life in general) is that specific beats general.

To me, it's basically saying "You can't cut off a hydra's head. In addition, if you cut off a hydras's head, two new heads appear". Wait, so can you, or can't you cut off the head, because it says both? The sentences are contradictory and the clauses are linked with "In addition" instead of "however" or "despite the previous clause" or other such relation marker (whatever the English word for this is). You cannot be susceptible to something "in addition" to being immune to it. You are immune or you aren't.

To me it's clear that the golem isn't meant to be immune to "Stone to Flesh", but to me that's also not written correctly.

[Aquillion]

Yeah, I would have to agree there. The Monster Manual is supposed to be the primary reference for monsters and other creatures in D&D, so I would assume it takes precedence over any other source when talking about the effects of spells and the like.

Isn't it the other way around?

Specific trumps general. That means that when a primary and secondary reference conflict, we go with the secondary reference, on the assumption that it was written later with the intent to specifically override whatever the primary one says.

(Although the real answer here is that it's a screw-up that can only be solved by a DM call, since the two are really equally specific and say directly different things. And you could as easily say "the PHB is the primary source for what spells, such as Stone to Flesh, actually do.")

[Kish]

And you could as easily say "the PHB is the primary source for what spells, such as Stone to Flesh, actually do.")

Yes, this. Two books that came out at the same time, each a primary source for one-half of the Stone Golem/Stone to Flesh interaction, each of which says something different, unrelated, and incompatible, and WotC has declined to clarify which takes precedence.

[Jasdoif]

Yes, this. Two books that came out at the same time, each a primary source for one-half of the Stone Golem/Stone to Flesh interaction, each of which says something different, unrelated, and incompatible, and WotC has declined to clarify which takes precedence.

While I think we're in vague agreement that "these things are divergent even if they're technically compatible"....

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Spell descriptions are not called out anywhere, unlike monster abilities. And a reading that the PHB spell descriptions fall under "rules for playing the game" and therefore take precedence would mean immunity to magic doesn't do anything against any PHB spells, and that seems even less sensical.

[Peelee]

To me, it's basically saying "You can't cut off a hydra's head. In addition, if you cut off a hydras's head, two new heads appear". Wait, so can you, or can't you cut off the head, because it says both?

A better analogy would be, "You can't cut off a hydra's head. In addition, if you cut off a hydras's head with a Beheading Axe, two new heads appear." The specific callout of a method to decapitate the hydra overrides the general no-decapitation clause. Specific beats general.

[georgie_leech]

A better analogy would be, "You can't cut off a hydra's head. In addition, if you cut off a hydras's head with a Beheading Axe, two new heads appear." The specific callout of a method to decapitate the hydra overrides the general no-decapitation clause. Specific beats general.

That first sentence is crying out for a "except via a Beheading Axe." Otherwise you can read the second sentence as "If you somehow accomplish the impossible thing described previously, while using this specific weapon, this happens."

I certainly wouldn't run it that way as a DM; the RAI is blatant. But since when has RAI ever stopped us from considering 3.5 rules pedantry?

[Riftwolf]

A better analogy would be, "You can't cut off a hydra's head. In addition, if you cut off a hydras's head with a Beheading Axe, two new heads appear." The specific callout of a method to decapitate the hydra overrides the general no-decapitation clause. Specific beats general.

Is a Beheading Axe a thing, or is it an axe with a Vorpal enhancement? Does it have to be an axe? Do the Hydra Head Barbecue employees have access to these?

[Peelee]

Is a Beheading Axe a thing, or is it an axe with a Vorpal enhancement? Does it have to be an axe? Do the Hydra Head Barbecue employees have access to these?

Nah, I'm a fan of inventing things for examples. The Beheading Axe has a magical property in that it can morph into any martial weapon at the bearer's will, just for you.

[jokem]

Once and for all, just because it's in DanDWiki, does not make it SRD.

The WotC first party tissue paper golem is product identity and is not available on the web.

Edited to add: For example, the version above doesn't specify what bypasses the regeneration. Obviously, an ACTUAL WotC monster would specify that the tissue paper golem's regeneration is bypassed by cold damage. If you have a cold, they just crumple up and you can throw them in the trash.

Don't confuse me with the facts...

;->

[Squire Doodad]

Is a Beheading Axe a thing, or is it an axe with a Vorpal enhancement? Does it have to be an axe? Do the Hydra Head Barbecue employees have access to these?

What they have is very similar - its a Vorpal Cheese-heading Handaxe. It cuts off heads just fine because of the Vorpal bit, but it automatically applies a layer of Gouda if they are used for cooking purposes. Only Gouda. Nothing else.
It's a terrible curse to have someone put on their weapon, especially considering goblin digestive tracks. Tastes nice though.

[ijuinkun]

I was wondering, just where did the joke about Goblins loving Gouda originate, anyway?