Weissrolf
October 22nd, 2021, 00:32
Instead of starting a discussion in the ruleset development thread or old generically named "resistance issues" thread, I prefer to start a new discussion on how Golem immunities and weapon runes are to be handled. Here is my take:
"Fundamental" weapon runes do not cause "magic" damage, they are "magical" runes that turn a weapon into a "magical" weapon, but still cause physical damage (or rather the original weapon type) without adding a special "magical" damage trait. These runes enhance/affect the weapon itself. So golems' resistance against physical attacks affect mundane and magical weapons the same.
There are some rare creatures that have "Resistance: physical X (except magical)". These creatures' resistances are negated by the fact that the weapon/damage source is magical, but the damage is still physical with no extra "magical" trait. And there are "incorporeal" creatures whose resistances are doubled against "non-magical damage", but there still is no "magical" damage trait. The latter is unfortunately somewhat badly worded by Paizo, but I understand why they did not want to add a special "magical" damage trait to the game just for these very few exceptions on how to handle physical damage.
Furthermore golems do not have "immunity: magic", they have "immunity: magic (see below)", with "see below" pointing to their "Golem Antimagic" abilities. This "Golem Antimagic" usually pertains to creatures using "spells and innate magical abilities other than its own" (its own = the golem's). Unfortunately Paizo botched to deliver concise wording again, so the "creatures'" part is less than clear and can be disputed.
Said possible dispute is about "Property runes", because these runes are worded as adding "special abilities" to weapons, which of course are "magical". Damn you Paizo editor. Since there still is no "magical" damage trait you have a situation where a "flaming" property rune adds extra "fire" damage to a weapon. You can still perfectly well argue that the rune affects/enhanced the weapon, not the target. And frankly, this would be the easiest and most sane way of handling things in FG. Of course you would also have to argue that property runes to not trigger the "Harmed by" vulnerability then. It's all or nothing.
On the other hand, if you count property runes as "magical abilities" that Golems are immune against, then the "Harmed by" part is also triggered (like a flaming rune against a flesh golem). This is considerably more complex to automate in FG, though, because again: there is no "magical" damage trait.
Wands, scrolls and staves are clearly a form of spell-casting, so I see no conflicts there. These work the same as otherwise casted spells do.
Last but not least, alchemical bombs are not magical and thus trigger neither the "Golem antimagic" immunities nor the "Harmed by" weaknesses. So no, your 1 point acid "splash" damage does not crumble the iron golem to dust. :P
"Fundamental" weapon runes do not cause "magic" damage, they are "magical" runes that turn a weapon into a "magical" weapon, but still cause physical damage (or rather the original weapon type) without adding a special "magical" damage trait. These runes enhance/affect the weapon itself. So golems' resistance against physical attacks affect mundane and magical weapons the same.
There are some rare creatures that have "Resistance: physical X (except magical)". These creatures' resistances are negated by the fact that the weapon/damage source is magical, but the damage is still physical with no extra "magical" trait. And there are "incorporeal" creatures whose resistances are doubled against "non-magical damage", but there still is no "magical" damage trait. The latter is unfortunately somewhat badly worded by Paizo, but I understand why they did not want to add a special "magical" damage trait to the game just for these very few exceptions on how to handle physical damage.
Furthermore golems do not have "immunity: magic", they have "immunity: magic (see below)", with "see below" pointing to their "Golem Antimagic" abilities. This "Golem Antimagic" usually pertains to creatures using "spells and innate magical abilities other than its own" (its own = the golem's). Unfortunately Paizo botched to deliver concise wording again, so the "creatures'" part is less than clear and can be disputed.
Said possible dispute is about "Property runes", because these runes are worded as adding "special abilities" to weapons, which of course are "magical". Damn you Paizo editor. Since there still is no "magical" damage trait you have a situation where a "flaming" property rune adds extra "fire" damage to a weapon. You can still perfectly well argue that the rune affects/enhanced the weapon, not the target. And frankly, this would be the easiest and most sane way of handling things in FG. Of course you would also have to argue that property runes to not trigger the "Harmed by" vulnerability then. It's all or nothing.
On the other hand, if you count property runes as "magical abilities" that Golems are immune against, then the "Harmed by" part is also triggered (like a flaming rune against a flesh golem). This is considerably more complex to automate in FG, though, because again: there is no "magical" damage trait.
Wands, scrolls and staves are clearly a form of spell-casting, so I see no conflicts there. These work the same as otherwise casted spells do.
Last but not least, alchemical bombs are not magical and thus trigger neither the "Golem antimagic" immunities nor the "Harmed by" weaknesses. So no, your 1 point acid "splash" damage does not crumble the iron golem to dust. :P