"Winning Tactics against Golems" Discussion [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Winning Tactics against Golems" Discussion [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Aubri
11-08-05, 09:29 AM Wow... what was up with that last paragraph? Golems are fully affected by Darkness and Obscuring Mist--no SR, why wouldn't they be?--and a telekinesed object will hit them for full damage. They're only immune to being picked up or thrown by TK.
Sweetlou
11-08-05, 10:25 AM Yea, I'm also curious about the "The golem's most powerful defense, however, is its immunity to magic -- both magical and supernatural effects" line. What?! I was always under the impression that Immunity to Magic meant "infinitely hight SR" ergo anything that is not affected by SR, like say oh supernatural effects, will affect golems.

To quote the SRD: "A clay 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." Huh?
Just another user
11-08-05, 10:50 AM They forgot a quite simple and effective tactics to defeat almost any kind of golem.

Why use adamantine weapons when oil flasks are so much more effective and cheap?

Hitting is just a touch attack, a oil flask will do 1 d6 for two rounds, quite interestingly golem usually don't have energy resistance (and apperently even iron and stone golem are quite combustible. 10-20 1st level commoners each armed with ten oil flasks could be enough to destroy almost any kind of golem if they can keep out of its range.
Euangelion
11-08-05, 10:51 AM Yeah, he messed that up. Spells like glitterdust (does a mindless golem attack something it can't see? hmmmm), melf's acid arrow (providing the golem in question doesn't have resistance to acid), and other spells (mostly conjuration spells) that aren't affected by SR should do just fine. Sheesh.
Aubri
11-08-05, 11:05 AM Good point, Just. Anything that deals nonmagical elemental damage will work, for that matter, like acid flasks. I think a DM would be totally justified declaring an iron golem immune to lamp oil/alchemist's fire, of course, but by the book it'd work.
GhostStepper
11-08-05, 11:09 AM I was so ready to make a post about how "Winning Tactics Against Golems" was full of errors but i guess i was too slow!

I'm amazed that this article got by the editor. Or did anyone care if the information was accurate? Its pretty clear in the monster manual that golems' imunnity to magic ONLY makes it invulnerable to spells which are effected by spell resistance.... since the author is under the mistaken impression that golems are immune to ALL spells, his "winning tactics" dont include the most effective ways of taking down a golem. There are spells that DO effect golems that do the job atleast as well as any of the tactics out lined in this flawed article...
meabolex
11-08-05, 11:27 AM Yeah, he messed that up. Spells like glitterdust (does a mindless golem attack something it can't see? hmmmm), melf's acid arrow (providing the golem in question doesn't have resistance to acid), and other spells (mostly conjuration spells) that aren't affected by SR should do just fine. Sheesh.

Well, glitterdust won't work because the golem is a construct:

Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless).

But I'm very disappointed solid fog, grease, and illusions (probably best used against a golem, particularly a berserking one) didn't get listed.
meabolex
11-08-05, 11:40 AM Wow... what was up with that last paragraph? Golems are fully affected by Darkness and Obscuring Mist--no SR, why wouldn't they be?--and a telekinesed object will hit them for full damage. They're only immune to being picked up or thrown by TK.

They're also immune to combat maneuvers.

It would also be a valid inference that if a thrown weapon deals weapon damage, a thrown object deals damage of the type it would normally deal as an improvised weapon (logical discretion is advised) and thus is subject to DR. It's not a big deal because the object would still have the capacity to deal fairly large damage. If you hurl a 375 pound non-adamantine object at level 15, it's going to deal 15d6-DR, which is still a reasonable amount of damage. You also could just use adamantium arrows and hurl up to 15 of them (15d4 at level 15 since they're treated as daggers).
Euangelion
11-08-05, 12:46 PM Well, glitterdust won't work because the golem is a construct:

Glitterdust requires a Will save to avoid blindness.
Thrasher
11-08-05, 02:22 PM " he he shoot a nuke down a bug hole, you got alot of dead bugs" same applies for golems or any other monsters. :)
GhostStepper
11-08-05, 02:38 PM So who is up for a "Winning Tactics Against Winning Tactics Articles" thread? ;)
Mysticaloctopus
11-08-05, 02:55 PM We're forgetting the only instant death effect for an iron golem is the spell rusting grasp.

I love that spell, it only takes a quick blast and
VOOSH! no more iron door!
VOOSH! no more iron sword!
VOOSH no more iron golem!

being a ferromancer must suck, eh?
GhostStepper
11-08-05, 03:09 PM We're forgetting the only instant death effect for an iron golem is the spell rusting grasp.

I love that spell, it only takes a quick blast and
VOOSH! no more iron door!
VOOSH! no more iron sword!
VOOSH no more iron golem!

being a ferromancer must suck, eh?

An iron golem counts as a creature, thus rusting grasp does 3d6 (+1 per caster level with a max of +15). It not instant death, and you have to get close enough to touch him for it to work...Its a good tactice but not perfect when used by itself.
tiercel
11-08-05, 07:33 PM One silly thing is, of course, that if you use Complete Arcane in your game you don't need tactics against golems. You don't need to think or be creative or careful at all. All you need is:

orb orb orb orb orb orb orb orb orb orb....

Done.

(Just one of many reasons why I think "Conjuration" SR: No orbs are just silly.)

Yes, I know you could pull much the same thing with melf's acid arrow, but at least that takes a while (and presumably, as a single energy type, is negatable if you are a smart wizard who equips your construct appropriately).

Even without Complete Arcane, grease + glitterdust typically does a job on golems (though I have to admit that blinding a construct with glitterdust doesn't make a *lot* of sense to me, philosophically speaking).
savant_warlord13
11-08-05, 07:49 PM one of my favorite tactics is making the golem fall into a portable hole (not hard, they have no intelligence score) and then dump it out into a pit of lava

:evillaugh
Slagger the Chuul
11-08-05, 09:15 PM An iron golem counts as a creature, thus rusting grasp does 3d6 (+1 per caster level with a max of +15). It not instant death, and you have to get close enough to touch him for it to work...Its a good tactice but not perfect when used by itself.

Besides, if you can afford to have an iron golem, the least you can do is buy a gauntlet of rust for it to protect your investment.
IceFractal
11-08-05, 11:45 PM Actually, using flaming oil on an Iron Golem is kind of wierd situation, since magical fire effects heal it. Technically the oil would hurt it, but many DM's would say otherwise in actual practice. But acid should work fine.

Or, for that matter, the Orb series, as mentioned. Just toss some "non-magical" force at it. :confused:
digoraccoon
11-09-05, 09:01 AM Grease spells work decently well to trip a golem... down stairs... actually happened once. Poor thing lost 1/3 of it's hit points going down two flights. I'm never putting a golem at the top of a staircase again. :)

At least the article has the right idea about ranged attacks. The golem mentioned above lost the other 2/3 hit points trying to get up the stairs to attack the players. :D
meabolex
11-09-05, 03:22 PM Glitterdust requires a Will save to avoid blindness.

And that's completely crazy since every other blindness effect in the game is a fortitude save or has spell resistance applied. . .

I think this is a 3.0 to 3.5 mistake because in 3.0 spell resistance applied (because of the almost universal conjuration spells = no spell resistance) and thus wouldn't work on 3.0 or 3.5 golems.

Oh well, golems are ridiculously easy with glitterdust (:

Will saves:

Clay: +3
Flesh: +3
Iron: +6
Stone: +4

With those kind of saves, a level 7 wizard (assume 18 Int with 15 Int + stat point + +2 item) a DC 16 glitterdust means a clay golem has 60% chance to be blinded.

Why do casters need to be afraid of golems again? (:
Euangelion
11-10-05, 11:27 AM I think the rationale is that the substances that are conjured are not in and of themselves magical. The acid from Melf's is real acid, a mundane substance, not magical energy, like from fireball. The tiny shiny flecks created by glitterdust falls under the same category. The same goes for summoned creatures. They are real, and unless they are magical beasts or something like that, they are mundane, living, breathing creatures. Their duration (whether acid, glittery dust, or summoned animals/monsters) of existence is limited, but while they exist they are completely real and mundane. Thus spell resistance shouldn't be effectice against those things, any more than SR should be effective against a ball of mud that lands right between the eyes of the iron golem.

Edit: the deal with Will saves probably came about as looking at glitterdust as being a distraction, not something that affects the actual health of the creature in question. It doesn't actually make someone blind, but simply covers the eyes, meaning that a creature must will itself to look beyond the stuff covering its eyes.
tiercel
11-10-05, 05:43 PM I think the rationale is that the substances that are conjured are not in and of themselves magical. The acid from Melf's is real acid, a mundane substance, not magical energy, like from fireball. This is why I can buy melf's acid arrow but not the orbs -- at least acid can exist by itself nonmagically. Other energy types are rather more nonsensical. (And as for an acid orb -- why is it that a single orb can reproduce, essentially, the effect of being completely immersed in acid? Dragon breath I can see, since it basically does immerse you presumably. But an orb?)

The tiny shiny flecks created by glitterdust falls under the same category....

Edit: the deal with Will saves probably came about as looking at glitterdust as being a distraction, not something that affects the actual health of the creature in question. It doesn't actually make someone blind, but simply covers the eyes, meaning that a creature must will itself to look beyond the stuff covering its eyes.Except that you would think that for most creatures, having its eyes closed when the spell happens would negate this -- that sounds more like a Reflex save. And of course it begs the question of how golems (and other constructs/unliving creatures) actually "see" -- do they see out of their eyes?

Yeah, OK, in the end it is all "maaaaagic" and you wave your hands and that explains it, but it seems a little weird. (Plus, it does make glitterdust an extremely effective golem-buster.)

Maybe I'm thinking too old-school, but I actually liked it when magic immunity meant immunity (outside of the few spells which specifically affected a particular golem) -- as it stands, your tens or hundreds of thousands of gold piece investment is vulnerable to a first and second level spell commonly learned by mages (and not just to fight golems) -- grease and glitterdust will allow intruders to obtain a large advantage in a combat, or simply bypass the golem. If Complete Arcane exists in your world there isn't much reason for golems to exist -- why blow 80k gold and 5.6k XP on a "magic immune" iron golem that a single 10th level warmage can magically blow to bits in four rounds?
NecroMan
11-11-05, 03:37 PM The fact that a golem anatomically resembles a humanoid is a conceit on behalf of its creator. A golem (or any other construct) doesn't have functional eyes or an ocular apparatus that provide it vision on a biological level. In fact, any apparent sensory organs on a golem are entirely arbitrary and serve only as design elements. It is not explicit how golems sense their way around an environment. That can probably be chalked up to “magic.”

I argue that constructs should not be affected by Glitterdust -- a cloud of fine metallic particles that serve to irritate sensitive tissues and mucous membranes. Glitterdust shouldn’t be able to blind an automaton any more than pepper spray would blind a dumpster.
Euangelion
11-11-05, 04:30 PM The fact that a golem anatomically resembles a humanoid is a conceit on behalf of its creator. A golem (or any other construct) doesn't have functional eyes or an ocular apparatus that provide it vision on a biological level. In fact, any apparent sensory organs on a golem are entirely arbitrary and serve only as design elements. It is not explicit how golems sense their way around an environment. That can probably be chalked up to “magic.”

I argue that constructs should not be affected by Glitterdust -- a cloud of fine metallic particles that serve to irritate sensitive tissues and mucous membranes. Glitterdust shouldn’t be able to blind an automaton any more than pepper spray would blind a dumpster.

It is explicit how golems sense their environment. They have vision, low-light vision, and darkvision 60 ft. They do not have blindsight. Also, glitterdust doesn't necessarily work by irritating things (is that in the spell description?). If the particles actually glitter, the flashing points of light could effectively blind someone rather than through making their eyes water. So an interesting question would be "Can you see glitterdust in the dark?"

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aubri 11-08-05, 09:29 AM	Wow... what was up with that last paragraph? Golems are fully affected by Darkness and Obscuring Mist--no SR, why wouldn't they be?--and a telekinesed object will hit them for full damage. They're only immune to being picked up or thrown by TK.
Sweetlou 11-08-05, 10:25 AM	Yea, I'm also curious about the "The golem's most powerful defense, however, is its immunity to magic -- both magical and supernatural effects" line. What?! I was always under the impression that Immunity to Magic meant "infinitely hight SR" ergo anything that is not affected by SR, like say oh supernatural effects, will affect golems. To quote the SRD: "A clay 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." Huh?
Just another user 11-08-05, 10:50 AM	They forgot a quite simple and effective tactics to defeat almost any kind of golem. Why use adamantine weapons when oil flasks are so much more effective and cheap? Hitting is just a touch attack, a oil flask will do 1 d6 for two rounds, quite interestingly golem usually don't have energy resistance (and apperently even iron and stone golem are quite combustible. 10-20 1st level commoners each armed with ten oil flasks could be enough to destroy almost any kind of golem if they can keep out of its range.
Euangelion 11-08-05, 10:51 AM	Yeah, he messed that up. Spells like glitterdust (does a mindless golem attack something it can't see? hmmmm), melf's acid arrow (providing the golem in question doesn't have resistance to acid), and other spells (mostly conjuration spells) that aren't affected by SR should do just fine. Sheesh.
Aubri 11-08-05, 11:05 AM	Good point, Just. Anything that deals nonmagical elemental damage will work, for that matter, like acid flasks. I think a DM would be totally justified declaring an iron golem immune to lamp oil/alchemist's fire, of course, but by the book it'd work.
GhostStepper 11-08-05, 11:09 AM	I was so ready to make a post about how "Winning Tactics Against Golems" was full of errors but i guess i was too slow! I'm amazed that this article got by the editor. Or did anyone care if the information was accurate? Its pretty clear in the monster manual that golems' imunnity to magic ONLY makes it invulnerable to spells which are effected by spell resistance.... since the author is under the mistaken impression that golems are immune to ALL spells, his "winning tactics" dont include the most effective ways of taking down a golem. There are spells that DO effect golems that do the job atleast as well as any of the tactics out lined in this flawed article...
meabolex 11-08-05, 11:27 AM	Yeah, he messed that up. Spells like glitterdust (does a mindless golem attack something it can't see? hmmmm), melf's acid arrow (providing the golem in question doesn't have resistance to acid), and other spells (mostly conjuration spells) that aren't affected by SR should do just fine. Sheesh. Well, glitterdust won't work because the golem is a construct: Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). But I'm very disappointed solid fog, grease, and illusions (probably best used against a golem, particularly a berserking one) didn't get listed.
meabolex 11-08-05, 11:40 AM	Wow... what was up with that last paragraph? Golems are fully affected by Darkness and Obscuring Mist--no SR, why wouldn't they be?--and a telekinesed object will hit them for full damage. They're only immune to being picked up or thrown by TK. They're also immune to combat maneuvers. It would also be a valid inference that if a thrown weapon deals weapon damage, a thrown object deals damage of the type it would normally deal as an improvised weapon (logical discretion is advised) and thus is subject to DR. It's not a big deal because the object would still have the capacity to deal fairly large damage. If you hurl a 375 pound non-adamantine object at level 15, it's going to deal 15d6-DR, which is still a reasonable amount of damage. You also could just use adamantium arrows and hurl up to 15 of them (15d4 at level 15 since they're treated as daggers).
Euangelion 11-08-05, 12:46 PM	Well, glitterdust won't work because the golem is a construct: Glitterdust requires a Will save to avoid blindness.
Thrasher 11-08-05, 02:22 PM	" he he shoot a nuke down a bug hole, you got alot of dead bugs" same applies for golems or any other monsters. :)
GhostStepper 11-08-05, 02:38 PM	So who is up for a "Winning Tactics Against Winning Tactics Articles" thread? ;)
Mysticaloctopus 11-08-05, 02:55 PM	We're forgetting the only instant death effect for an iron golem is the spell rusting grasp. I love that spell, it only takes a quick blast and VOOSH! no more iron door! VOOSH! no more iron sword! VOOSH no more iron golem! being a ferromancer must suck, eh?
GhostStepper 11-08-05, 03:09 PM	We're forgetting the only instant death effect for an iron golem is the spell rusting grasp. I love that spell, it only takes a quick blast and VOOSH! no more iron door! VOOSH! no more iron sword! VOOSH no more iron golem! being a ferromancer must suck, eh? An iron golem counts as a creature, thus rusting grasp does 3d6 (+1 per caster level with a max of +15). It not instant death, and you have to get close enough to touch him for it to work...Its a good tactice but not perfect when used by itself.
tiercel 11-08-05, 07:33 PM	One silly thing is, of course, that if you use Complete Arcane in your game you don't need tactics against golems. You don't need to think or be creative or careful at all. All you need is: orb orb orb orb orb orb orb orb orb orb.... Done. (Just one of many reasons why I think "Conjuration" SR: No orbs are just silly.) Yes, I know you could pull much the same thing with melf's acid arrow, but at least that takes a while (and presumably, as a single energy type, is negatable if you are a smart wizard who equips your construct appropriately). Even without Complete Arcane, grease + glitterdust typically does a job on golems (though I have to admit that blinding a construct with glitterdust doesn't make a lot of sense to me, philosophically speaking).
savant_warlord13 11-08-05, 07:49 PM	one of my favorite tactics is making the golem fall into a portable hole (not hard, they have no intelligence score) and then dump it out into a pit of lava :evillaugh
Slagger the Chuul 11-08-05, 09:15 PM	An iron golem counts as a creature, thus rusting grasp does 3d6 (+1 per caster level with a max of +15). It not instant death, and you have to get close enough to touch him for it to work...Its a good tactice but not perfect when used by itself. Besides, if you can afford to have an iron golem, the least you can do is buy a gauntlet of rust for it to protect your investment.
IceFractal 11-08-05, 11:45 PM	Actually, using flaming oil on an Iron Golem is kind of wierd situation, since magical fire effects heal it. Technically the oil would hurt it, but many DM's would say otherwise in actual practice. But acid should work fine. Or, for that matter, the Orb series, as mentioned. Just toss some "non-magical" force at it. :confused:
digoraccoon 11-09-05, 09:01 AM	Grease spells work decently well to trip a golem... down stairs... actually happened once. Poor thing lost 1/3 of it's hit points going down two flights. I'm never putting a golem at the top of a staircase again. :) At least the article has the right idea about ranged attacks. The golem mentioned above lost the other 2/3 hit points trying to get up the stairs to attack the players. :D
meabolex 11-09-05, 03:22 PM	Glitterdust requires a Will save to avoid blindness. And that's completely crazy since every other blindness effect in the game is a fortitude save or has spell resistance applied. . . I think this is a 3.0 to 3.5 mistake because in 3.0 spell resistance applied (because of the almost universal conjuration spells = no spell resistance) and thus wouldn't work on 3.0 or 3.5 golems. Oh well, golems are ridiculously easy with glitterdust (: Will saves: Clay: +3 Flesh: +3 Iron: +6 Stone: +4 With those kind of saves, a level 7 wizard (assume 18 Int with 15 Int + stat point + +2 item) a DC 16 glitterdust means a clay golem has 60% chance to be blinded. Why do casters need to be afraid of golems again? (:
Euangelion 11-10-05, 11:27 AM	I think the rationale is that the substances that are conjured are not in and of themselves magical. The acid from Melf's is real acid, a mundane substance, not magical energy, like from fireball. The tiny shiny flecks created by glitterdust falls under the same category. The same goes for summoned creatures. They are real, and unless they are magical beasts or something like that, they are mundane, living, breathing creatures. Their duration (whether acid, glittery dust, or summoned animals/monsters) of existence is limited, but while they exist they are completely real and mundane. Thus spell resistance shouldn't be effectice against those things, any more than SR should be effective against a ball of mud that lands right between the eyes of the iron golem. Edit: the deal with Will saves probably came about as looking at glitterdust as being a distraction, not something that affects the actual health of the creature in question. It doesn't actually make someone blind, but simply covers the eyes, meaning that a creature must will itself to look beyond the stuff covering its eyes.
tiercel 11-10-05, 05:43 PM	I think the rationale is that the substances that are conjured are not in and of themselves magical. The acid from Melf's is real acid, a mundane substance, not magical energy, like from fireball. This is why I can buy melf's acid arrow but not the orbs -- at least acid can exist by itself nonmagically. Other energy types are rather more nonsensical. (And as for an acid orb -- why is it that a single orb can reproduce, essentially, the effect of being completely immersed in acid? Dragon breath I can see, since it basically does immerse you presumably. But an orb?) The tiny shiny flecks created by glitterdust falls under the same category.... Edit: the deal with Will saves probably came about as looking at glitterdust as being a distraction, not something that affects the actual health of the creature in question. It doesn't actually make someone blind, but simply covers the eyes, meaning that a creature must will itself to look beyond the stuff covering its eyes.Except that you would think that for most creatures, having its eyes closed when the spell happens would negate this -- that sounds more like a Reflex save. And of course it begs the question of how golems (and other constructs/unliving creatures) actually "see" -- do they see out of their eyes? Yeah, OK, in the end it is all "maaaaagic" and you wave your hands and that explains it, but it seems a little weird. (Plus, it does make glitterdust an extremely effective golem-buster.) Maybe I'm thinking too old-school, but I actually liked it when magic immunity meant immunity (outside of the few spells which specifically affected a particular golem) -- as it stands, your tens or hundreds of thousands of gold piece investment is vulnerable to a first and second level spell commonly learned by mages (and not just to fight golems) -- grease and glitterdust will allow intruders to obtain a large advantage in a combat, or simply bypass the golem. If Complete Arcane exists in your world there isn't much reason for golems to exist -- why blow 80k gold and 5.6k XP on a "magic immune" iron golem that a single 10th level warmage can magically blow to bits in four rounds?
NecroMan 11-11-05, 03:37 PM	The fact that a golem anatomically resembles a humanoid is a conceit on behalf of its creator. A golem (or any other construct) doesn't have functional eyes or an ocular apparatus that provide it vision on a biological level. In fact, any apparent sensory organs on a golem are entirely arbitrary and serve only as design elements. It is not explicit how golems sense their way around an environment. That can probably be chalked up to “magic.” I argue that constructs should not be affected by Glitterdust -- a cloud of fine metallic particles that serve to irritate sensitive tissues and mucous membranes. Glitterdust shouldn’t be able to blind an automaton any more than pepper spray would blind a dumpster.
Euangelion 11-11-05, 04:30 PM	The fact that a golem anatomically resembles a humanoid is a conceit on behalf of its creator. A golem (or any other construct) doesn't have functional eyes or an ocular apparatus that provide it vision on a biological level. In fact, any apparent sensory organs on a golem are entirely arbitrary and serve only as design elements. It is not explicit how golems sense their way around an environment. That can probably be chalked up to “magic.” I argue that constructs should not be affected by Glitterdust -- a cloud of fine metallic particles that serve to irritate sensitive tissues and mucous membranes. Glitterdust shouldn’t be able to blind an automaton any more than pepper spray would blind a dumpster. It is explicit how golems sense their environment. They have vision, low-light vision, and darkvision 60 ft. They do not have blindsight. Also, glitterdust doesn't necessarily work by irritating things (is that in the spell description?). If the particles actually glitter, the flashing points of light could effectively blind someone rather than through making their eyes water. So an interesting question would be "Can you see glitterdust in the dark?"