PDA

View Full Version : BROKEN: Flesh Golems?



villainsimple
02-09-2008, 05:44 PM
I believe Flesh Golems may be broken. Unless they're some rare variety... (Masterwork?) I don't believe they should have a con score and I'm fairly certain they do based on what I've heard (such as repeatedly saving against disintegrate).

This leads me to believe they have a Con Score because otherwise their fortitude saves simply wouldn't be that high.

MrCow
02-09-2008, 06:11 PM
Flesh Golems are likely correct in a lack of a CON score, but whoever input the data on flesh golems may have accidentally added +10 Fortitude Save somehow. There are also other possibilities that may contribute to this that we don't know about.

I also point you to the Vampire Knight of Vol, another monster with a not-quite-right saving throw. Somewhere way back when I tested halt undead I realized they had a will save of about 5 lower than they should have. Data errors happen.

Angelus_dead
02-09-2008, 06:28 PM
I believe Flesh Golems may be broken. Unless they're some rare variety... (Masterwork?) I don't believe they should have a con score
There are a lot of ways to raise Fortitude without adding constitution. However, it's true that Flesh Golems are broken in several ways.. for example, they are vulnerable to Intimidate.

ArkoHighStar
02-09-2008, 06:31 PM
I likete fact that every now and then they make a save takes away the easy button. Remember these are Turbine's house rules they want flesh golems to have a fortitude save and voila

oh and masterwork flesh golems should also have around 125hp instead of the 400 they currently do.

I could go on but from your other posts I can tell you are not looking for answers

villainsimple
02-09-2008, 06:35 PM
The game needs to have internal logic.

MrCow
02-09-2008, 06:37 PM
The game needs to have internal logic.

There is logic... its just not always comparable to our logic. :p

Emili
02-10-2008, 07:16 AM
Actually they're broken in a sense because they're suppose to be immune to disintigrate... Golems have a immunity to magic except where noted for certain weakness' such as fire/cold slowing a flesh-golem down etc... By all rights it should be impossible to disintigrate any golem or marut as a construct is a being created magically, thus thier immunity is grated from that process.

Flesh Golem
Size/Type: Large Construct
Hit Dice: 9d10+30 (79 hp)
Initiative: -1
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 18 (-1 size, -1 Dex, +10 natural), touch 8, flat-footed 18
Base Attack/Grapple: +6/+15
Attack: Slam +10 melee (2d8+5)
Full Attack: 2 slams +10 melee (2d8+5)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft.
Special Attacks: Berserk
Special Qualities: Construct traits, damage reduction 5/adamantine, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to magic, low-light vision
Saves: Fort +3, Ref +2, Will +3
Abilities: Str 21, Dex 9, Con Ø, Int Ø, Wis 11, Cha 1
Skills: —
Feats: —
Environment: Any
Organization: Solitary or gang (2-4)
Challenge Rating: 7
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: 10-18 HD (Large); 19-27 HD (Huge)
Level Adjustment: —

Immunity to Magic (Ex)
A flesh 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 cold or fire damage slows a flesh golem (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds, with no saving throw.

A magical attack that deals electricity damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for every 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, a flesh golem hit by a lightning bolt heals 3 points of damage if the attack would have dealt 11 points of damage. A flesh golem golem gets no saving throw against attacks that deal electricity damage.




Disintegrate
Transmutation
Level: Destruction 7, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Ray
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes


Giving light of the fact that Turbine in most cases removed SR for damage spells the golem is truer to DnD then other DDO monsters in some sense... and a golem should be unaffected by intimidate... they are functional they are not intelligent thinking mob, they follow the command of thier creator to a T.

Lorien_the_First_One
02-10-2008, 09:02 AM
The game needs to have internal logic.

lol there is internal logic, you just don't like it

Shade
02-10-2008, 10:51 AM
Giving a monster - which in PnP is imune to disintegrate... Non-imunity and just a high save vs it doesnt sound like a bug.

But more of a intended design to make the flesh golem quest more playable by arcane heavy groups.

I mean firewall, cone of cold and every other spell shouldn't work on it other then to slow/haste them, but they do also.. Yet no dmg spells work on any other golems (other then disintegrate)

Devs can give mobs any saving throws they want really, DDO has deviated enough from PnP to allow that. I mean we haveas much as +11 or greater from our enhancements which don't eixst in PnP, so theres no reason a monster shouldn't often get the same bonus, despite lacking a con score or whatever.

villainsimple
02-10-2008, 11:56 AM
No other golem works this way. It's a bug.

Clay Golems do not, Adamantine Golems do not. No other construct functions this way.

Only Flesh Golems.

I assume that they were given a Con Score as they are manufactured from living parts, however that's just not so.

Further, Flesh Golems ARE immune to certain magical types, force for example.

MrCow
02-10-2008, 12:27 PM
I assume that they were given a Con Score as they are manufactured from living parts, however that's just not so.

Sadly, there is no way to test if they actually have a CON score or they have a CON score of "-". Due to this we don't know if the extra fortitude is from CON or from some other source.

MysticTheurge
02-10-2008, 12:32 PM
Actually they're broken in a sense because they're suppose to be immune to disintigrate...

So are all the golems in DDO.

They should also be immune to Blade Barrier and a few other spells in a similar category.

sigtrent
02-10-2008, 12:35 PM
The game needs to have internal logic.

The number one priority of any good game master isn't to follow all the printed rules 100%, it is to make the game challenging and fun for the players. Rules matter of course, you don't want to always be shifting the ground under the players arbitrarily. But in DDO you face the same stuff over and over and it is consistant. You learn the challenges and how to deal with them.

The dev's simply try to make the fights interesting and challenging. Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much. It's a tough thing. But just slavishly following the monster blocks won't do the job in this game. Indeed of all the "rules" in D&D monsters are the one DM's are most encouraged to monkey around and change to suit their purposes.

In my own games I only use "canned" monsters about 50% of the time. The rest are modified beasties or just critters I made up myself.

Ghoste
02-10-2008, 02:00 PM
Actually they're broken in a sense because they're suppose to be immune to disintigrate... Golems have a immunity to magic except where noted for certain weakness' such as fire/cold slowing a flesh-golem down etc... By all rights it should be impossible to disintigrate any golem or marut as a construct is a being created magically, thus thier immunity is grated from that process.

You're right! I didn't think disintigrate allowed for spell resistance, but your post made me check and it does. Flesh golems are in fact supposed to be immune to disintigrate.

ViVid7th
02-10-2008, 08:39 PM
I thought any spell that forced a Fort save on an Object could work on a Golem? Not that disintigrate is one though...

Angelus_dead
02-10-2008, 08:56 PM
I thought any spell that forced a Fort save on an Object could work on a Golem? Not that disintigrate is one though...
a. You're thinking about constructs in general, not golems in particular
b. actually disintegrate is one

ViVid7th
02-10-2008, 09:24 PM
a. You're thinking about constructs in general, not golems in particular
b. actually disintegrate is one

Ah, thank you. Thought the big D was one, but was kinda shaken on that stance due to the SRD post. But yes, I was thinking of Constructs, not Golems, my mistake.

villainsimple
02-11-2008, 12:37 AM
In DDO: Constructs do not have a Constitution Score... Golems included.
In DDO: Disintegrate functions on Constructs... Golems included.

Only the Flesh Golem flaunts either of these rules.

MysticTheurge
02-11-2008, 07:34 AM
In DDO: Constructs do not have a Constitution Score... Golems included.
In DDO: Disintegrate functions on Constructs... Golems included.

Only the Flesh Golem flaunts either of these rules.

There's absolutely no way to know that's true.

Masterwork Flesh Golems may simply have a +10 resistance bonus to all saves (or even just fortitude saves). That would produce higher-than-average saves against disintegrate while still meaning they don't have constitution score.

There's no way to test whether flesh golems have a constitution score or simple a bonus to fortitude saves.

MysticTheurge
02-11-2008, 11:04 AM
now apparently the slow spell...

The slow spell wasn't "bungled." There was a rules interpretation made that most of us disagree with, but it's a case where I can certainly understand how someone would reach the conclusion that was reached.

Which is not to say errors don't happen. Mind fog was a good example of that (though even there, it's an understandable mistake; chances are other "fogs" were copied to make the spell and the school didn't get changed). But getting a spell in the wrong school is pretty different from giving a golem a constitution score (and not one that can happen cause you copied another golem and forgot to change something).

villainsimple
02-11-2008, 11:17 AM
The slow spell wasn't "bungled." There was a rules interpretation made that most of us disagree with, but it's a case where I can certainly understand how someone would reach the conclusion that was reached.

Which is not to say errors don't happen. Mind fog was a good example of that (though even there, it's an understandable mistake; chances are other "fogs" were copied to make the spell and the school didn't get changed). But getting a spell in the wrong school is pretty different from giving a golem a constitution score (and not one that can happen cause you copied another golem and forgot to change something).


Actually, it's REMARKABLY similar to that.

Oh, well this golem is made from living tissue, so obviously he must have a con score.

But again you'll just say we don't KNOW that... but between some guy making the above error or the Flesh Golem getting an unprecedented massive bonus to Fort saves for absolutely no apparently reason... yeah, i'm going to go with the bungle.


As for our comments concerning bungling the slow spell.... It was a Bungle. They simply haven't changed it yet. If they went consistantly with the rules Web would also be a paralysis spell. It's not. The description actually lists slow as being NOT a paralysis effect, simply related to it. Thus giving undead blanket immunity to it when it should not have it.

villainsimple
02-11-2008, 11:20 AM
I have to wonder if my post was deleted for saying "company apologist"... because I cannot fathom any other reason under the sun for my post to be deleted....

EspyLacopa
02-11-2008, 12:05 PM
By all rights it should be impossible to disintigrate any golem or marut as a construct is a being created magically, thus thier immunity is grated from that process.

Slight correction there.

Maruts and other such Inevitables have so such special Magic Immunity like Golems do, for they are not Golems.

All Golems are Constructs
Not all Constructs are Golems

Maruts aren't even mindless like most other constructs. (And if they aren't red-named, can be Banished! Extraplanar Subtype on Inevitables such as the Marut)

villainsimple
02-11-2008, 12:12 PM
Slight correction there.

Maruts and other such Inevitables have so such special Magic Immunity like Golems do, for they are not Golems.

All Golems are Constructs
Not all Constructs are Golems

Maruts aren't even mindless like most other constructs. (And if they aren't red-named, can be Banished! Extraplanar Subtype on Inevitables such as the Marut)

You missed my sarcasm...

The Flesh Golem should have no Con Score...it doesn't have one in the MM... and I can see absolutely no reason for it having one now outside of some guy bungling it. I'm genuinely not impressed with MTs Mysteriously Massive Saves Bonus Theory.

Laith
02-11-2008, 12:22 PM
I'm genuinely not impressed with MTs Mysteriously Massive Saves Bonus Theory.
All we know is that Masterwork Flesh Golems have a higher fort save than most other golems. Now, that could simply be what makes them masterwork, but NO: you've decided that the problem is that they mysteriously have con scores that raise their fort.

I AM genuinely impressed with your ability to stick with your CON theory. In light of having absolutely NO evidence & other theories that are equaly as likely (and equaly provable), you're completely certain that you've discovered the dev mistake and everyone else is wrong!

BTW, it was MrCow that came up with the "Mysteriously Massive Save Bonus Theory" in post #2.

Tolero
02-11-2008, 12:38 PM
Reminder that personal attacks are the fastest way to get your post removed instead of feed backed. Per the forum guidelines:

- No name calling
- No insults
- No personal attacks

Thanks for your cooperation.

Aspenor
02-11-2008, 12:42 PM
You missed my sarcasm...

The Flesh Golem should have no Con Score...it doesn't have one in the MM... and I can see absolutely no reason for it having one now outside of some guy bungling it. I'm genuinely not impressed with MTs Mysteriously Massive Saves Bonus Theory.

I don't see why this should matter, anyway...

The Golems should be completely immune to disintegrate in the first place.

If you want to pick and choose which parts of the rules to implement, I suggest you go here (http://www.cytiva.com/turbin/ext/tpl.asp?) and put in application.

GeneralDiomedes
02-11-2008, 01:06 PM
Since DDO made the gameplay decision to remove spell resistance for all damage spells, this creates a problem for flesh golems as many of their innate immunities have been removed. So what is the solution? Either we have an easy button, a blanket immunity introduced, or a high fort save to make it interesting.

Flesh golems in DDO have no logical immunity to Disintegrate, so rather than giving them an arbitrary immunity, they gave them a arbitrary FORT save bonus. Sounds like a balanced decision to me, especially in light of the REALLY nasty posts they get when an immunity is introduced.

And arbitrary bonuses are already used by the DEVS when scaling from normal to elite (i.e. damage bonus not tied to STR, HP bonus not tied to HD and so on) .. so the precedence is there.

EspyLacopa
02-11-2008, 01:18 PM
I don't see why this should matter, anyway...

The Golems should be completely immune to disintegrate in the first place.

If you want to pick and choose which parts of the rules to implement, I suggest you go here (http://www.cytiva.com/turbin/ext/tpl.asp?) and put in application.
By the same token, the following spells should also work on Golems and currently do not:
Melf's Acid Arrow
Acid Fog
Incendiary CloudIncendiary would be good for Clay and Stone Golems
The Acid ones would be good for Iron, Flesh, and Stone Golems.

These are conjuration spells in PnP that do not check for SR, and as such should not be blocked by a Golem's Magic Immunity ability.

Golems do not have any form of energy resistance. Therefore, they should take normal damage from weapon effects with elemental damage, provided they are not healing or slowing the golem in question. (such as Fire on Iron golems, or Electricity on Flesh golems)

MysticTheurge
02-11-2008, 01:33 PM
As for our comments concerning bungling the slow spell.... It was a Bungle. They simply haven't changed it yet. If they went consistantly with the rules Web would also be a paralysis spell. It's not. The description actually lists slow as being NOT a paralysis effect, simply related to it. Thus giving undead blanket immunity to it when it should not have it.

No. The logical leap from paralysis to web is one that someone made up based on Freedom of Movement. There are gaps in that logic so huge I can't even fathom how anyone can argue it.

As for the description saying slow is not a paralysis effect, I disagree. The description says "related magic, including a ghoul’s touch or a slow spell." Your argument that "related magic" means "not paralysis" is clearly flawed based on the fact that "a ghoul's touch" is apparently "related magic" and yet it is clearly listed in the ghoul's description as "paralysis."

MrCow
02-11-2008, 02:01 PM
BTW, it was MrCow that came up with the "Mysteriously Massive Save Bonus Theory" in post #2.

Yeah, and it is a theory I support because I have a small amount of evidence that Vampire Knight of Vol has the wrong will save (-5 from what it should be) and the right WIS score (found through a mixture of turn undead for HD, intimidation for WIS, 1000+ hits of cursespewing for an average will save).

Based on that it is likely that flesh golems have a higher fortitude save than they should without a CON score.

villainsimple
02-11-2008, 03:59 PM
No. The logical leap from paralysis to web is one that someone made up based on Freedom of Movement. There are gaps in that logic so huge I can't even fathom how anyone can argue it.."

Really now? Freedom of Movement protects against Hold Person... clearly a paralysis effect... it also protects against web. If Remove Paralysis Removes Hold Person... and Freedom of Movement protects against Hold Person... why shouldn't Web be considered a paralysis effect? It certainly has FAR more of a paralyzing effect on a target than Slow does.

As for the description saying slow is not a paralysis effect, I disagree. The description says "related magic, including a ghoul’s touch or a slow spell." Your argument that "related magic" means "not paralysis" is clearly flawed based on the fact that "a ghoul's touch" is apparently "related magic" and yet it is clearly listed in the ghoul's description as "paralysis."[/QUOTE]

And that raises a terribly interesting point. Right in the description of Ghouls' Touch it LABELS IT AS A PARALYSIS EFFECT... it does not do so with Slow. At all.

So now we're working under the assumption that even if it does not refer to it as a paralysis effect... it's still a paralysis effect. In other words, based on your hypothesis... the PHB just "forgot" to mention that slow is a paralysis effect.

jerryxenon
02-11-2008, 04:22 PM
[
QUOTE]Really now? Freedom of Movement protects against Hold Person... clearly a paralysis effect... it also protects against web. If Remove Paralysis Removes Hold Person... and Freedom of Movement protects against Hold Person... why shouldn't Web be considered a paralysis effect? It certainly has FAR more of a paralyzing effect on a target than Slow does.

As for the description saying slow is not a paralysis effect, I disagree. The description says "related magic, including a ghoul’s touch or a slow spell." Your argument that "related magic" means "not paralysis" is clearly flawed based on the fact that "a ghoul's touch" is apparently "related magic" and yet it is clearly listed in the ghoul's description as "paralysis."

]No web is an external effect like grease, Hold is an effect on you same as slow web is an entanglement not a physical effect see the difference.

MysticTheurge
02-11-2008, 10:34 PM
Really now? Freedom of Movement protects against Hold Person... clearly a paralysis effect... it also protects against web. If Remove Paralysis Removes Hold Person... and Freedom of Movement protects against Hold Person... why shouldn't Web be considered a paralysis effect? It certainly has FAR more of a paralyzing effect on a target than Slow does.

Because Freedom of Movement has nothing to do with Paralysis.


And that raises a terribly interesting point. Right in the description of Ghouls' Touch it LABELS IT AS A PARALYSIS EFFECT... it does not do so with Slow. At all.

So now we're working under the assumption that even if it does not refer to it as a paralysis effect... it's still a paralysis effect. In other words, based on your hypothesis... the PHB just "forgot" to mention that slow is a paralysis effect.

No. I'm not trying to argue that slow is a paralysis effect. I believe it's not; I wrote WotC to ask their opinion and they also say it's not; Turbine should fix it.

But I can understand how one can come to the conclusion that the Devs did based on the wording of Remove Paralysis.

Yaga_Nub
02-12-2008, 06:43 AM
Because Freedom of Movement has nothing to do with Paralysis.



No. I'm not trying to argue that slow is a paralysis effect. I believe it's not; I wrote WotC to ask their opinion and they also say it's not; Turbine should fix it.

But I can understand how one can come to the conclusion that the Devs did based on the wording of Remove Paralysis.

I know you saw the post from the devs stating why this is the way it is.


Slow is considered a paralysis effect. I find this a little odd (you're slow because you are a tiny bit paralyzed?), but that is why they are immune to it (and you can get items/effects of immunity to paralysis and become immune too.)


Luckily, Eladrin is still in the office to ask (I implement this stuff, but he makes the decisions as to what is the "right" thing to implement, or at least was around when those decisions got made). He explained that since remove paralysis explicitly removes paralysis "or related magic, including ... a slow spell", that slow is "related" to paralysis, and thus things that make you immune to paralysis should also make you immune to slow.

I'm certainly not going to claim this is obvious or anything -- it's more that we need to draw the line somewhere on all the special cases that abound in the PnP rules, so at some point, if it quacks like a duck, we just start treating it like a duck. So, slow is cured by remove paralysis, and by analogy you are immune to it if you are immune to paralysis, so poof, it's in the "paralysis" bucket, and I start answering questions about it with "yep, it's in the paralysis category".