The topic "Cssh mgic springhill" is not clear and does not make sense. It appears to be a jumbled phrase with misspelled words. Without proper context or clarification, it is difficult to provide any meaningful information. If you can provide more details or correct the phrase, I will be happy to assist further..
Please don't spell it rouge. It's Rogue.
My kobold poison trap alchemist wants to use a blowgun, and I m trying to find any way possible I can to make it, at the least, semi-scale with everyone else. D D has subscribed to a reality where people are like ships and you have to keep smashing away at them repeatedly before they sink to the floor dying.
.
Thread: Golem Antimagic versus "magical" weapons and runes
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
Thematically speaking, I don't want to rely on bombs or swap to bows/crossbows as my method of personal poison delivery, so I want to try and exhaust everything I can with bowguns. As of now all I can think of is Rogue Dedication w/sneak attack for an extra +1d6, but that doesn't seem to scale with the dedication.
.
Reviews for "The Art of CSS Animations in Springhill"
1. Jane - 1 star - I had a terrible experience at Cssh mgic springhill. First of all, the customer service was awful. The staff was rude and unhelpful. Secondly, the food was subpar. The dishes lacked flavor and were poorly cooked. Lastly, the place was dirty and unkempt. The tables were sticky and the floors looked like they hadn't been cleaned in ages. I was very disappointed with my visit and I will definitely not be returning.
2. John - 2 stars - I can't say I had a good time at Cssh mgic springhill. The atmosphere was very loud and chaotic. It was hard to have a conversation without shouting across the table. The prices were also quite high for the quality of the food. The menu options were limited and the portion sizes were small. Overall, it was just not a pleasant dining experience and I wouldn't recommend it to others.
3. Sarah - 2 stars - I found Cssh mgic springhill to be very overrated. The hype surrounding it did not live up to my expectations. The food was average at best and the prices were not justified. The wait times were also excessive, even with a reservation. The overall ambiance of the restaurant was lackluster and it did not have a welcoming feel. Overall, I was disappointed with my visit and I don't understand why it gets so much praise.