destroyed is achieved by taking something broken and doing more damage to it---UNLESS you can destroy it in one hit. If the sword can not achieve the broken condition---it can never be taken down to half hit points..
There are two points at which the amount of damage taken by a sword becomes relevant: when it takes damage in excess of half its hitpoints, and when it is reduced to zero hitpoints.
When it takes damage in excess of half its total hitpoints, it would normally gain the broken condition. The ability prevents this.
When it takes damage equal to or greater than its total hitpoints, it is destroyed. Nothing in the ability prevents this.
This is unlike the fatigued stacking to form exhausted, because destroyed is not achieved by stacking broken conditions
There is no rules support for this statement.
That is not how destroying objects work.
Destroyed is achieved by dealing damage to an object equal to or greater than it's hitpoints.
It has nothing to do with if it has the broken condition.
If there was a rule that said only objects with the broken condition could be destroyed, then yes, items immune to the broken condition could not be destroyed.
Objects that take damage equal to or greater than half their total hit points gain the broken condition (see Conditions). When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined.
...
Damaged Objects: A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.
http://paizo.com/prd/additionalRules.html
You will note that there is no requirement to be broken before being destroyed. Being broken is a condition that normally applies when the item has taken damage in excess of half it's hitpoints. It is not the state of having damage in excess of half hitpoints. Difference.
NOTE: the blades ability does nothing to prevent it taking damage in excess of half it's hitpoints. The only thing it says it does is prevent it from gaining the broken condition when that happens.
In order for your interpretation to be correct, you need to show something that says objects must be broken before being destroyed, rather than simply taking enough damage. OR, show something that says a black blade can't take damage.
But neither of those exist in the rules.
But neither of those exist in the rules.
Honestly, this has been explained to him repeatedly, and he keeps pulling up the same debunked argument about Fatigued -> Exhausted. I'm not sure if he's just trolling at this point, or has decided to ignore all logic that doesn't agree with what he's decided.
Either way, he's obviously not going to listen to anyone, so I've given up explaining the rules to him. If someone else comes up with the same idea, I might try to convince them, but at this point, I think trying to convince Karal is an exercise in futility.
that is like saying a lame oracle is immune to fatigue. so she goes on top of a cold mountain . party all fails con checks and are fatigued except the oracle (who is immune) 2nd roll comes up and all are exhausted now when they fail-(including the oracle because she is not immune to exhaustion).
No, that is not accurate.
If you are immune to fatigue, you are immune to it, period. You cannot ever become exhausted through being fatigued and then being fatigued a second time. The only way you can become exhausted is if an effect makes you directly exhausted.
Think of it like a math equation. Normally
Now, let's say you're immune to Fatigued; that means Fatigued can never be inserted into your equation. What would your equation look like?
That doesn't work. Nothing plus Nothing doesn't equal Exhausted. What does equal Exhausted? Well, by reciprocity Exhausted must equal itself:
Now, are you immune to Exhausted? No? Then the equation looks the same - meaning that Exhausted makes you Exhausted. Fatigued isn't involved in that case, so the equation is valid.
If the same condition stacks on itself to make a second condition, and you're immune to the first condition, then it cannot stack on itself, and therefore it will never reach the second condition. Howerver, if the second condition is applied directly, then the fact that you're immune to the first condition is completely and totally irrelevant; you're not immune to the second, and it takes effect.
I don't really see a necessity to FAQ this; a black blade is immune from the Broken condition, but not from damage, or from being destroyed, meaning that while the blade may never suffer penalties from the Broken condition, the moment that it reaches 0 hit points it's destroyed. It's really that simple.
Xaratherus and mdt have the truth of it. I find their examples to be quite illustrative as well, particularly the diehard comparison.
+1 mdt, Xaratherus - as much as I'd love to have an indestructible black blade, their descriptions are how it should be for the Unbreakable power.
+1 mdt, Xaratherus - as much as I'd love to have an indestructible black blade, their descriptions are how it should be for the Unbreakable power.
Xaratherus and mdt have the truth of it. I find their examples to be quite illustrative as well, particularly the diehard comparison.
Going to throw my opinion in with the lot of people saying that "Unbreakable does exactly what it says it does."
If it were my game, I'd rule that the thing can't be broken/destroyed... because that's what makes sense.
And I'll tell you why: I once ended up in an argument with someone over whether being subject to the sleep spell caused his barbarian to fall out of rage. His argument: "Sleep" does not give you the "unconscious" condition. Barbarians fall out of rage if they become "unconscious." Since being asleep is not the same as being unconscious, he should wake up still raging.
...so yeah, I try to go with common sense instead of legal-style loopholes.
Since being asleep is not the same as being unconscious, he should wake up still raging.
lol... he must be having some angry dreams.
Question though. He's still using his rage rounds while asleep though, right?
@princeimrahil: Not to belabor a point, but you say you would do it because it 'makes sense'. I disagree. What 'makes sense' to me is that the ability grants a pretty clear benefit - immunity to the 'broken' condition, which is a specific condition. What you're granting it is complete immunity to damage and to being destroyed.
To throw out another example: There's an optional rule in the game for 'massive damage' - essentially, if a single attack deals 50% or more of your total health, you have to roll a Fort save or you immediately die. Constructs are immune to 'massive damage'. That doesn't mean they can't be killed, or that they're immune to a blow that does 50% or more damage - it just means that they can't be killed in that particular fashion. To equate your argument to this new case, you'd be granting the construct immunity from blows that deal 50% or more damage, and potentially even immortality, simply because they're immune to a particular condition that might otherwise impair them.
|
damage on blade
condition means broken ie it has half damage
"effects" of condition means that it does not suffer the effects
immune to fatique for lame oracles
condition means you are fatigued
"effects" of condition
you can be fatigued or broken but not suffer the effects
You all want to argue the black blade can be taken down in hps--it taken down to half it's hps but just doesn't suffer the effects.
it went from hardness 10 and 20 hps --took 20 hps damage and now has hardness 10 and 10 hps.
it has the broken condition now----which it should be immune to---ie you cant do that.
If you say--well we can do that it just doesn't suffer the effects-----well then my argument with the oracle is valid
the oracle does get fatigued----she just doesn't suffer the effects.
you have to choose.
does it protect from the effects or the condition?
if it protects from the condition--then the oracle doesn't become fatigues and cant progress to exhausted BUT the blade doesn't become broken (ie cant have half its hps taken away) and therefore can't be destroyed by combining hits (it would have to be done in one hit)
if it protects from the "effects" then the blade took the damage but just doesn't suffer the effects and still adds damage to get destroyed BUT the oracle then also is fatigued but just doesn't suffer the effects (although still counts as one step closer to exhausted)
.
|
|
take the oracle up in the mountains
the whole party fails their thin air check
whole party is fatiqued except the oracle. The oracle is still suffering from thin air and cold like everyone else (just like the weapons still takes damage) However the oracle is able to ignore this fatigue condition through stamina or whatever just like the black blade ignores effects.
now the party exerts itself in a fight and becomes exhausted. the oracle while able to ignore the fatigue now has failed twice and would be exhausted. Just like the black blade accumulated enough to be destroyed.
Repeating the same tired, and already debunked, arguments over and over do not win a debate. You sound like a broken record Karal. Everything you just posted has already been debunked by multiple posters, and you keep repeating it as if somehow, by pure repetition, it will make it true.
You can repeat over and over again "I AM KING OF THE WORLD!" until you die of old age. It doesn't alter reality. If you want to be king of the world, you need to find some evidence to back up your claim. So far, you haven't.
Rubber and glue huh? I'm afraid school yard debating tactics aren't very effective at making you 'King of the World' either.
Care to try finding some rules quotes? We've all quoted rules. You've quoted your feeling of how it should work. Take your time, I'm in no hurry.
Mithralaxe, a creature immune to tripping is not necessarily immune to the prone condition. There ARE spells and abilities in the game that make people prone without tripping.
Mithralaxe, a creature immune to tripping is not necessarily immune to the prone condition. There ARE spells and abilities in the game that make people prone without tripping.
Very good one RD. I think that's the first time I've seen the trip argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly this thread is beginning to sound like this...
A: The sky is blue.
B: The sky is red!
C: No, it's blue. Blue is between Green and Indigo, and the sky is in between those shades.
B: IT IS RED! IT IS RED BECAUSE IF IT ISN'T RED, THEN THERE CANNOT BE A SUNRISE!
D: No, the sun is yellow, and it can turn the sky red, but that is due to refraction of the light as it passes through the atmosphere at an angle. Only the long wavelength red light can pass through it that far.
B: IT IS RED! OTHERWISE THERE CANNOT BE A SUNRISE!
E: I've just scanned the sky, everywhere I scanned with my scanner, the Hue was between 219 and 240, the Saturation was between 64 and 100, and the Lightness was between 27 and 50. That's blue.
B: IT IS RED! OTHERWISE THERE CANNOT BE A SUNRISE! ARE YOU CLAIMING THERE ARE NO SUNRISES! HAH! YOU ARE WRONG!
|
|
I have seen zero rules from you that would say an oracle in high altitude would not still be subject to the thin air. She still rolls the con check--and can fail.
does she ignore the fatigued "condition" and not suffer the effects?--yes
but she still has the same lack of oxygen and upon a "second failed check--when players are considered exhausted due to exhertion" ==she would also be exhausted.
she just got to skip the fatigued part
Yes, a blackblade can be sundered. It's clear that it can be destroyed from its description (telling you what to do to get it back.) Nowhere does it say that it is immune to damage, just the broken condition while it has at least one point in its arcane pool.
"If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions)."
Ignore this because it is immune.
"If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition."
Really, that's what the rules say. Not any confusion that I can see. Nowhere does Sunder say that the item needs to have the broken condition before it is destroyed.
The side argument about the Oracle is just --- wow.
1. Make a check for fatigue. "I'm immune." The rest of the party fails and is fatigued.
2. Make another check for fatigue. "I'm immune." The rest of the party fails again. Since they were already fatigued they become exhausted.
Fatigue is not like hitpoints. You either are or you aren't.
If an effect takes you straight to exhaustion then you aren't immune to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the scenario reads---after the second failed save or if the party exerts itself, they are exhausted.
Since "immunity to fatigue" would mean you don't make the save in the first place, please explain how you make a "second failed save".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the scenario reads---after the second failed save or if the party exerts itself, they are exhausted.
But the rules don't say that anywhere that I see.
They say that you make the check and if you fail you are fatigued. Nowhere in the description of altitude does it mention exhaustion at all.
So no direct line from fine -> exhausted.
So the only way that it takes you to exhausted is by going through fatigued.
After the first check the Oracle is still fine. There is no pseudo/phantom/fatigued condition. On each and every check they are checking to see if they will become fatigued. As they are immune they never will.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other's have already answered that, but since you're so stubborn that everyone must point the same thing out to you, here's the rules.
Low Peak or High Pass (5,000 to 15,000 feet): Ascending to the highest slopes of low mountains, or most normal travel through high mountains, falls into this category. All non-acclimated creatures labor to breathe in the thin air at this altitude. Characters must succeed on a Fortitude save each hour (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or be fatigued. The fatigue ends when the character descends to an altitude with more air. Acclimated characters do not have to attempt the Fortitude save.
High Peak (more than 15,000 feet): The highest mountains exceed 15,000 feet in height. At these elevations, creatures are subject to both high altitude fatigue (as described above) and altitude sickness, whether or not they're acclimated to high altitudes. Altitude sickness represents long-term oxygen deprivation, and affects mental and physical ability scores. After each 6-hour period a character spends at an altitude of over 15,000 feet, he must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or take 1 point of damage to all ability scores. Creatures acclimated to high altitude receive a +4 competence bonus on their saving throws to resist high altitude effects and altitude sickness, but eventually even seasoned mountaineers must abandon these dangerous elevations.
Note the two bolded parts, we'll be coming back to them shortly.
Conditions
If more than one condition affects a character, apply them all. If effects can't combine, apply the most severe effect.Exhausted: An exhausted character moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –6 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. After 1 hour of complete rest, an exhausted character becomes fatigued. A fatigued character becomes exhausted by doing something else that would normally cause fatigue.
Fatigued: A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued.
Ok, now. When traveling inbetween 5,000 and 15,000 feet, every person must, each hour, make a fortitude save or gain the Fatigued condition. The Oracle in question is immune to this condition, so they make their save, and even if they fail, they do not gain the condition. Yes? So, remember this.
Exhausted doesn't say you must go through fatigued to be exhausted. It says Exhausted is a condition. It says that if you are already fatigued, you become exhausted if you do something that would normally cause fatigue (in other words, give you the fatigued condition again).
The oracle never gains the fatigued condition, any 'ghost' condition you want to postulate is bogus and a strawman on your part.
You want to claim that if Hit Points (which are a defined resource that all things have) must be kept track of, then ghost conditions must as well. You are wrong, it is made up, it is not in the rules. The rules are VERY clear. The only way Fatigued becomes Exhausted is if you have already done something that gives you the Fatigued condition, and you do a second thing to give you the same condition. However, that is NOT saying that it is the ONLY way to gain the Exhausted condition. it is not.
See the second bolded part in the altitude zone I bolded? The Oracle would still take attribute damage even though they were immune to fatigue, because attributes are a completely and totally separate defined resource from conditions. Just as Hit Points are completely and totally separate from the conditions.
Now, let's look at the conditions we're talking about.
Broken: Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item.
So, the blade ignores this condition, and the effects of that condition.
Let's look at what the rules say about an item being smashed. Note that destroyed/ruined/etc is not a condtion anymore than being dead is a condition. It is just what it is, ruined/destroyed or dead.
Hit Points: An object's hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points). Objects that take damage equal to or greater than half their total hit points gain the broken condition (see Conditions). When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined.
See the bolded part? When the HP reach 1/2 or less, it gains the broken condition. Note it doesn't say 'it must be broken to be ruined'. It just says that when the HP reach 0, it is ruined. Nowhere in the ability does it say the blade doesn't take damage, it just says 'it ignores the broken condition'. So, it ignores that condition, but it doesn't say it ignores the rules of the game printed in the CRB about what happens if it's HP reaches 0.
It's really very simple.
Oracle hour 1 : Fails fortitude save in mountains. Already fatigued? No. Skip Exhaustion and apply Fatigue Condition. Fatigue Condition cannot be applied, Oracle is immune.
Oracle hour 2 : Fails fortitude save in mountains. Already fatigued? No. Skip Exhaustion and apply Fatigue Condition. Fatigue Condition cannot be applied, Oracle is immune.
Oracle hour 3 : Fails fortitude save in mountains. Already fatigued? No. Skip Exhaustion and apply Fatigue Condition. Fatigue Condition cannot be applied, Oracle is immune.
Oracle hour 1000 : Fails fortitude save in mountains. Already fatigued? No. Skip Exhaustion and apply Fatigue Condition. Fatigue Condition cannot be applied, Oracle is immune.
Black Blade has 10 hps.
Blade takes 1 hp (1 total). Is HP <= 1/2? No. Do not apply Broken Condition. Is HP = 0? No. Blade not ruined.
Blade takes 4 more hp (5 total). Is HP <= 1/2? Yes. Apply Broken Condition. Cannot apply broken condition, Blade currently immune. Do not apply Broken Condition. Is HP = 0? No. Blade not ruined.
Blade takes 3 more hp (8 total). Is HP <= 1/2? Yes. Apply Broken Condition. Cannot apply broken condition, Blade currently immune. Do not apply Broken Condition. Is HP = 0? No. Blade not ruined.
Blade takes 2 more hp (10 total). Is HP <= 1/2? Yes. Apply Broken Condition. Cannot apply broken condition, Blade currently immune. Do not apply Broken Condition. Is HP = 0? Yes. Blade is ruined, must be reforged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1000 to mdt That is exactly what I was trying to say.
|
I do not like it, but I think mdt has the right of it. The enemy of the magus may attempt to damage the black blade; a successful sunder attempt can damage the blade.
An item does not need to be broken before it is destroyed. An ordinary sword has hardness 10 and 5 hit points. If it is hit for 16 points of damage, it would be destroyed without ever having had the broken condition.
I reluctantly conclude that immunity to the broken condition does not confer immunity to being destroyed.
I think the question arises here only because of the use of the word "unbreakable" in the description of the ability. Normally "unbreakable" is considered a synonym for "indestructible". I do not think that was the intent here.
A +1 black blade has hardness 12 and 15 hit points (please correct me if I am wrong). So if a sunder inflicted 20 points of damage, the blade would suffer 8 points of damage. If the black blade has no points in its arcane pool, it gains the broken condition and is unconscious and powerless*. If the black blade does have a point in its arcane pool, it has still taken the damage, but does not gain the broken condition and functions normally. If the blade absorbs a second hit for 20 points, it is destroyed and must be reforged.
EDIT: Corrected typo
*Here is another possible rules question. Does a broken black blade even function as a +1 weapon?
Sagotel,
Perhaps that is what I am hung up on. The name of the ability. "Unbreakable" = Can be sundered.....that's just awful.
That's like having a sailing vessel that has the "Unsinkable" quality but is affected by the "scuttled" condition.
Anywho...
I see valid arguments from others and would probably concede the fact if it was their home game. Personally, I don't believe I would do that to my crew, but I respect everyone enough to not argue the point further.
I'm FAQ'ing as I can see an argument being made that the Black Blade can't be reduced below 50% hitpoints if it retains at least 1 Arcane Point based on the text.
That said, I think it likely that the intent of the wording is that it is damaged normally, but ignores any penalties until reduced to 0 hp and is destroyed.
-TimD
|
|
I'm FAQ'ing as I can see an argument being made that the Black Blade can't be reduced below 50% hitpoints if it retains at least 1 Arcane Point based on the text.
That said, I think it likely that the intent of the wording is that it is damaged normally, but ignores any penalties until reduced to 0 hp and is destroyed.
-TimD
Excellent point (no pun intended)!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MDT is correct. Any counter argument is like saying immunity to the dying condition stops you from gaining the death condition. It is very possible to go from completely healthy to dead and bypass dying.
|
|
Sagotel,
Perhaps that is what I am hung up on. The name of the ability. "Unbreakable" = Can be sundered.....that's just awful.
That's like having a sailing vessel that has the "Unsinkable" quality but is affected by the "scuttled" condition.
Anywho...
I see valid arguments from others and would probably concede the fact if it was their home game. Personally, I don't believe I would do that to my crew, but I respect everyone enough to not argue the point further.
I agree. Either "Unbreakable" is a terrible name for the ability, or I am completely misinterpreting the meaning. I hope the latter. I would very much like to have an indestructible weapon.
Just to point out, the dictionary definition of "unbreakable" does not equate to "immune to being destroyed". Specifically, it's "incapable of being broken, especially during normal use".
If you have a plate that claims to be unbreakable and you put it into a blast furnace, do you think it would be destroyed?
Arguably, from game terms, putting your black blade into a position where it can be sundered repeatedly until reduced to 0 HP wouldn't be "during normal use" (or at least I try not to give foes the chance to break my weapons over and over again during battle), so even by the real definition of the word, you could still destroy a black blade.
|
|
the scenario reads---after the second failed save or if the party exerts itself, they are exhausted.Since "immunity to fatigue" would mean you don't make the save in the first place, please explain how you make a "second failed save".
In AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:
AP 43, page 17 wrote:
[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.
from mike brock himself here
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p3xy?Pathfinder-Has-No-Rules-For-Getting
there is no rule stating----a second failed save (WHERE THE CHARACTER IS FATIGUED) results in exhaustion
no where does it mention the character had to have the fatiqued condition when he failed the second save. We all ASSUME it is implied--but by RAW it is not there.
Just to point out, the dictionary definition of "unbreakable" does not equate to "immune to being destroyed". Specifically, it's "incapable of being broken, especially during normal use".
If you have a plate that claims to be unbreakable and you put it into a blast furnace, do you think it would be destroyed?
Arguably, from game terms, putting your black blade into a position where it can be sundered repeatedly until reduced to 0 HP wouldn't be "during normal use" (or at least I try not to give foes the chance to break my weapons over and over again during battle), so even by the real definition of the word, you could still destroy a black blade.
Yes, that makes sense.
I did look at the definition of sunder during our lengthy dialogue; however, and the dictionary defines sunder as "to break or cause to break apart into pieces", which certainly didn't help me see your point of view considering the blade's ability is called "Unbreakable".
@Karal Mithrilaxe: You mean this rule right here?
A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued.
Yeah, no, it definitely does exist.
The thread you linked is about a very specific situation, and what Mike implies there (in his one post, which is really just mentioning why he moved it from the PFS forums to the Pathfinder forums) is that there's no rule for becoming fatigued when performing a mentally-taxing action for an extended period of time.
[edit]
Here is Mike's only post in that thread:
It needs to be addressed in the PFRPG overall, not just PFS. It is why it was moved here so it could be flagged for a design team member's input.
|
|
and then mike addressed that rule from the AP. That is why you must still make the con rolls even though you are immune to fatigue.
if the scenario or AP says. you fail your first roll and you are fatigued-----when you fail your second roll you are fatigued again---THEN you can say "I wasn't fatigued so it does not come into play)
but if the scenario or AP says You fail your first roll and you are fatigued, when you fail again you are exhausted------THEN the exhausted comes into play even if you were never fatigued. It does not say "If you fail your second roll (and you were fatigued) you are now exhausted.
so even if you are immune to fatigue--you have to make the con checks because the wording by RAW could make you exhausted after the second failure even if you were never fatigued
|
|
[edit]
Here is Mike's only post in that thread:It needs to be addressed in the PFRPG overall, not just PFS. It is why it was moved here so it could be flagged for a design team member's input.
survey says BZZZZZZZT
Darklord Morius wrote:
Mike Brock wrote
In AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:
AP 43, page 17 wrote:
[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for pointing that out Darklord. I thought I had seen that somewhere and was checking the APG and Gamemaster Guide with no luck.
and then mike addressed that rule from the AP. That is why you must still make the con rolls even though you are immune to fatigue.
if the scenario or AP says. you fail your first roll and you are fatigued-----when you fail your second roll you are fatigued again---THEN you can say "I wasn't fatigued so it does not come into play)
but if the scenario or AP says You fail your first roll and you are fatigued, when you fail again you are exhausted------THEN the exhausted comes into play even if you were never fatigued. It does not say "If you fail your second roll (and you were fatigued) you are not exhausted.
so even if you are immune to fatigue--you have to make the con checks because the wording by RAW could make you exhausted after the second failure even if you were never fatigued
Karal, I just went back through the thread. I admit I missed a post the first time. It still doesn't say what you're claiming.
Here is the other post Mike made (the first time I searched for Mike; his forum name is actually Michael):
Thanks for pointing that out Darklord. I thought I had seen that somewhere and was checking the APG and Gamemaster Guide with no luck.
In AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:AP 43, page 17 wrote:
[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.
Hope that helps.
I have no problem admitting when I make a mistake, but I see no other posts. Since you're seeing it, could you please link directly to it?
|
|
so don't assume just because you are immune to fatigue that you don't have to still roll those con checks---failing the second one can send you to exhausted even if you were never fatigued
heck in the above case--if you MAKE the first one in that AP and fail the second you are STILL exhausted by RAW.
[edit]
Here is Mike's only post in that thread:It needs to be addressed in the PFRPG overall, not just PFS. It is why it was moved here so it could be flagged for a design team member's input.survey says BZZZZZZZT
Darklord Morius wrote:
Mike Brock wroteIn AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:
AP 43, page 17 wrote:
[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.
Hope that helps.Thanks for pointing that out Darklord. I thought I had seen that somewhere and was checking the APG and Gamemaster Guide with no luck.
k, if we're going to be snotty:
Survey SAYS Bzzzzt!
That doesn't confirm what you're implying. It's Mike responding to someone else quoting the exact rules you just quoted. Which, as I pointed out above, combined with the other rules for fatigue and such, don't say what you're claiming they say.
And that still doesn't address the fact that the thread is addressing something incredibly different from what you're claiming - it's talking about a lack of fatigue rules for taking extended mental actions.
so don't assume just because you are immune to fatigue that you don't have to still roll those con checks---failing the second one can send you to exhausted even if you were never fatigued
heck in the above case--if you MAKE the first one in that AP and fail the second you are STILL exhausted by RAW.
Actually I will assume it, because what you're quoting and what you're claiming they say, in context with how the other rules - fatigue, immunity, etc. function - is not accurate.
I already told you exactly what those rules say and mean, and others have already pointed out the inaccuracies of your analogies. At this point, I'm done; you're correct when you say you're welcome to run it however you so choose at your table - and that's about the only thing you've been right about so far.
|
|
and then mike addressed that rule from the AP. That is why you must still make the con rolls even though you are immune to fatigue.
if the scenario or AP says. you fail your first roll and you are fatigued-----when you fail your second roll you are fatigued again---THEN you can say "I wasn't fatigued so it does not come into play)
but if the scenario or AP says You fail your first roll and you are fatigued, when you fail again you are exhausted------THEN the exhausted comes into play even if you were never fatigued. It does not say "If you fail your second roll (and you were fatigued) you are not exhausted.
so even if you are immune to fatigue--you have to make the con checks because the wording by RAW could make you exhausted after the second failure even if you were never fatigued
Karal, I just went back through the thread. I admit I missed a post the first time. It still doesn't say what you're claiming.
Here is the other post Mike made (the first time I searched for Mike; his forum name is actually Michael):
I have no problem...Thanks for pointing that out Darklord. I thought I had seen that somewhere and was checking the APG and Gamemaster Guide with no luck.
In AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:AP 43, page 17 wrote:
[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.
Hope that helps.
if you read Michaels post--he was looking for the rule--then thanks darklord for finding it. The rule points out that even being immune to fatigue does not protect you from making those fort saves. You CAN go from fine to exhaustion.
you miss the first one-you WOULD be fatigued but since you are immune you are not. But when you miss the second one-you are exhausted. It does not matter that you were not fatigued. It does not say 'if you miss the second save (AND ARE FATIGUED) then you are exhausted.
heck according to RAW you could MAKE the first save and by missing the second still be exhausted.
That is my point-----don't ever claim---I don't have to roll because I am immune to fatigue. By RAW that may not matter, you could go from fine to exhausted while the rest of the party went through fatigue first.
|
|
In AP 44, page 17 have some guidelines about sleep fatigue:
AP 43, page 17 wrote:
[...]fatigue and exhaustion (Core Rulebook 567). You might also consider
using a variant rule where characters who do not get a
full night’s sleep may suffer the effects of fatigue. If a
PC does not get at least 6 hours of sleep, she must make a
DC 15 Fortitude save or be fatigued and take a –1 penalty
on all other checks and saving throws against sleep
effects. A second night without sleep requires another
DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character
becoming exhausted and the penalties increasing to –2. A
third failed save on the next night increases the penalties
to –3.
Hope that helps.
assume all you want---by RAW nowhere in there does it say fatigue immunity protect you from becoming exhausted. You wanted rules and RAW--there it is. now you prove otherwise or you are the one houseruling it.
people are too quick to assume that because they have immunity to fatigue and a fort save is required with the effect of fatigue they don't have to roll it. WRONG. by RAW the second fail may cause exhaustion even if you never were fatigued.
We've gone quite a ways off the original topic here in an attempt to make things clearer...
Karal - It seems clear you're mind is set on your own point of view. While I completely disagree with it, I see no point in arguing it further.
Everyone Else - There's really no reason to keep arguing this point with him. Either hit FAQ if you think it's worth hearing something official on, or hide this thread and move on. There's no point in further discussion.
We've gone quite a ways off the original topic here in an attempt to make things clearer...
It serves as a good object lesson in the limitations of argument by analogy.
It has it's purposes, especially when trying to postulate whether the broader effects of a rule are reasonable. (which, now that I think about it, is probably a diferent thing)
But when all functional elements of a rules question are already clearly quotable, trying to argue that it works a certain way because a certain other similar thing works that way means that now you're having to argue the other topic is similar enough to be meaningful and that the other thing works the way you say, anwyay.
Whereas you could just argue the rules of the actual issue.
So is Karal disproving his own position on the black blade with his fatigued corner case? Yes, yes I believe he is. So we all agree now that the black blade can be sundered?
@princeimrahil: Not to belabor a point, but you say you would do it because it 'makes sense'. I disagree. What 'makes sense' to me is that the ability grants a pretty clear benefit - immunity to the 'broken' condition, which is a specific condition.
Obviously you think it "makes sense" - everyone thinks their own opinion makes sense, which is why we have arguments. I was using the phrase "makes sense" (as many, indeed, probably *most* people would) to mean "logically follows a consistent pattern." It "makes sense" that if something cannot be broken, it cannot be destroyed. I understand your specific position, but you're talking about a kind of "sense" based on legalese and focusing on the strict definitions of conditions as laid out in the RAW. I'm talking about a "sense" based in verisimilitude.
I'm curious, though: what do you think about the argument that I presented above about rage/unconsciousness/sleep? Do you think that a barbarian should not fall out of rage while he's asleep? I ask because the specific style of argument (x rule is contingent upon y condition, and z effect does not specifically spell out y condition, merely something related to it) seems very similar to the one you're making here.
What you're granting it is complete immunity to damage and to being destroyed.
At the cost of keeping a point in reserve - which is anything but game-breaking or earth-shattering. Do your games see that much sundering of the PCs magical weapons - especially those PCs whose entire class revolves around that weapon? Again, it "makes sense" that a class that relies on its weapon for all of its cool abilities and flavor would have an ability that keeps that weapon from going kablooey - though at a small, but not insignificant cost. This does not, however, prevent the Magus from being disarmed, or having his weapon stolen, etc. It's hardly a catch-all protection.
To throw out another example: There's an optional rule in the game for 'massive damage' - essentially, if a single attack deals 50% or more of your total health, you have to roll a Fort save or you immediately die. Constructs are immune to 'massive damage'. That doesn't mean they can't be killed, or that they're immune to a blow that does 50% or more damage - it just means that they can't be killed in that particular fashion. To equate your argument to this new case, you'd be granting the construct immunity from blows that deal 50% or more damage, and potentially even immortality, simply because they're immune to a particular condition that might otherwise impair them.
1) It's optional because it might not be to everyone's tastes - presumably for some of the reasons you outline above.
2) No one would look at a construct and say, "Because they cannot be harmed by a special effect that only harms non-constructs SOME of the time, they are clearly immune to all harmful effects." Someone might very reasonably conclude, however, that an ability called "Unbreakable" which keeps a weapon (that is essential to the functioning of the class in question) from being broken also keeps it from being destroyed.3) Strictly speaking, constructs CAN'T be killed. They are not alive to begin with, and they are immune to death effects and other conditions which harm living creatures.
4) The comparison is poor, inasmuch as the weapon is an object, but a construct is a creature. The idea that a creature simply cannot be slain is completely alien to the entire concept of the game (and in fact, defeats the purpose of giving a creature hit points in the first place). Even the tarrasque, the infamously "unkillable creature" isn't actually unkillable - it merely comes back after it's been killed, without fail. The idea that there are objects that cannot be broken, however, fully fits within the genres and conventions of the game.
5) The comparison is poor, because constructs are ALWAYS immune to massive damage, at all times, without any cost. Blackblades are only protected so long as they keep one point in their arcane pool. Similarly, a wizard with the Shield spell active is immune to magic missiles... but only as long as the spell is active. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a weapon that is integral to a class could be protected through one of that class's abilities, especially if that ability requires the use of a precious, limited resource that fuels all of the other class abilities.
Of course, the construct comparison is just a side issue, and it's probably not worthwhile to belabor the point there. Instead, I will merely note that, if I ever play with you as a GM, I will never cast sleep on any raging barbarians, since they will probably still wake up furious and resume pounding on my PC.