[citation needed]
|
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
in fact read the above carefully---if you MAKE the first save and fail the second =you are exhausted
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.
you have to look at the scenario or AP and see if it says
a second failure results in another fatigue---in which case no effect
or
if it says a second failure for a character already fatigued results in exhaustion--in which case no effect
or if it says a second failure results in exhaustion--(such as above.) IN the above case, being immune to fatigue will not save you as you are now trying to save against exhaustion (as it is the second day and you are even more tired if you fail)
Im guessing there is a trick question here? He takes 1d6 letal and 1d6 non lethal and falls prone becaus ehe made his chck. how does the book contradict itself?
So your stab at RAW is:
"you may consider a variant rule...."
and a thread where Mick Brock thanks a poster for quoting that excerpt without giving his commentary.
So, failure to start there.
Beyond that you've got rules are a specific situation, missing sleep on consecutive nights, leading to the fatigued condition on a failed save the first night and the exhausted condition on a failed save the second night.
That's as complicated as it gets.
And no one I've seen implies that we assume the character has to be fatigued to be exhausted on the second night.
The normal rules are that gaining a fatigued effect while fatigued leaves you exhausted. So normally, you can't stack fatigues and become exhausted if you're immune to fatigue.
This variant rule is not the normal rule. (hey, surprise there)
In this variant rule, staying awake for two nights in a row requires a save to avoid gaining the exhausted condition. No other qualifiers are mentioned. Previous fatigued status, rolls, saves, etc are irrelevant.
Trying to say that a variant rule about missing sleep for multiple days replaces IN GENERAL how the normal rules say fatigue stacks is not going to fly.
Here is another one
what happens when a character makes a 15+ acrobatic check and jumps down 20 feet?
I bet we all think we know this. But the book contradicts itself
When you deliberately fall any distance, even as a result of a missed jump, a DC 15 Acrobatics skill check allows you to ignore the first 10 feet fallen, although you still end up prone if you take damage from a fall. See Falling Damage for more details.)
If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage.
Depends on the reason behind the check. when voluntarily falling/jumping off something (not into water), you can make a DC 15 check to ignore the first 10 feet, the next would work as normal (doing 1d6 lethal). If you take a second check at DC 15 you can ignore the remaining 10ft, since you apply the Acrobatics rules, then the falling rules (as noted in Acrobatics). 2 DC 15 checks allow you to voluntarily jump down 20ft and take no damage, but are prone.
my statement was---read the AP or scenario and follow what is says
And if it says to consider using a variant rule to assign effects for staying up multiple days, do you take that as instructions for reworking condition stacking in general?
|
|
Falling
Creatures that fall take 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6. Creatures that take LETHAL damage from a fall land in a prone position.
If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumps, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage. And if the character leaps down with a successful Acrobatics check, he takes only 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 1d6 points of lethal damage from the plunge.
Falls onto yielding surfaces (soft ground, mud) also convert the first 1d6 of damage to nonlethal damage. This reduction is cumulative with reduced damage due to deliberate jumps and the Acrobatics skill.
A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall. Casting a spell while falling requires a concentration check with a DC equal to 20 + the spell's level. Casting teleport or a similar spell while falling does not end your momentum, it just changes your location, meaning that you still take falling damage, even if you arrive atop a solid surface.
You're doing the thing where you derail the thread again.
This one was about fatigue, remember?
|
|
my statement was---read the AP or scenario and follow what is saysAnd if it says to consider using a variant rule to assign effects for staying up multiple days, do you take that as instructions for reworking condition stacking in general?
nope I run the scenarios or APs as written. If the AP or scenario says "a second failed check results in exhaustion" that is what it says.
If it says "a second failed check leaves the character fatigued a second time" that is what it says.
read your AP or scenario and do what it says--don't make assumptions
|
|
You're doing the thing where you derail the thread again.
This one was about fatigue, remember?
fine----but tell me where I am wrong. It is black and white. It is written as it is written in a scenario or AP.
you don't get to change the wording of "a second failed check results in exhaustion" to "a second failed check results in fatigue again"
IF it said the second--you would have a point about two fatigues stacking and the character never having been fatigued. BUT that is NOT what is says.
my statement was---read the AP or scenario and follow what is saysAnd if it says to consider using a variant rule to assign effects for staying up multiple days, do you take that as instructions for reworking condition stacking in general?nope I run the scenarios or APs as written. If the AP or scenario says "a second failed check results in exhaustion" that is what it says.
If it says "a second failed check leaves the character fatigued a second time" that is what it says.
read your AP or scenario and do what it says--don't make assumptions
If you simply remember that it says,
"A second night without sleep requires another DC 15 Fortitude save. A failed save results in the character becoming exhausted."
not
"You must make fortitude saves against fatigue regardless of whether you are immune, and if you fail two you become exhausted."
You will encounter no disagreement on that.
|
|
aye but the problem I always encounter is people say "I don't have to roll for fatigue, I am immune"
yes--yes you are---and when you fail the first save--I will do nothing to you. But you have to roll the first one before you can get to the second roll.
I try to explain to them that the second roll is for exhaustion--but all they see is the first save was for fatigue--so they assume it is the fatigue stacking rule.
aye but the problem I always encounter is people say "I don't have to roll for fatigue, I am immune"
yes--yes you are---and when you fail the first save--I will do nothing to you. But you have to roll the first one before you can get to the second roll.
I try to explain to them that the second roll is for exhaustion--but all they see is the first save was for fatigue--so they assume it is the fatigue stacking rule.
See maybe it's just a misunderstanding. It sure sounds like this a conversation you're always having about fatigue, as in you're trying to apply general fatigue rules.
If you actually are talking specifically about variant rule fortitude saves as a consequence of missing sleep, you're certainly correct, but in this post and your OP there's nothing actually saying that, and a broad implication you're dealing with the general case.
|
|
read my OP very carefully.
"Because often the description of the second save is if you fail, you are exhausted. It does not say if you are fatigued and fail you are exhausted."
from the start, I was talking about specifics that are in APs or scenarios.
This is the EXACT thing I have said on every board. That specifics overrule the general rule. It has been everyone else trying to apply the general rule of fatigue not stacking to try to invalidate the AP or scenario which states "exhaustion" on the second failure specifically.
I have not been the one misapplying. On this thread and the other one I have specifically stated that there are APs and scenarios which have different results for a second failed save.
If your GM asks you to make a fort save and the other people get fatigued--and nothing happens to you even if you fail. Then you fail the second save and he says you are exhausted, there JUST might be something in that scenario or AP he is following.
MDT and the others try to argue that this is not the case. OF course MDT argues that sleeping means you are unconscious---so I guess he is at negative 1 hp every time he goes to sleep.
Ah, then you are once again in agreement with everyone.
No one in any of your recent threads has disagreed that when using a variant rule that allows a failed fortitude save after a second consecutive sleepless night to result in exhaustion, that immunity to fatigue should prevent it.
Many have argued that trying to take the variant rules from AP's and scenarios to justify statements like "Due to RAW in APs and scenarios, even though a character is immune to fatigue they still have to make the fort saves." is wrong, since it's a general statement drawing support from AP and scenarios, not noting an exceptional variant rule present in an AP.
|
|
and how is that statement wrong?
I said due to RAW in APs and scenarios. IE while playing those APs and scenarios--that is RAW.
Find me one post where I said---I am taking this AP or scenario rule and transposing it to general play outside the scenario or AP.
Look through those posts carefully---you will see it was the others trying to say that the general rule overruled the specific rule in those APs and scenarios. I have said from the start--I follow what is written in a Scenario or AP.
So you and I agree---the others still have not seen the light.
and how is that statement wrong?
I said due to RAW in APs and scenarios. IE while playing those APs and scenarios--that is RAW.
"Due to" means "because of", not "in the special case of".
So you if you say "due to one thing, another is true" you're saying that one thing is true because of another, not that one thing is only true in the special case of another.
I certainly read you as not limiting your arguments solely to the specific cases of sleep deprivation and solely to certain APs. I doubt other's did. But if I've helped communication at all, I'll call it a win for everyone.
:)
|
|
xeratherus wrote:
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".
You may want to go talk to xeratherus---he is the type who refuses to make the first save---even when the rules specifically call for a second failed save to have a different result.
He still does not accept the fact that he would have to make the first save---because he is immune. SO he reads that as him being immune from the second save because "well he never rolls them" even though the second save was for exhaustion
so what do I do when I have him roll the save and say it is for exhaustion? and then he says---well that says the second failed save?
As a reminder. We are speaking about a specific variant rule for sleep deprivation.
Explain that you're using a special variant rule specifically for sleep deprivation and even though he's immune to fatigue a failed save after a sleepless night still gives -1 to different things.
Explain that it says you have to make a second save after a second sleepless night and if you fail that second save you are exhausted.
|
|
there is a pathfinder scenario with the same wording for altitude. It says specifically that a second failed save results in exhaustion. it does not refer to the core book--just says the same as above--ie If a character fails a second roll they are exhausted.
I would treat that the same way---IE follow what the scenario says.
Which Scenario? I'm curious and want to look it up
But you can't take the rules for a specific encounter to "prove" a general case. You have to look at the general rules which RAW do not support your position.
For the specific encounters, IF you are using the VARIANT rules, then of course run that as written. But a VARIANT rule is by definition a non-standard case. If you run that variant fine, but don't claim that it has any more bearing than it actually does.
If you're using a specific scenario and would like to utilize a variant rule for that scenario, go for it...
However, other readers of this post should be advised of the following, MUCH more official answer:
The character is fatigued.
Source: Official FAQ
Source: Thread that invoked that FAQ response.
Stick a fork in this thread, it's done!
Yep, those immune to fatigue never have to sleep unless they cast spells and need spells back. No amount of sleeplessness ever gets them exhausted. :P
xeratherus wrote:
the scenario reads---after the second failed save or if the party exerts itself, they are exhausted.
Not quite. The scenario as you posted it says after the first night, you make a save or are fatigued, and after a second night, you make a save or are exhausted. That second save is not dependent on the results of your first save. Anyone who goes without sleep for two days under this variant rule must make a fort save on the second night or be exhausted.
That's true with the non-FAQ variant sleep rules. By the FAQ, immunity to fatigue means clear sailing without minuses as far as I can tell.
Either way, I see no way to broaden this into a general ruling 'a character is immune to fatigue they still have to make the fort saves'. It isn't even RAW, it's a variant, option rule and it's a corner case on top of that. As such, the whole OP of "Due to RAW in APs and scenarios" fails right from the start.
Thought I'd pop in here since my name is being misspelled:
Here is the entirety of the text in question:
Use the trial as a means to move events along, but do not become a slave to keeping exact times for everything.
The emphasis should be put on the PCs acting quickly,
requiring them to stretch their abilities and reducing
their chance to fully rest. Adventuring at night and
fatigue from lack of sleep can heighten the atmosphere
of horror. Familiarize yourself with the rules on light
(Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 172–173) and 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.
The entirety of the passage is written in the context of fatigue penalties and using them to heighten the challenge of the situation. I emphasized a few points that make that explicitly clear.
It even directs you back to the rules for fatigue and exhaustion, before then emphasizing a variant rule which was not overriding the general rules for fatigue and exhaustion but introducing a rule that never existed before the path was printed: That if you stay up all night, you suffer fatigue.
Taken in context, it seems pretty obvious to me that the variant rule (which was later adopted as a general rule) implies that you're becoming exhausted through stacking fatigue, not that staying up two nights in a row automatically makes you exhausted if you fail the second save. If that were meant to be the interpretation, that would have been included in the FAQ; it wasn't, so it's not what was implied.
Taken in context, it seems pretty obvious to me that the variant rule (which was later adopted as a general rule) implies that you're becoming exhausted through stacking fatigue, not that staying up two nights in a row automatically makes you exhausted if you fail the second save. If that were meant to be the interpretation, that would have been...
The variant rule is not the FAQ'd rule. The rule in the FAQ doesn't give penalties to other rolls on top of the fatigues condition, it doesn't allow a save to prevent fatigue, and doesn't base the condition on the number of nights without sleep.
The rule adopted in the FAQ would require fatigue stacking to reach exhaustion.
This variant rule triggers a set condition after one night of sleeplessness and a different set condition after a second night of sleeplessness with no requirement that you are suffering from the first to trigger the second.
The variant rule is what the FAQ'd rule is based on, however loosely. That's been the basis of one of Karal's arguments, in pointing out that Mike Brock 'confirmed' it (although I still don't really see his statement as 'confirmation').
I still say that taking the context of the passage as a whole shows an intent that the saves are meant to be based on fatigue. But it's really irrelevant, since it's a variant rule and the FAQ rule is clear - it appears that at fifth level, a lame Oracle can stay up indefinitely without worrying about fatigue (but he'll suffer other problems, like not refreshing spells and naturally healing ability drain).