| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it doesn't say it does cold damage it isn't cold damage and resit and protect don't applyAt some point, I think it's necessary to apply reasonable assumptions to the game to prevent it from breaking. If the damage wasn't due to cold, then every cold-resistant creature that lived in the arctic would be dead from the inevitable natural 1's on their 24x7 saving throws.
THIS x 1000.
no creature would survive. anywhere that drops below 40 degrees for more than a day or two would be barren of all lifeforms except for those capable of building themselves a fire.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mmmh... Nonlethal damage are not untyped damage... If the cold gives you Non-Lethal Damage it's just common sense to think it's Cold Non-Lethal Damage...
If I hit a skeleton with my longsword I do Slashing Damage I do 5 less damage to the skeleton... If I choose to do Non-Lethal Damage by taking -4 to touch, do I suddenly make 5 more damage automatically bypassing the DR? :)
What about a Demon with DR 15 cold iron and Good, if I choose to hit them with a stick and choose -4 to touch, I suddenly bypass the DR with my stick? :p
Merciful Spell say :
You can alter spells that inflict damage to inflict nonlethal damage instead. Spells that inflict damage of a particular type (such as fire) inflict nonlethal damage of that same type.
So Nonlethal damage can be Fire or Cold Nonlethal damage if the source is Fire or Cold… ;)
if the environment said it was cold damage then yes, it's non-lethal cold damage. I'm unaware of it saying it's cold damage. Just if you fail your save you take damage. Not saying the source or the type of the damage.
If I hit a skeleton with my longsword I do Slashing Damage I do 5 less damage to the skeleton... If I choose to do Non-Lethal Damage by taking -4 to touch, do I suddenly make 5 more damage automatically bypassing the DR? :)
Well, one could argue that the non-lethal damage comes from hitting with the non-edgy part of the sword therefore is not slashing damage. BUt I doubt there is any rule about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if the environment said it was cold damage then yes, it's non-lethal cold damage. I'm unaware of it saying it's cold damage. Just if you fail your save you take damage. Not saying the source or the type of the damage.
Generally, I agree that trying to deduce RAI from RAW is house-rule territory, but there are circumstances where RAI can be definitively determined simply by examining other rules in the game.
We have two simple choices here:
1. Cold environment damage is untyped
2. Cold environment damage is intended to be type cold
If we go with #1, then the game completely falls apart. White dragons, remorhazes, yeti, winter wolves...all these creatures live in arctic climates and have a stated immunity to cold damage. These creatures can't survive in their own environment, though, because at best they must make a Fort save every hour (DC15, +1 per previous check) or take 1d6 nonlethal damage. They can't recover any of this damage naturally until they get out of the cold. Eventually, it becomes lethal damage and they die. Nothing at all can live in the arctic, because they die within days of arriving there. The artic is now a barren wasteland.
Ruling #2 makes the environmental damage cold-typed. These creatures take no damage whatsoever from their environment.
Given those two options, #1 makes no sense at all. None. It is completely illogical. That leaves #2. Ergo, damage from cold environments is cold damage.
Well, one could argue that the non-lethal damage comes from hitting with the non-edgy part of the sword therefore is not slashing damage. BUt I doubt there is any rule about it.
lol try it at in your game and tell us what happened when you tried to circumvent DR with Nonlethal damage rule, against Skeletons you can argue with the non-edgy Bludgeoning part but what if the monster is DR/Piercing or DR/Slashing and you try it with your Warhammer ? :D
|
Well, one could argue that the non-lethal damage comes from hitting with the non-edgy part of the sword therefore is not slashing damage. BUt I doubt there is any rule about it.lol try it at in your game and tell us what happened when you tried to circumvent DR with Nonlethal damage rule, against Skeletons you can argue with the non-edgy Bludgeoning part but what if the monster is DR/Piercing or DR/Slashing and you try it with your Warhammer ? :D
Undead are immune to NL, just to point out.
Undead are immune to NL, just to point out.
Well yeah but you see my point... Take a Xorn if it suits you better... :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Undead are immune to NL, just to point out.
It took all my will not to post this earlier, out of fear i would just derail the thread...
@Chess Pwn- I take it you also think that acid - then, does not deal acid damage? per the top entry in the Environment Rules:
It doesn't say it deals acid damage, so it must deal untyped damage, right? and creatures that are immune to acid or resistant to acid will still take full damage while in acid.... right?
Undead are immune to NL, just to point out.It took all my will not to post this earlier, out of fear i would just derail the thread...
@Chess Pwn- I take it you also think that acid - then, does not deal acid damage? per the top entry in the Environment Rules:
It doesn't say it deals acid damage, so it must deal untyped damage, right? and creatures that are immune to acid or resistant to acid will still take full damage while in acid.... right?
That does appear to be what the rules are saying, yes. Corrosive acid seems to not interact with acid resistance as it's not stated as acid damage.
This case is similar to vicious, that is also untyped damage, even though it radiates necromancy and uses a negative energy spell it's not negative energy damage, but untyped.
Undead are immune to NL, just to point out.It took all my will not to post this earlier, out of fear i would just derail the thread...
@Chess Pwn- I take it you also think that acid - then, does not deal acid damage? per the top entry in the Environment Rules:
It doesn't say it deals acid damage, so it must deal untyped damage, right? and creatures that are immune to acid or resistant to acid will still take full damage while in acid.... right?
Quote the whole thing please don't cherry pick.
Acid
Corrosive acids deals 1d6 points of damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as in a vat of acid), which deals 10d6 points of damage per round. An attack with acid, such as from a hurled vial or a monster’s spittle, counts as a round of exposure.The fumes from most acids are inhaled poisons. Those who are adjacent to a large body of acid must make a DC 13 Fortitude save or take 1 point of Constitution damage each round. This poison does not have a frequency, so a creature is safe as soon as it moves away from the acid.
Creatures immune to acid’s caustic properties might still drown in it if they are totally immersed (see Drowning).
Note the last line
I hope this thread continues until we get some attention from a developer. I love some clarification on their cold weather environmental rules. But, I settle for what I still think is an important question...."what constitutes protected; with regards to cold weather in the 0-40 deg. Range? If it's in material please Erratta it. If it's shelter as some suggest, why not say? If it's the only magical means as other. Suggest please either eliminate the word because of redundancy, or specifically state protected means magic etc..
Obviously I feel protected should be broadened to mean cold weather outfit. However, there's enough written to indicate that is not the case. So what's protected mean design and development team? We can debate what we think it should mean but ultimately, regarding PFS we need a ruling. We await your answer
Thx
I hope this thread continues until we get some attention from a developer. I love some clarification on their cold weather environmental rules. But, I settle for what I still think is an important question...."what constitutes protected; with regards to cold weather in the 0-40 deg. Range? If it's in material please Erratta it. If it's shelter as some suggest, why not say? If it's the only magical means as other. Suggest please either eliminate the word because of redundancy, or specifically state protected means magic etc..
Obviously I feel protected should be broadened to mean cold weather outfit. However, there's enough written to indicate that is not the case. So what's protected mean design and development team? We can debate what we think it should mean but ultimately, regarding PFS we need a ruling. We await your answer
Thx
Mmmh it's true the protected part is really problematic since we don't have any clue about what can protect from environmental cold... WHat is Protected and what can Protect is what I would want to know... ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we will get an answer now since Ultimate Wilderness will hopefully have an new environmental set of rules that will be satisfactory (cross finger... ;) )
Quote the whole thing please don't cherry pick.
Note the last lineAcid
Corrosive acids deals 1d6 points of damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as in a vat of acid), which deals 10d6 points of damage per round. An attack with acid, such as from a hurled vial or a monster’s spittle, counts as a round of exposure.The fumes from most acids are inhaled poisons. Those who are adjacent to a large body of acid must make a DC 13 Fortitude save or take 1 point of Constitution damage each round. This poison does not have a frequency, so a creature is safe as soon as it moves away from the acid.
Creatures immune to acid’s caustic properties might still drown in it if they are totally immersed (see Drowning).
I am fully aware of the last line. As well as all the other parts of the rule I had not included in the quote. But as far as the argument/counterargument with Chess Pwn, it was irrelevant.
Chess Pwn stated that since the damage dealt by cold weather was not specifically identified as dealing "cold" damage, then neither Energy Resistance (Cold) nor Immune(Cold) would provide any protection from the damage caused by cold weather.
Likewise, in the Acid environment rules, it does not state that the damage dealt by acid is in fact "acid" type energy. So the fact that the last line says that "Creatures immune to acid’s caustic properties might still drown in it if they are totally immersed" is wholly irrelevant. Do you know of a single published creature that has a defensive property that says "Immune to acid's caustic properties"?
I don't recall ever seeing that.... I only know creatures that have Resistance (Acid) and Immune (Acid) listings... and - according to Chess Pwn, these protections would only prevent damage that was specifically called out as "acid damage"
Keep in mind - I wholly disagree with this point of view. I am just trying to use the Reductio ad Absurdum argument style to counter Chess Pwn using other text from the Environmental Rules.
As far as I am concerned, damage caused by contact with cold (from a [cold] spell, being submerged in icy water, getting stuck amid really cold air, etc) is cold damage.
As far as I am concerned, damage caused by heat (from a [fire] spell, holding a really hot object, getting burned by fire, getting stuck amid really hot air, etc) is fire damage.
And as far as I am concerned, damage caused by acid is acid damage.
Therefore, Resistance or Immunity to any of these named damage types would - by extension - protect you from the damage derived from there other respective sources - even if Paizo's editors forgot to include the energy descriptor when they wrote a rule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, that is an awful pun!
EDIT: ;)
I guess some people need to... chill out [insert CSI miami entry scream]
Sorry for the bad joke. On topic.
I share the same feelings, environment hazards could use more love.
As Oddman80 and lucklesshero pointed, there are not enough rules written.
If the party is climbing a mountain to reach the holy shrine atop, and suddenly they're engulfed by a snowstorm and have to take cover in a cave to rest and sleep:
What's the DC to start a campfire? Does it provide a bonus on Fort saves o directly prevents making any saving from X to Y minus degrees?
What about could weather outfit? And fur armor?
Is there any related Profession that can help?
Should they sleep but not rest due cold?
Lots of questions can arise.
*Edited grammar mistakes*
FWIW, I agree that "protected" is too generic of a term and is not real helpful. We are, as lucklesshero points out, forced to rely on RAI and other rules to work out what applies.
To add to the fun:
- I cast Endure Elements, and the outside temperature drops to -60 F. What is the effect? Do I (the player) feel -10? Or does the spell stop working, and I get the full -60? I know what I think, but that's just what I think.
- Does Endure Elements stack with Winter Feathers? Tiny Hut's localized environment?
Just trying to keep this thread relevant..So I'll post..
Any developers what to take 5 min out of their day to clarify what the word "protected" means in the environmental rules; with respect to cold weather range 0deg- 40deg? If it's going to be addressed in Ultimate Wilderness maybe just let us know the topic is addressed in the new hard cover?
Anything the Paizo staff could add here would be appreciated
thx
|
** spoiler omitted **
Love the Garbage man example.
For realism in a medieval setting, people don't really do a whole lot, all winter. They basically stay in their home and live off saved food. Sure, on the warmer, cold days, they might go hunting or get urgent supplies, but mostly they are not leaving the home because they'd just die in the cold weather. And as I understand it, they wouldn't even be changing their clothes much. So, I think the Garbage man would just die in such a setting, but I also think his occupation would be somewhat fictional during this time period.
One thing of note is that pathfinder doesn't really have rules for the players to create their own sources of heat. For example, having a campfire should affect the tempature, especially if you have an insulated building to keep it inside (with a hole for smoke, of course).
Honestly, in the rules for cold weather, I think they are referencing being in a cabin with a fire (or something similar), as being "protected" from cold weather. I think cold weather gear is only intended to give a bonus, not to count as protection from cold weather.
still hoping this gets some attention
I thought I'd copy in the relevant rules from book 3 of Jade Regent, since that deals with crossing the north pole.
Travelers who are part of a caravan equipped with cold-weather gear have all the necessary supplies to make the journey, and can safely endure most challenges presented by cold conditions. Only when a character strays from the caravan does she need to make saving throws against the effects of cold or exposure.
This suggests that cold-weather gear on its own is not enough to protect you from having to make saving throws. Being in a caravan while wearing cold-weather gear does protect you.
In the polar winter, temperatures range from –40˚ to –94˚ F, making Endure Elements less than adequate. Fortunately, cold-weather outfits or furs, cold weather gear for the caravan, and the Sashimono of Comfort are sufficient to protect the caravan while encamped. While traveling, however, the caravan requires a number of endure elements spells equal to its consumption to be cast per week
Sashimono of Comfort
When worn or carried by a creature, the banner grants the effects of endure elements to the bearer... These effects function at temperatures between –50˚ and 140˚ F. If conditions are beyond these extremes, creatures using a sashimono of comfort treat the ambient temperature as if it were 50˚ F warmer or cooler respectively, thereby possibly allowing additional castings of endure elements to work normally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he was hoping for nonmagical protection that matches the real world - eg, a healthy person going for a long walk on a cold day in the world's warmest clothing should not have a 99% chance of death.
I think the nearest we can do at the moment is that if you stop and build a fire in a sheltered place (easy Survival check) you are 'protected' and you can then recover any hit points lost to the cold (at a rate of 1 nonlethal hit point per hour per character level) or use magical healing if you have it.
|
To me, cold weather gear DOES equal protection for the purposes of cold environmental damage, and fairly clearly so. Rysky even quoted one of the relevant passages:
In conditions of severe cold or exposure (below 0° F), an unprotected character must make a Fortitude save once every 10 minutes (DC 15, +1 per previous check), taking 1d6 points of nonlethal damage on each failed save. A character who has the Survival skill may receive a bonus on this saving throw and might be able to apply this bonus to other characters as well. Characters wearing a cold weather outfit only need check once per hour for cold and exposure damage.
* Unprotected characters need to make Fortitude saves once every 10 minutes
* Characters wearing cold weather outfits only need to check once per hour for cold and exposure damage.* Clearly, then, people in cold weather outfits aren't unprotected since they don't have to make checks every 10 minutes
* I consider cold weather gear to grant protection since the characters aren't unprotected.
* Thus, protection doesn't negate the checks every 10 minutes entirely. It instead changes it to 1 hour checks.
* If there was some other available definition of protected for this section of the rules, I would go with that. There isn't. So I extend the ruling that cold weather gear grants protection from exposure to the higher and lower temperature bands as well.
Literal reading does not necessarily equate to good textual interpretation. You can't read protection out of the section by saying it is never defined and just giving up on it.
I think the nonlethal damage being dealt in this section is also cold damage. Not as clearly so, but clear enough for me.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think he was hoping for nonmagical protection that matches the real world - eg, a healthy person going for a long walk on a cold day in the world's warmest clothing should not have a 99% chance of death.
The game matches medieval protection, leather and furs.
It isn’t intended to match modern bundle wear.
The Shackled Hut from the Reign of Winter adventure path also has some input on cold weather travel that may be relevant to the discussion.
Rules for cold temperatures appear on page 442 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, and you can assume it is always cold weather (0°–40° F), with occasional spells of severe cold (below 0° F). In general, however, characters wearing cold-weather gear or using daily alternatives such as endure elements should not have to attempt regular Fortitude saves. Food is always scarce in the Irriseni wilderness, adding 5 to the DC of any Survival checks to f ind food.Staying warm at night requires establishing a camp to provide shelter and building a f ire to stay warm. This requires a successful DC 15 Survival check and an hour of effort in the cold. A result of 20 or higher reduces this time to less than an hour. Once a camp is established, characters inside shelters can remove their cold-weather gear, study, pray, and rest to recover damage. Characters outside of a shelter but in a camp can stay warm with cold-weather gear even if the temperature drops below 0° F.
That's good. It's strong support for the idea that in 0°–40° F conditions, cold-weather gear (or a tent) is 'protected' enough to keep you safe from fortitude saves.
The bits of Jade Regent I quoted above were for sub zero conditions, so it makes sense that things would be a lot worse there.
an unprotected character must make a Fortitude save once every 10 minutes (DC 15, +1 per previous check),
This rule is actually dumb, this increase never resets while you are still on that enviroment. Being so, it's much easier to obtain cold resistance 1 than attempting to stack your fortitude save so you can resist a single day in a cold enviroment.
My house rule was to make it so the check DC increases on failed checks only, as saves can still automatically fail on a natural 1 and a very well protected character still has a small risk of taking cold damage.
an unprotected character must make a Fortitude save once every 10 minutes (DC 15, +1 per previous check),This rule is actually dumb, this increase never resets while you are still on that enviroment.
You are correct that the DC increase doesn't reset while you are in the environment but per the text above having a campfire and either cold weather gear or a tent is considered out of the environment. The intent is that characters have to stop every so often to make a fire and warm up to reset the DC.
That's good. It's strong support for the idea that in 0°–40° F conditions, cold-weather gear (or a tent) is 'protected' enough to keep you safe from fortitude saves.
This would be a welcome change to the rules if it gets adopted by the core game system. Hopefully the upcoming wilderness rule book will do this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding Severe Cold: Rugged Notherner. From the Inner Sea World Guide. Feat allows the character to treat Severe Cold as normal Cold Weather, and ignore normally Cold Weather. This would allow Fortitude saves, so allowing the cold weather outfit to benefit the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would be a welcome change to the rules if it gets adopted by the core game system.
It doesn't contradict or change the core rules, it only clarifies. The original rule is a vague about what happens in above-zero temperatures:
An unprotected character in cold weather (below 40° F) must make a Fortitude save each hour
Reign of Winter, a Paizo book, gives a viable interpretation of what 'protected' or 'unprotected' mean in this context. Until the Wilderness rulebook comes out, this is the clearest thing we have to go on.
This would be a welcome change to the rules if it gets adopted by the core game system.It doesn't contradict or change the core rules, it only clarifies. The original rule is a vague about what happens in above-zero temperatures:
An unprotected character in cold weather (below 40° F) must make a Fortitude save each hour
According to Core right now, the effect of cold weather gear is that it gives you a +5 on that save.
Cold-Weather Outfit: This outfit includes a wool coat, linen shirt, wool cap, heavy cloak, thick pants or skirt, and boots. This outfit grants a +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather.
The Reign of Winter statement says that you don't need to make the save at all. So, I'd call that a change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another amusing thing: Even if we agree that the damage from exposure to cold is cold damage (which, as said, isn't stated, but I agree with as the only sensible choice), Polar Bears still can't exist since they have no cold resistance whatsoever. So, unless thick fur counts as "protected" (which would be a pretty huge stretch from the given rules), polar bears are exceedingly dead in any even remotely cold environment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would be a welcome change to the rules if it gets adopted by the core game system.It doesn't contradict or change the core rules, it only clarifies. The original rule is a vague about what happens in above-zero temperatures:
An unprotected character in cold weather (below 40° F) must make a Fortitude save each hourAccording to Core right now, the effect of cold weather gear is that it gives you a +5 on that save.
Cold-Weather Outfit: This outfit includes a wool coat, linen shirt, wool cap, heavy cloak, thick pants or skirt, and boots. This outfit grants a +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather.The Reign of Winter statement says that you don't need to make the save at all. So, I'd call that a change.
The core rules just say unprotected characters have to make a saving throw. It doesn't say what counts as protection. The entry for cold weather clothing says it gives a +5 to any saving throws against cold weather if you have to make one.
The text from Reign of Winter and Jade Regent further clarifies. There are situations where wearing cold weather gear eliminates the need for a save entirely, i.e. in temps between 0° and 40°. In polar conditions however, cold weather gear alone is not enough protection and so saves would be required but in this case the cold weather gear gives a +5.
So RoW and JR are not really changing the rules but just providing additional details.
Thanks to everyone for keeping this post relevant. Hopefully we get some answers in Ultimate Wilderness... and just for clarification on the "cold weather gear= leathers an wool from middle age period; how is that consistent with an era that uses fire arms has spy glasses, etc... in any case admiral bird planted a flag on the South Pole long before goretex or thinsulate, Inuate Eskimos hunted seals and whales for hundreds of years on ice flows for hundreds of years before modern clothing,.. so this argument of modern clothing making the difference of why man can surrvive ... yeah even thrive in cold weather is in no way accurate. Fact is Pathfinder RAW doesn't support reality of cold weather survival in anytime period. Life as we know it would be extinct in all areas of earth except maybe for a short ring around the equator if we in anyway tried to equate this to how we understand weather and cold here on Earth
Keep in mind the RoW rules are talking about being in camp as well. Not moving to another location. Camp would involve a fire more than likely and some break from the wind. If you go collect firewood you still have hourly saves.
@LucklessHero - Do you plan on commenting in the thread every couple of days until Ultimate Wilderness is released (or, in the case that the book doesn't cover this topic, until a developer weighs in), just so that the thread stays on the front page?
Per the Rules FAQ Sticky, the number of clicks doesn't influence the design team to answer the question, nor does the frequency with which people comment on the thread.
When a post within a thread is clicked with the faq button, it gets added to the queue of faq requests. The Design team periodically reviews the entire list of faq requests and chooses which questions they are going to address. Whether the thread is on page one or on page 51 is irrelevant to their decision making.
@LucklessHero - Do you plan on commenting in the thread every couple of days until Ultimate Wilderness is released (or, in the case that the book doesn't cover this topic, until a developer weighs in), just so that the thread stays on the front page?
Per the Rules FAQ Sticky, the number of clicks doesn't influence the design team to answer the question, nor does the frequency with which people comment on the thread.
When a post within a thread is clicked with the faq button, it gets added to the queue of faq requests. The Design team periodically reviews the entire list of faq requests and chooses which questions they are going to address. Whether the thread is on page one or on page 51 is irrelevant to their decision making.
That's been untrue, they have told us that they have a priority filtering on it to help them know which to do, so having more FAQ's does put you higher in the list. Now it's not a set order, they can skip a higher one to answer an easier lower one, but it does have a priority on how it's listed. So being on page 1 and simple is more likely to get FAQ'ed then a simple one on page 51.