Constructs and Negative Energy?

[MordredofFairy]

It would seem, by RAW, they are affected by it?
The "Cure" spells specifically call out living creatures, and "Channel Energy" specifically names living and undead creatures as affected, and "Inflict" spells are necromancy, which is covered by construct traits, meaning the most available sources of negative(+positive) energy are covered.

But other sources, e.g. from an Umbral Dragons Breath Weapon, would, by RAW, affect constructs, it would seem?
Same as a trip to a positive or negative energy-based plane would affect a construct just the same as any living creature?

Did I miss something, and is that only RAW or is there a reasoning for it being RAI too that Constructs are not simply immune to positive/negative energy?

[Gauss]

Constructs are not alive. Most positive/negative energy effects state that they affect either living targets or undead, constructs are neither (barring the rare construct with a special statement to the contrary).

Put another way: without a constitution score you aren't alive. :)

[Gaberlunzie]

Yes, OP, I think you are correct that Negative Energy effects that do not specify "living only", and that doesn't allow a fortitude save without affecting objects, still work on constructs (and objects, for that matter).

An Umbral Dragon's breath weapon will melt both stone and stone golems.

[MordredofFairy]

At least objects take half damage from Energy Attacks, unlike Constructs.
So that stone wall does take damage from the negative energy breath, while the clockwork-construct next to it...has the life sucked from it's gears as if you stopped winding it up?

Good thing you can hop on over to a positive energy plane, where the clockwork construct will start reassembling with its fast healing automatically.

Honestly, it just seems weird they go to such great lenghts to make sure other forms of positive and negative energy don't affect constructed things or can't even target them, but in general, they CAN be affected by it.
Funny enough, "Heal" as spell does not require a living creature, unlike Cure Light Wounds, so by that logic, you can "Heal" a construct with it, using positive energy.
Which also leads to a weird case: Something broken? A cart heavily damaged, the axis broken? No time to repair? Just "Animate Object" it, then "Heal" it, once Animate Object runs out, you just used "Heal" to repair an Object.

I guess if not an immunity, I kind of expected Constructs to at least have resistance to positive and negative energy-

[Orfamay Quest]

MordredofFairy wrote:

At least objects take half damage from Energy Attacks, unlike Constructs.

I don't think that "negative energy" is actually an "energy type," despite the name. The Pathfinder rules are fairly clear that there are five types of energy in the game -- acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic.

[MordredofFairy]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

At least objects take half damage from Energy Attacks, unlike Constructs.

I don't think that "negative energy" is actually an "energy type," despite the name. The Pathfinder rules are fairly clear that there are five types of energy in the game -- acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic.

It should be an energy type-

Kaiju, for example, have inherent resistance to it:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types#subtype- kaiju
Resistance 30 against acid, cold, electricity, fire, negative energy, and sonic.

I was under the impression it's simply not one of the "classic five" of fire, cold, electricity, acid, and sonic.

but positive and negative are always defined as energy.
Unlike Force, which is, AFAIK, basically a damage type only.

[Gauss]

Positive and Negative energy are not "energy" attacks in the same way that the classic energy types (Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Sonic) are and do not usually do damage to objects for the same reason that they do not do damage to Constructs. There is usually an 'alive or undead' clause in there.

In 3.5 there was actually term definitions that supported this. Pathfinder did not bother to define many terms and that has created many problems.
For example, there are abilities that allow you to convert energy types and some people think that should include positive and negative "energy".

Regarding Kaiju, you'll notice it does not say "acid energy" or "cold energy" but it does say "negative energy".

"Negative Energy" is not one of the 5 types of energy, it is a name.

Edit: here are a couple of quotes from 3.5

3.5 PHB p308 wrote:

energy damage: Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive and negative energy): acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic.

3.5 PHB p310 wrote:

negative energy: A black, crackling energy that originates on the Negative Material Plane. In general, negative energy heals undead creatures and hurts the living.

The CRB does not have a basic word defintion section and as a result these questions repeatedly come up. Heck, people even argue over whether "character" and "creature" are interchangable (some people think they are not). Back in 3.5 the glossary stated they were and without these basic definitions there is a lot of confusion and debate that shouldn't happen.

[MordredofFairy]

I agree, Gauss.

Except in one point: It's still a "type" of energy, just not part of the quintology mentioned, and definitely not interchangeable or convertible unless called out.
But I suppose thats more of a flavor-point than a mechanical one.

I wish pathfinder would include that kind of quotes, because I, too(based on older editions), was under the impression that negative energy was harmful to life force, so would not affect objects or unliving constructs.

But RAW, it does, just as positive energy. While it's easy enough to houserule that away, in RAW-based games it seems really stupid it works that way.