There is a very fine line between Space/Hostile Environments being a challenge for the PC's to overcome and a barrier to fun and exciting play.
I used to GM a lot of Rogue Trader back in the day and one of the more enjoyable "dungeons" I ran was a huge complex on an ice moon that was airless and freezing cold. However, in that game there were few baseline armors that included space suit type systems, meaning any fights I planned in this complex would need to take into account my group had significantly fewer defensive resources. Also, the complex was so large that basic space suits didn't have enough air to make it through the whole thing.
The lack of armor was super annoying. I like my players to actually play with the shiny new toys I graciously provide for them. But the environmental challenges made them think about establishing base camps for oxygen canister dumps. Fun play was had, but from then I developed house rules that allowed the party to modify certain armors with pressure seals & life support. However they took time to activate so they didn't just wander around with it on all the time, essentially negating all environmental factors all of the time.
Starfinder has gone the complete other direction and I can see why & the good intentions behind it. I will be house ruling a few things to bring it back in line with my "Space is dangerous." mantra. I have also made Space Suits viable again.
Please, feedback on this would be totally awesome.
Environmental Protections: Light Armour contains a flexible pressure bodyglove under layers of padding, as well as emergency oxygen supplies and a space-rated breathing mask. It provides protection from vacuum for item level x 1/hour. It does not protect the wearer from temperature, but does include protection from solar rays and other radiation sources in a vacuum. Heavy Armour provides the same protection but for double the time.
New Armour Modification: Heat Resistant Mk 1: The Armour now provides resistant to temperatures up to 212f. This modification is powered by a battery that uses 1/charge per hour. (Different versions will of course exist for different environments)
New Equipment: Space Suit (possibly going up in increments/levels). Space Suit follows RAW, but can resist higher/lower temps & hazardous conditions.
Any thoughts appreciated!
The armor Second Skin is designed for this. It is impossible to detect you are wearing armor since it matches your skin tone. Always wear one when you can't wear other armor.It is not impossible to detect. It just doesn't stand out.
If a second skin matches the wearer's skin tone, this type of light armor can be difficult to detect.
There is also no mention that the second skin duplicates the appearance of navels, nipples, or other features that would not quite match something that is the same color as your skin.
Ship crash lands in snowy inhospitable mountain region. The players can either stay with the grounded ship and constantly recharge their life support and wait for help, or try to get down to more temperate regions in less than 24/48 (etc.) hours when their suits' life support runs out of energy.
With the amount of flexibility GMs get by having access to any planet they can imagine, its important that they have the tools/rules to dictate a high pressure situation such as that and provide intense player choice. The reason the suits provide such consistent protection is so that dealing with an environment isn't tedious but rare and intense, and they provided the rules to provide that possibility.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, it's better to have these rules and not need them than need them and not have them.
People are demonstrating exactly the kind of situations that these would be useful in, but without these rules, these scenarios would be a lot more work to create. RPGs are ultimately a toolbox, and I'd rather have those specialized tools for the times when I DO need them.
Not to mention, it seems like most of the environmental rules are still applicable in armor, such as perception distances, gravity, etc. So I'm not even sure about your main point.
All I really want is a way for my players to blast off an enemy face plate and make them die in space.
I don't really care if I can't do that to my players' PCs.
The thing is a lot of armors don't have helmets. Heck, a lot of them just use magical (or at least magitech) forcefields to get the environment protection. And the magic for that is pretty much woven into the gear, so you'd have to completely strip the gear (which I might add is sometimes straight up their clothes) to deny them.
I mean, my first thought is: unless your characters know they're about to be attacked by enemy ships, they aren't going to be in their armour 100% of the time aboard their own ship, right? I mean, if they are... well, some basic hygiene issues come into question, followed by the next thought of 'I can no longer take this armour off - it is the only thing preventing me from being a walking biohazard of funk'. So, my first thought is a surprise attack against some unsuspecting PCs that is fairly devastating - opening a rent in a starship's side and exposing it to vacuum.
There are some fun ways around this - an android or two in the group is going to be a major help in a scenario like that, but for the most part every other race is going to be screwed unless they have immediate access to their armour.
And I imagine even armour like the second skin and station flightwear is going to be something most PCs aren't going to want to wear as their casual gear 100% of the time.
|
What if a catastrophic impact happens while they're sleeping in quarters?
What if an emp blast hits them and the armour shuts down (assuming it's a powered suit)
What if the suit gets damaged and the life support starts to decline more rapidly than normal?
What if the exploration phase requires days or weeks of travel? (Gods, the electromagnetic interference down there is horrendous. You guys will have to free drop in and do a manual reconnoiter. We can't risk losing Drift drive on this ship or we'll starve to death before we can expect anyone to come looking for us)
What if monsters coming up in the book of aliens are capable of rending armour and causing exposure to environments?
The thing is a lot of armors don't have helmets. Heck, a lot of them just use magical (or at least magitech) forcefields to get the environment protection. And the magic for that is pretty much woven into the gear, so you'd have to completely strip the gear (which I might add is sometimes straight up their clothes) to deny them.
True, the "all armors have environmental protection built into them" rule seems to be pretty ironclad and oversimplified at the same time... It's apparent that paizo didn't want players to have to deal with hostile environments in general, but make them a tool for the GM to use when they see fit.
|
Soooo, I've reviewed a couple things, and I have some questions as a need for clarity and comments of my own.
1.) The rules indicative of radiation protection only protect against "low levels of radiation...Armor of 7th level and higher grant immunity to medium radiation levels" (SFCRB 198). There are no protections against more severe radiation levels, which might be quite common on a.) planets without sufficient magnetospheres or ozone (or other deflective gasses) filled atmospheres, b.) the void of space (see pg. 394 under "Cosmic Rays": "Planets devoid of a protective atmosphere are constantly assailed by radiation of medium to severe intensity," a category which, despite not being explicitly mentioned, includes outer space, and since this is a realistic issue, it remains), c.) highly irradiated settings, which, while rare, can still provide drastic tension when encountered.
2.) Armor does not protect against depressurization. Or, at the very least, basic armor that does not explicitly provide it do not. I've checked, and if I am wrong, please provide citation because it's starting to bug me now, but armor doesn't mention anything about vacuum depressurization effects, just breathing. "A character introduced to a vacuum...and takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage per round (no saving throw)" (SFCRB 394). I omitted the "begins to suffocate" because armor does indeed explicitly protect against that.
3.) Nothing I've found in the armor section or the broken condition explicitly states that being broken doesn't affect an armor's protective field. According to RAW: "If [a broken item] is armor, the bonuses it grants to AC are halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty to skill checks" (SFCRB 273). That's the end of that statement, and the only reference that might indicate that RAW comments on armor's environmental protections ability to be compromised by damage is the following: "If the item does not fit any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use" (SFCRB 273). But that sentence contextually refers to the category of item, not the category of the effect. In other words, if an item is not a weapon/armor/tech item listed above, the broken condition doesn't do anything. But nothing in there states that you cannot, by GM fiat, decide that the broken condition compromises environmental protections in some way. The entry in the armor section doesn't state this as far as I can see (please provide citation if possible), nor does the text of the broken condition. Maybe this isn't easily resolvable in SFS, but in as home game this doesn't even require house rules, just a GM decision in regards to ambiguity.
4.) Finally, the section on environmental effects doesn't seem to be inappropriate in length or detail. It's about the same length as in PF (except for adding radiation and gravity details, which makes sense given the nature of the genre), and for the most part, the detailed effects are not influenced by armor at all. Harmful gases and heat/cold, sure, but not wind...or biome structure...or gravity, etc. And as for heat...potions of endure elements are 50 gp and last 24 hours as well. There were trivial fixes at low level and basically permanent patches at mid-to-high for those effects even in PF, but even then there were ways to countermeasure for dramatic effect.
Basically, I see your point, and it is a little frustrating how "Batman can breathe in space" is the default trope. Nevertheless, I am uncertain this is as bad as you describe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2.) Armor does not protect against depressurization. Or, at the very least, basic armor that does not explicitly provide it do not. I've checked, and if I am wrong, please provide citation because it's starting to bug me now, but armor doesn't mention anything about vacuum depressurization effects, just breathing. "A character introduced to a vacuum...and takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage per round (no saving throw)" (SFCRB 394). I omitted the "begins to suffocate" because armor does indeed explicitly protect against that.
You can argue that it contextually only means breathing, particularly since everything else in that sentence does. But given that it specifically calls out vacuums in the breathing and pressure section, I think it applies to depressurization as well.
And I imagine even armour like the second skin and station flightwear is going to be something most PCs aren't going to want to wear as their casual gear 100% of the time.
If this were a more civilized setting in which space travel was safe, I might be inclined to agree. But it isn't safe out there in Starfinder, and the PCs in particular should be extra aware of that. Actual station flightwear might not be the norm, but second skin? You can just hide that under normal clothes.
100% of the time might be out, but most of the time? By default, even? I think that's a perfectly reasonable expectation, at least for PCs and other danger prone sorts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it applies to depressurization as well.
Yes, but what about pressurization?
"We're at 150 atmospheres of pressure!"
"How much pressure can we take?"
"Well, it's designed for the vacuum of space, so somewhere between 0 and 1."
I think it applies to depressurization as well.Yes, but what about pressurization?
"We're at 150 atmospheres of pressure!"
"How much pressure can we take?"
"Well, it's designed for the vacuum of space, so somewhere between 0 and 1."
"All armor can facilitate self-contained breathing, protecting you against vacuums, smoke, and thick, thin, and toxic atmospheres..."
Thick atmospheres is the game term for high pressure.
Thin atmospheres is the game term for low (but non-zero) pressure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. Interesting.
When I see thin atmosphere, I don't think low pressure - I think low oxygen. And when I see thick atmosphere, I don't think high pressure nor high oxygen, but rather turbid atmosphere.
High pressure is usually regulated to either high gravity or deep ocean in my own head cannon.
Well, time to recalibrate my knowledge.
What is the Difference Between Thick & Thin Atmospheres?
Atmospheres surrounding planets contain mixtures of different gases. The Earth's atmosphere makes life possible because it protects life forms from the sun’s radiation, creates water and regulates temperature. Thick and thin atmospheres are distinguished by the type of gases present, elevation and gravity. Earth has a relatively thin atmosphere, but its gravitational pull is enough to keep nitrogen and especially oxygen within its atmosphere to support life.
ATMOSPHERE AND GRAVITY
In general, the weaker the gravitational pull of a planet, the thinner the atmosphere will be. A planet with weak gravity will tend to have less mass and allow more atmosphere to escape into space. Thus the thickness or thinness of the atmosphere depends upon the strength or weakness of gravity. For example, the gravity on Jupiter is 318 times greater than Earth, and thus Jupiter's atmosphere is much thicker than Earth's. Gravity gets weaker the further away it is from a planet, so the atmosphere will be thicker near the surface.
ATMOSPHERE AND TEMPERATURE
Temperature plays a key role in determining the thickness of an atmosphere. Hot temperatures will often cause a thinner atmosphere as warm air molecules will move faster and reach an escape velocity into space. On Earth, temperatures decrease with elevation within the troposphere, the lowest level of the atmosphere, as the warmer molecules are escaping into the upper atmosphere. Temperatures, however, stabilize at higher atmospheric levels such as in the stratosphere.
ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY
Seventy-five percent of the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere is in the troposphere, and thus the troposphere is referred to as “thick” while higher layers are called “thin.” Atmospheres are designated as thick or thin depending upon planetary mass, gas density and the type of gases that are present, not simply the total depth of the atmosphere. The more dense the gases are, the more "thick" the atmosphere.
THICK ATMOSPHERES
The type of gases present are as critical to density as elevation and gravity, and all are interrelated. Certain atmospheric gases will create thick atmospheres. For example, atmospheres with abundant hydrogen tend to be thicker as gases will combine with hydrogen for greater mass. Some planets, such as Venus (surface pressure: 96 atm), have very thick atmospheres largely composed of carbon dioxide and cannot support life. The outer planets such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune also have very thick atmospheres, but they consist of gases such as hydrogen, helium, methane and ammonia.
THIN ATMOSPHERES
The Earth’s atmosphere is considered relatively thin, and it gets thinner further away from the planet’s surface. Thin atmospheres are characterized by their relative lack of hydrogen. Ninety-nine percent of the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of life-supporting oxygen and nitrogen, and 98 percent of these gases are in the lower 30 kilometers (19 miles) of the atmosphere due to gravity. Another celestial body, Europa, a moon of Jupiter, likewise has a thin atmosphere with abundant oxygen, and some believe that life is possible on this moon. Mars also has a thin atmosphere with little mass, 100 times thinner than Earth's. Mars' atmosphere mostly consists of carbon dioxide and is not conducive for life.
Huh. Interesting.
When I see thin atmosphere, I don't think low pressure - I think low oxygen. And when I see thick atmosphere, I don't think high pressure nor high oxygen, but rather turbid atmosphere.
High pressure is usually regulated to either high gravity or deep ocean in my own head cannon.
Well, time to recalibrate my knowledge.
** spoiler omitted **...
To slightly add to this: the game even says thick atmosphere rules should be used to simulate the extreme pressures of oceanic depths and other similar locales, despite those not being quite atmospheres.
Survival adventures.
The intent is that environment is not a concern if you stay in civilized areas or have access to your ship. Your ship can provide power to your powered items and your armor has life support. However, environment becomes an issue when you're marooned on a planet or your ship breaks.
|
|
Thanks, Hithesius.
I am familiar with that passage, but two things of note. The first is that it doesn't explicitly mention vacuum's depressure effects, which is odd since other passages in the book either explicitly mention the specifics of an environmental effect, or else are so general as to be all-encompassing (such as the Star Shaman Walk the Void ability). Because the sentence doesn't fit the template, it's not technically RAW. And while the section is called "breathing and pressure" it doesn't actually mention pressure. This may be a typo though, so errata may resolve this. Either way, it's not explicitly RAW.
However, to be perfectly clear, that doesn't mean you are wrong. Far from it. But my original point is that this means that the rules are not as cut and dry as the OP may have indicated. Because of the rule ambiguity therein, GM fiat can be used without having to directly house-rule or contradict RAW. Basically, insufficient information is available to indicate one way or the other how the game acts on default, so the decision (like all such decisions) is based on how the GM chooses to interpret it. Because of this, a GM has leeway in their decisions. They don't need to have a draconian interpretation of the rules just to utilize the dangers of a vacuum, as the reading is technically correct either way, which (granted, the OP may disagree, which is fine) to me indicates that SF has given us enough leeway to use or not use the full vacuum rules.
Also, as Noodlemancer noted, thin and thick atmospheres are noted, but vacuum has no pressure whatsoever, and that passage explicitly only mentions difficulties with breathing in a vacuum, not remaining pressurized. One can logic that breathing means there must be sufficient gas content generated by the suit to offset this...or not. Again, I was only trying to point out that the wording is not as constraining enough to necessarily warrant the contradiction the OP implies imo (and again, only imo!).
Also, bookrat, props to the Futurama reference. That is one of my favorite quotes...alongside
"So how do we equalize the pressure?" *Pipe bursts, and the ship begins to flood*
"That should do it."
|
Are the environmental rules as absurdly stupid as they are in Pathfinder, resulting in huge swathes of the planet being uninhabitable by normal commoners?You mean like Earth? (70% oceans, huge areas of uninhabitable deserts, entire continent of Antarctica)
Canada, northern US, etc are all places where Pathfinder L1 commoners can't survive.
|
|
I mean, my first thought is: unless your characters know they're about to be attacked by enemy ships, they aren't going to be in their armour 100% of the time aboard their own ship, right
If accidents/ambushes pretty much EVER happen than I'd definitely expect people to be suited up in some of the armours all the time.
In a campaign the GM maybe gets to pull that card once. Maybe. Assuming its the first time in known history :-)
|
Canada, northern US, etc are all places where Pathfinder L1 commoners can't survive.Are the environmental rules as absurdly stupid as they are in Pathfinder, resulting in huge swathes of the planet being uninhabitable by normal commoners?You mean like Earth? (70% oceans, huge areas of uninhabitable deserts, entire continent of Antarctica)
Eh. It's not quite that bad. The cold rules specify an 'unprotected' character. If you assume cold weather clothing counts as protection (which sorta contradicts the cold weather outfit, but only sorta) it works fairly well most of the time. It's certainly overly harsh at -20 degrees or lower...but that's fairly rare most places.
The heat rules are actually way harsher and more likely to kill.
|
|
Canada, northern US, etc are all places where Pathfinder L1 commoners can't survive.Are the environmental rules as absurdly stupid as they are in Pathfinder, resulting in huge swathes of the planet being uninhabitable by normal commoners?You mean like Earth? (70% oceans, huge areas of uninhabitable deserts, entire continent of Antarctica)Eh. It's not quite that bad. The cold rules specify an 'unprotected' character. If you assume cold weather clothing counts as protection (which sorta contradicts the cold weather outfit, but only sorta) it works fairly well most of the time. It's certainly overly harsh at -20 degrees or lower...but that's fairly rare most places.
The heat rules are actually way harsher and more likely to kill.
The heat rules in PF are ridiculously harsh. Even a real-world master explorer with Endurance and a hot weather outfit will not be able to beat the DC 62 checks they'd apparently be facing by the end of an eight-hour day in Death Valley or the Sahara. They'd be dead long before the end of that day from all the checks they didn't roll a natural 20 on.
It's really goofy!
|
|
Canada, northern US, etc are all places where Pathfinder L1 commoners can't survive.Are the environmental rules as absurdly stupid as they are in Pathfinder, resulting in huge swathes of the planet being uninhabitable by normal commoners?You mean like Earth? (70% oceans, huge areas of uninhabitable deserts, entire continent of Antarctica)
You mean the places in the world where people couldn't survive winter out of shelter prior to the widespread use of electricity and gas heating?
The people living in those environs at the level of tech we see available for commoners in Pathfinder would in fact not be considered L1 commoners. They would be experts of some description and spent vast quantities of time and resources getting prepared to survive a drawn out stint inside the buildings during the winters. If they didn't have enough food supplies or wood cut.....they died.
Just like in Pathfinder.
|
|
I mean, my first thought is: unless your characters know they're about to be attacked by enemy ships, they aren't going to be in their armour 100% of the time aboard their own ship, rightIf accidents/ambushes pretty much EVER happen than I'd definitely expect people to be suited up in some of the armours all the time.
In a campaign the GM maybe gets to pull that card once. Maybe. Assuming its the first time in known history :-)
I can't help but think you have a very narrow view on what happens in people's campaigns, or indeed what is likely to happen in a setting like Starfinder.
The players get to ambush enemies all the time. Well, that situation works both ways. The tactical advantage of hitting a target when they're unprepared Is too good to pass up. Enemies will ambush the party, ships will run into unexpected trouble.
Having said that, I am not sure if there are rules against sleeping in armour like there are for Pathfinder. But looking at the stuff I see in the book, I'm guessing heavy armour, and more than a few light armours would make sleeping in them near impossible.
As far as I can tell, this issue on environemntal rules is only a problem for you because of the way you run games.
Well, Paizo writes its rules to cover as many possible gaming styles as they can. Already I've seen a number of people stating how they could easily see those rules coming up in their campaigns.
If this were a more civilized setting in which space travel was safe, I might be inclined to agree. But it isn't safe out there in Starfinder, and the PCs in particular should be extra aware of that. Actual station flightwear might not be the norm, but second skin? You can just hide that under normal clothes.
100% of the time might be out, but most of the time? By default, even? I think that's a perfectly reasonable expectation, at least for PCs and other danger prone sorts.
I mean, I'd kind of counter this with two examples: Warhammer 40k and Star Wars. Neither are the most civilized of settings and space travel isn't that safe - and you rarely see characters wearing combat ready gear (outside of, you know, Space Marines in 40k and then military personnel on troop transports) that often. Heck, even the regular crew personnel on Star Wars vessels are more commonly wearing uniforms than they are any sort of protective gear.
I know there doesn't exist anything like what Second Skin offers in either setting (the closest is in 40k with a bodyglove, but that doesn't protect against the vacuum and such). So... I guess I could sorta see most of the time? But, coming purely down to personal view, I'd still say they aren't going to be wearing it in any sort of downtime aboard a ship. Maybe if they're actively piloting or doing repair work.
If accidents/ambushes pretty much EVER happen than I'd definitely expect people to be suited up in some of the armours all the time.
In a campaign the GM maybe gets to pull that card once. Maybe. Assuming its the first time in known history :-)
I mean - I disagree? Like, yes, if they know there is a possibility of getting ambushed, I can easily see people wearing armour. Like, if I was running a game and I just had them leave a planet that is known to have Space Pirates or Corpse Fleet hunting around it, and my players choose to keep their armour on: no problem. But, unless a character has extreme paranoia - or just doesn't suffer discomfort from wearing standard kit (so, androids? Maybe vesk, dwarves and half-orcs?) - I'm going to find it somewhat silly if they're in their armour 100% of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can counter the idea with a real world example: Iraq. Wartorn the past 15 years with the US military; and even as I was stationed there in the height of the war, most people/soldiers didn't wear their body armor every day. Soldiers only wore it when going out on missions; not at the FOB. Despite the risk of getting attacked daily.
|
|
Eh. It's not quite that bad. The cold rules specify an 'unprotected' character. If you assume cold weather clothing counts as protection (which sorta contradicts the cold weather outfit, but only sorta) it works fairly well most of the time. It's certainly overly harsh at -20 degrees or lower...but that's fairly rare most places.Canada, northern US, etc are all places where Pathfinder L1 commoners can't survive.Are the environmental rules as absurdly stupid as they are in Pathfinder, resulting in huge swathes of the planet being uninhabitable by normal commoners?You mean like Earth? (70% oceans, huge areas of uninhabitable deserts, entire continent of Antarctica)
The cold rules explicitly point out (well, mostly explicitly) that wearing cold weather outfits is NOT enough at 0F.
"Characters wearing a cold weather outfit only need check once per hour for cold and exposure damage."
So, at 0F, if your level 1 commoner wrapped up in his nice cold weather gear goes outside and tries to hunt for a few hours he has a pretty good chance of going unconscious and then dying. Good enough that he is pretty much bound to do so during an entire winter.
Skiers are just dropping like flies, especially cross country skiers :-) :-)
I know that the hot weather rules are also bad but as a Canadian it feels more appropriate for me to insult the cold rules :-). I'll let our Texan and/or Egyptian friends insult the hot weather rules.
|
|
You mean the places in the world where people couldn't survive winter out of shelter prior to the widespread use of electricity and gas heating?
Canada, northern US, etc are all places where Pathfinder L1 commoners can't survive.
In the extreme example, tell that to the Inuit.
For far less extreme examples, there were thriving Native Americans in lots of climates that routinely get below 0F for extended periods during winter. Or Mongolians, Finns, Germans etc if you want non North American examples.
And they all, by Core Pathfinder rules, were mostly composed of 1st level commoners or experts. And the children had lower than 10 starting Con too :-).
Sure, they had Cold Weather Gear. But that isn't enough to survive.
Weather below 0F is just not that extreme as long as you're prepared for it.
|
|
Yeah, modern day thermal-wear is not comparable to what they had at times contemporary to Pathfinder. The cold rules would have actually screwed over quite a few peasants in places like Canada. Which is why irl, the sorts of people who lived in Canada at the time were either natives who had generations upon generations of countermeasures, training, and specially made resources (much like PF archetypes or feats), or else experienced trappers, hunters, and traders. All of whom would have not just cold weather gear but means of making shelter and other ways to maintain warmth.
Cold weather, particularly below freezing, was lethally (and still is, so a degree) deadly to a lot of people. Staying out for a few hours could result in frostbite or worse.
But then, you should keep in mind that Pathfinder's default setting tends to not have too many people who are "skilled" individuals (like experienced hikers or hunters) be low level commoners. They're usually experts at like 2nd-5th level, sometimes even with 1 or 2 class skills with culturally appropriate archetypes. These folks could easily withstand the cold for long enough to survive. Other folks huddled around fires and hoped their food stores didn't run out...so, you know, what people actually did in frigidly cold winter months.
I live in Massachusetts (and used to live in Russia). Some of the winters I've experienced would've been next to impossible to survive without modern day conveniences or failing that, basic shelter. Hostile environments are hostile. And random peasants of small level who have insufficient training at surviving...wouldn't. It's not too unreasonable, if you ask me. Then again, I dunno. I'm operating under the assumption that the people who tend to stay on the move and actively thrive in environments like that, not merely survive, aren't just level 1 commoners. The level 1 commoners, without a shelter, would die. And no level 1 commoner would even be able to hunt down a meal in conditions like that in the first place...just like how an untrained bowperson in the 16th century Canadian wilderness wouldn't last a day without proper prep.
|
|
You mean the places in the world where people couldn't survive winter out of shelter prior to the widespread use of electricity and gas heating?
Canada, northern US, etc are all places where Pathfinder L1 commoners can't survive.In the extreme example, tell that to the Inuit.
For far less extreme examples, there were thriving Native Americans in lots of climates that routinely get below 0F for extended periods during winter. Or Mongolians, Finns, Germans etc if you want non North American examples.
And they all, by Core Pathfinder rules, were mostly composed of 1st level commoners or experts. And the children had lower than 10 starting Con too :-).
Sure, they had Cold Weather Gear. But that isn't enough to survive.
Weather below 0F is just not that extreme as long as you're prepared for it.
Prior to modern clothing, I suspect the death rate to extreme weather was staggering in all of those cultures. Particularly in the young and inexperienced.
And all of those cultures wintered in shelters and specific spots that enabled survival. Just like the rules in Pathfinder suggest.
But, if you'd like a bit more. Winter outfit probably doesn't cover the sheer quantity of furs and layers and other means for survival used in clothing before modern era stuff. But that's just a personal take.
For a more realistic take, the rules haven't included acclimatisation. They are general rules. However there are species that are specifically acclimatised to cold and hot etc. even setting traits that changed the range of temperatures at which you needed to start testing. I remember the original Orisan setting book had specifc rules on heat tolerances for people local to the region. I don't own the cold setting ones but I'm sure they have similar.
So, again, the rules aren't ridiculous or incorrect. You're just looking at them through a very narrow focus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen 2 things in here that haven't been considered or seem to be wrong-headed.
1- Bullets and such make holes. That's the point of them. Grenades make LOTS of holes.
2- "Recharging" a suit probably has more to do with replacing food, water and gas scrubbers, and removing wastes than it does with charging the battery. Realistically, the first thing to kill you in a suit after heat or cold is Carbon Dioxide.
So the idea of kinetic guns shooting armor and space suits - they should be causing damage to the armor for every bit of HP damage they do the the PC.
Does anyone actually do that, though? How would you make that happen?
That said, the "space suit" item does have a system like that, every time you take damage you must make a reflex save at DC = Damage or your environmental protection suffers critical failure. This would cause a nightmarish number of reflex saves if it applied to armor though.
In regards to the OP's observation, I noticed that zero gravity is also negated by the simplest of armor too, at least in evironments with a surface.
All armors come with clamps on the boots to firmly allow someone to plant themselves on the ground. It's worded in a way that is ambiguous as to whether you can move or not. It seems like you can when you refer to the zero-G page they reference. The universal boot clamps in all armor completely negated all the zero-G areas in the first adventire path. So what's the point of zero-G on surfaces, corridors, and rooms if you can just negate it with all armor?
Well, there are still times when it could be an issue (like jumping, getting bull-rushed off the side of a catwalk, or arguably getting bull-rushed in general since if you're being held on by clamps and are moved I'd argue that the clamps aren't holding you on anymore) but it also has its advantages. Like when down is relative, with 0G and careful placement of your foot that cliff that was in the way just became the new floor.
|
First of all, armor environmental protection doesn’t stop everything. He’ll, it barely stops anything. It lets you survive a vacuum/unbreathable atmosohere for a short period of time, but here are some environmental effects that suits don’t stop:
I can’t find the exact rules for what armor protects against right now (the info is scattered all over the book) but IIRC:
1)Moderate-high levels of radiation. Armors don’t protect against radiation unless they are level 7 or above, at which point they protect against moderate radiation, but offer no protection against more lethal doses. So, if you take a spacewalk near Aballon in a suit of second skin, you are dead.
2)Energy damage: I don’t recall it saying anywhere that armors protect against energy damage. Now, before you say anything, remember that exposure to space doesn’t actually deal cold damage to you, because there is nothing to draw heat away from your body (in essensce your body isn’t trying to heat up cold air). So your suit doesn’t stop cold or hot environments.
3)Failing a save against a damage effect (such as a fireball) on a natural 1 can damage your armor, breaking it and it’s environmental protections.
Survival scenarios are already screwy in Starfinder. Say your ship crashes on an environmentally hostile planet and is so damaged that it can't recharge your environmental protection in your armored suits.
You explore the surroundings with nothing more than a hope and a prayer, and you come across a second crashed ship. What luck! Almost as lucky as finding something to crash on in space in the first place!
However, if you salvage both ships, you only end up with enough parts for only 20% of what is required to make a new, functional ship. Only 8 more to go buddy!
And even if you crashed into a junkyard planet with 100 ships, you're still totally screwed since ships don't have a listed price within the rules and thus can't be built by PCs!
Armor is almost as odd, for many of the reasons already mentioned, but also because there's absolutely nothing stopping someone from wearing second skin along with their normal armor and using both their environmental protections to survive twice as long. Or carrying extra light weight armors to change into when their current armor run out of juice (using the second skin's environmental protections to survive the changing process).
And armor are not clothes. Clothes are listed in a separate section of the book. Unless you're a VIP of some kind who is expecting to be kidnapped, you probably aren't wearing your armor in most public, safe places. If you did, with few exceptions, you'd probably stand out in much the same way that a fully geared swat team member would stand out in the middle of a kindergarten school.
Some armors are made to look like business attire. These armors also trend toward inferior which makes me wonder if that's the trade for armor which blends in?
|
|
I can’t find the exact rules for what armor protects against right now (the info is scattered all over the book) but IIRC
Granted that the OP overstates their point, but check the "Armor" section of the equipment chapter--specifically the "Environmental Protections" subsection. All armor does in fact ("reasonably") protect against inhospitable temperatures. Armor at levels below 7 protects against low radiation and gives a +4 to saving throws against higher levels. Above that it protects against moderate radiation and gives a +7 to saving throws against higher levels. As for damaging spells, there are no rules for attacks targeting a creature that also affect its armor.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder is NOT A SCIENCE FICTION GAME. The developers have been very clear about this; it is intended to be used for fantasy purposes. The rules are not supposed to be simulationist. Everything is geared towards having fun. Lots of aspects of the game make no sense in real terms. The economy has arbitrary rules like you can't buy used stuff and starships don't cost money. It's all there for game purposes. Design decisions are all based on would it make for a fun game, not would it make for an immersive experience.
Worrying about environment/survival gets in the way of space opera action, so by default everyone is immune. However an environmental hazard could make for a fun scene, so they include rules for that. If you want to use them, just use them. Simple. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE! Poof magic, your environmental protections stop working because it makes this scene more dramatic! Roll a fort save. The rules of Starfinder are inspired by shows whose rules change from scene to scene because everything exists to fuel the DRAMA.
I realize this type of game is not for everyone. I think Paizo understands that too, and this is also part of the reason they include sections on things like environment. This makes it easy to house rule that armor does not have environmental protections, so you can run your game with more reals. I think a lot of people get too caught up in rules as written. These are meant to be guidelines, here's how the authors think you should play, but change them if you like. They say that. Change them if you like. So do it, change the rules, make it something that you like. Or realize that what you want is a science fiction game, and switch to a system that is designed for emulation and immersion, because Starfinder is designed for fantasy.
|
|
Starfinder is NOT A SCIENCE FICTION GAME. The developers have been very clear about this; it is intended to be used for fantasy purposes. The rules are not supposed to be simulationist. Everything is geared towards having fun. Lots of aspects of the game make no sense in real terms. The economy has arbitrary rules like you can't buy used stuff and starships don't cost money. It's all there for game purposes. Design decisions are all based on would it make for a fun game, not would it make for an immersive experience.
Did you mean to post in a different thread? No one here is talking about "realism" in any sense. The OP and ensuing discussion over whether there is any point to most of the environmental condition rules, since even the lowest-level armor provides significant protection against adverse conditions.
|
|
I can’t find the exact rules for what armor protects against right now (the info is scattered all over the book) but IIRCGranted that the OP overstates their point, but check the "Armor" section of the equipment chapter--specifically the "Environmental Protections" subsection. All armor does in fact ("reasonably") protect against inhospitable temperatures. Armor at levels below 7 protects against low radiation and gives a +4 to saving throws against higher levels. Above that it protects against moderate radiation and gives a +7 to saving throws against higher levels. As for damaging spells, there are no rules for attacks targeting a creature that also affect its armor.
Sorry, one of the pathfinder rules that I assumed carried over to Starfinder is that a nat 1 on a reflex save means that one of your pieces of equipment can also get damaged (and there is a table for that.)
That being said, anyone can still SUNDER your armor, breaking it and exposing you to the vacuum of space. And my friend made a scenario where there was a trap that could damage the player's armor (it was an out-of-control welding robot that started welding pieces of armor to the floor if people got too near.
So yeah, armor is great for mitigating SOME stuff, but certainly not all stuff. And it doesn't work 'always forever.'
|
|
That being said, anyone can still SUNDER your armor, breaking it and exposing you to the vacuum of space.
Strangely, sunder doesn't work on armor anymore. Compare the Pathfinder rule:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
... with the Starfinder one:
You deal damage to one object held in the target’s hand or accessible on its body. The object must be something that could be drawn easily by the target as a move action (see Draw or Sheathe a Weapon on page 247).
Agreed, the issue isn't "realism", it's that in a science-fantasy game, part of the appeal is having exciting encounters in exotic conditions: zero-G, vacuum, stranded on an airless moon, fighting near a leaking reactor, etc. If the threats are too easily by-passed by everyday items, then some of the fun of a space setting is reduced. In other words, the argument is that the devs may have made the setting *too safe* and thus less exciting. Granted, it's all a matter of taste and different people like to tell different kinds of stories. I lean towards the more dangerous, edgier kind.