Are constructs immune to sickened and nauseated?

[chibikami]

When the construct traits template was written there was doubtless no way to inflict these status effects without a fortitude save, and so they were naturally immune.
However, with the oracle class there are a number of curses that can inflict the sickened condition on the character without a save if they don't fulfill the conditions of the curse (the Covetous and Hunger curses, for example).

so if I have a sentient/sapient construct (say, a wyrwood for example) who is an oracle with such a curse, are they immune to the sickened effect?

[Chell Raighn]

No reason why it shouldn’t be affected by those conditions still… the conditions are being inflicted by a curse. Curses tend to defy the natural order of things by their own nature. A construct experiencing sickness or nausea by the effects of a curse is far from unreasonable. Especially when it is a sentient living construct.

[Algarik]

RAW, it doesn't seem like they are immune to the condition, unlike exhaustion and fatigue, so i'd say that yes an oracle construct would take the penalty.

And i'd say it would make sense, oracle curse are some kind of divine condition that they can't cure, it affects them to their core.

While the covetous curse seems alright,i'm not sure i'd allow the hunger curse for a construct, as they would be immune to half the drawback and i feel like it wouldn't make that much sense. Then again i guess the construct could just be addicted to blood, or whatever.

[Chell Raighn]

Algarik wrote:

While the covetous curse seems alright,i'm not sure i'd allow the hunger curse for a construct, as they would be immune to half the drawback and i feel like it wouldn't make that much sense. Then again i guess the construct could just be addicted to blood, or whatever.

The hunger curse could be explained as the construct being cursed to believe itself to be a mortal being, as a result it feels compelled to eat but of course it never feels fulfilled it is always “hungry”.

[MrCharisma]

Weirder still is the Investigator's Sickening Offensive talent.

INVESTIGATOR TALENTS wrote:

Sickening Offensive* (Ex) (Advanced Class Guide pg. 32): When the investigator damages a studied target, that creature is also sickened for 1 round. An investigator must be at least 7th level to select this talent.

No divine power or reprogramming needed, just punch a robot in the gonads.

[Pizza Lord]

Constructs should be immune to any effects that rely on having a physical circulatory, lymphatic, organ, or other biological structure in line with most living things. Are there living biological creatures in this fantasy game that lack one or more of these? Of course, but they should also be immune to those effects even if their specific creature type isn't. For instance, a Humanoid without a heart shouldn't be affected by something that stops their heart and one without blood or similar internal liquid should not be affected by Bleed effects, even if Humanoid doesn't grant those immunities. The GM should use reasonable calls for specific cases. For instance, sleeping in medium or heavy armor without the Endurance feat will cause Fatigue with no saving throw (Fortitude or otherwise), but I don't think many GMs are going to agree that a skeleton or a stone golem (assuming they found some way to sleep, like some caster with the Impossible bloodline casting a spell on them) is going to be Fatigued by doing it.

I think the question in this post seems to imply that you are asking if a construct who is an oracle should be affected by the curse they have... rather than whether you can curse a construct with some spell or something.

I definitely don't think you can sicken a Construct with an attack unless the attack specifically says it can do so to Constructs or it is clearly written in a way that isn't considered sickening in the typical manner and is just used to denote the types of penalties to apply and using the term 'sickened' to save time and space. Similarly, Nauseated is described as being stomach distress, such as the retching caused by a stinking cloud. If you aren't capable of or possessing the bodyparts to vomit, gag, retch, or become debilitated by a distressed stomach... then you don't because nauseated. If the spell or ability did somehow describe its effect in a different way that could believably affect a Construct (basically just giving the same effect as Nauseated but it really having been used to not have to type out all the same text as being Nauseated) then that's fine. Such as, some swirling, mind-affecting, magical spell (assuming your Construct isn't immune to [mind-affecting]). Then you would just say that it has the same effects... you wouldn't suddenly have the Construct vomiting and dry-heaving and having stomach pains.

In the case of a Construct character that took an Oracle class and then specifically chose a curse that would have basically no-effect on them, I wouldn't allow it. It's fine to plan ahead and work to mitigate the effects of such curses, but just letting someone choose what is clearly intended to be a balancing factor and a divine accounting is not appropriate. It would be like letting someone take a flaw that makes them blind and then also letting them take a flaw that gives them poor eyesight and requires them to wear glasses.

Note, again this isn't about oracles that find ways to mitigate the curse, but ones that take curses that specifically have almost no effect. Curses are already written with ways that either lessen their effects as the character gets more accustomed to them or increase the power given based on the balancing factor of the negatives. In that case, you certainly are entitled to say that a Construct either must choose a different curse or that the curse still effects them 'somehow', even if it isn't 'being sick to the stomach' specifically, but making it clear that they are going to have the same penalties.

[Mysterious Stranger]

An Oracles cures cannot be removed or dispelled by anything less than deity. If you are immune to the effect you are removing it. That would mean that the curse will affect the oracle no matter what. If they cannot be affected by the curse then that curse would not be a legitimate choice for the oracle to take.

[Ryze Kuja]

^--- I'm with Pizza Lord and Mysterious Stranger on this one. Oracle Curses are meant to affect you, and they're meant to be a burden. This is both an RP thing and a Game Balance thing.

As the DM, you have a RAW argument that Wyrwoods are not immune to sickened condition, and you also have an RP argument that Oracles are supposed to be cursed. And choosing a curse/race combo that causes the curse to be non-existent is metagaming on a different level.

[VoodistMonk]

You can't use Blood Money if you can't bleed.

You can't take Burn if you are immune to nonlethal damage.

For a PC, I wouldn't allow you to take such a Curse if you were a Construct, or had Construct traits. It smells like cheese...

[MrCharisma]

Oh yeah, +1 to the pain train for that Wyrwood Oracle, they definitely take the Curse.

chibikami wrote:

.so if I have a sentient/sapient construct (say, a wyrwood for example) who is an oracle with such a curse, are they immune to the sickened effect?

100% No.

If my player tried to pull this argument on me I'd show them just how cruel a deific curse can be.

But seriously, pulling that kind of stunt doesn't really help anyone. If you want to be an Oracle you have the curse. If you don't want a curse, take a different class.

[Algarik]

There's also the option to take curses with very minor drawback, such as Legalistic, just avoid making any promises and you're basically curse free.

Imo Curses are what makes Oracle so fun.