Is temperature tolerance really that expensive?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

The fire elementals that have actually been published in GURPS don't have that, so they must not need it. They have DR good against fire and Immunity to Metabolic Hazards, but no Temperature Tolerance whatsoever.

And if you used them as written with the recommendation for non-metabolic thermal stress, you get stupid results, right?

Just under Basic Set rules, I think Immune to Metabolic Hazards knocks off all the effects of non-preferred temperature ranges. The trouble is that that's obviously wrong...

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

Doesn't need the Temperature Tolerance, otherwise the Fire Elementals and Flame Lords from Dungeon Fantasy (which don't have any) die in their natural environment. Since they get by on DR and Immunity to Metabolic, that must be sufficient.

Or because they lack Temperature Tolerance, they have a temperature range the same as humans but set much higher and die if they go somewhere too cold (like the range of temperatures humans normally live in).

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Latrans

Or because they lack Temperature Tolerance, they have a temperature range the same as humans but set much higher and die if they go somewhere too cold (like the range of temperatures humans normally live in).

Die of what, exactly? Not HP loss as they have enough DR. Not FT loss as they don't have any.
Merely something not fully defined that appears nowhere on any character sheet.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Die of what, exactly? Not HP loss as they have enough DR. Not FT loss as they don't have any.
Merely something not fully defined that appears nowhere on any character sheet.

Yeah, there's a general problem with temperature tolerance, in that there are plenty of non-metabolic effects of temperature, but no rules for any of them. In part this might be because any temperatures sufficient to cause non-metabolic effects will simply kill anything that lacks IMtH. An automobile engine can probably continue to operate (if not always well) over a range of close to 300F; for humans it's more like 20F.

[Ulzgoroth]

Everyone remembers post #13 where both printed and Word of Kromm bits on non-metabolic thermal effects were quoted.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Everyone remembers post #13 where both printed and Word of Kromm bits on non-metabolic thermal effects were quoted.

That is only in reference to the non-core book Zombies. It still doesn't add anything but opinion for what rules SHOULD be added. As to how incredibly unhelpful such a rule is...
+15 is high enough to make it a non-issue, except for those that want a simple immunity.

We need a supplement that puts to rest the incredibly vague, inconsistent, unreasonably expensive, and unplayable rules of fatigue damage for fatigueless characters.

Edit: I stand by the intent of this post, but think I should state that it comes off a bit more aggressive than I feel.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That is only in reference to the non-core book Zombies. It still doesn't add anything but opinion for what rules SHOULD be added. As to how incredibly unhelpful such a rule is...
+15 is high enough to make it a non-issue, except for those that want a simple immunity.

Well, bear in mind that the roll is at -1 per 10 degrees, so it's basically adding 300 degrees (150 up, 150 down) to the range.

If we convert TT into Resistant (metabolic effects of heat) or Resistant (metabolic effects of cold) or both, those are probably Occasional, Occasional, and Common. That gives a price of:

• +3 (30 degrees): 3 points for either heat or cold, 5 points for both.
• +8 (80 degrees): 5 points for either heat or cold, 8 points for both.
• Immune: 10 points for either heat or cold, 15 points for both.

That looks plausibly similar to how low levels of TT are currently priced, but does rather imply we need to define (a) what non-metabolic heat damage is, and (b) how one defends against it.

For consistency with other types of damage, I'd be tempted by something resembling either non-penetrating or corrosion damage, though either one might mean a cost of (5) is no longer appropriate.

[Flyndaran]

I'm fine with the listed Ht loss as damage that affects those suffering what would be fatigue loss for those lacking immunity to metabolic hazards.

I hope that sentence structure makes sense. I couldn't think of any other way to state my position.

The exact thing that occurs when "killed" by such Ht loss doesn't really mean much to the player rules-wise; dead is dead. I don't think we should require rules for whether that means melted, cracked and shattered, carbonized until blackened, or up in puff of smoke.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Latrans

Or because they lack Temperature Tolerance, they have a temperature range the same as humans but set much higher and die if they go somewhere too cold (like the range of temperatures humans normally live in).

Since they're meant for summoning and monster encounters into those temperature ranges, and there are no notes about how long a Summoner can expect their summoned fire elemental to survive at room temperature.... nope.

The write-ups of official GURPS monsters in published GURPS supplements, with no errata against them, if nothing else, should serve as a good example of how to apply the GURPS rules to certain character/monster concepts. Since fire elementals are only given Immunity to Metabolic Hazards and DR good against Heat/Fire, with no Temperature Tolerance, and there's no reason to believe they're not good to go both in their home environment and at typical dungeon temperatures for an indefinite period of time (albeit being Vulnerable to cold attacks), we can only conclude that they do not need Temperature Tolerance.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Everyone remembers post #13 where both printed and Word of Kromm bits on non-metabolic thermal effects were quoted.

Sure, but DR doesn't get mentioned in that post.

DR that's good against heat should protect just fine against any structural (non-metabolic) damage due to heat, and the amount of DR you need is well defined by the dice of damage dealt by the level of heat/fire involved. And in the end, dice of damage and FP lost due to metabolic concerns are the only kinds of damage defined in the rules for being in a hot (or cold place).

It doesn't make sense to have ItMH only give a +15 to resistance rolls, with permanent damage to HT rather than to (non-existent) FP, for two reasons:

a) the temperature at which an object takes structural damage like melting, freezing, brittleness, etc., as opposed to a living thing or mechanism taking metabolic damage (heat stroke, engine overheating) is usually much, much higher, often even more than the +15 could account for, and

b) in any case, the mechanism for taking structural damage from temperature extremes and attacks, including standing in a fire, is already established to be taking a certain level of damage (i.e., dice of damage), subtracting applicable DR, and seeing if you lose any HP or not.