Survival in harsh terrain

[S'mon]

The GM needs to decide what the 'typical' DC means and then assign higher or lower DCs as appropriate, never treating the books as holy writ. Unfamiliar environments will have considerably higher DCs, as will foraging in harsh areas like New England(!), areas with a lot of food will have lower DCs. I'd generally expect typical DCs to represent the kind of northern European temperate low-altitude climes I'm familiar with, so coastal Mediterranean climes might have lower DCs, the Sahara a higher DC, etc. But familiarity should be the biggest element in "can I survive" at all, the harshness of the environment mostly affects the time it takes to gather enough food to live.

If you want to get really simulationist - New England in winter, not so hard to locate edible tubers but it's very hard to get enough calories to offset the calories you're burning by foraging; if you didn't lay up stocks for the winter you're in trouble. The Kalahari desert, hard to locate food if you don't know what you're doing, but for an expert forager it's not a particularly tough environment for low-density population groups to survive in.

 

[N'raac]

As written, the only way to starve to death or die of dehydration if you're wandering in the wilderness by yourself is if you have a Wisdom penalty - otherwise you can make a DC 10 check just by taking 10.

It seems the simple solution is to rule that you are trying to survive, which places you under a distracting level of pressure, so you can't just take 10. Problem solved.

We should also remember that approaching this from a 21st century vantage point taints the analysis. The characters have had far more exposure to wilderness survival issues than the typical 21st century city dweller. They don't have SUV's and big box stores, and have had to survive, as a population, by growing their own food. They don't get "Drive Car" success if they Take 10. We don't get Survival to that level.

However, that suggests to me that it's appropriate for a penalty to apply in harsher conditions. If the average man-on-the-street couldn't plausibly survive without training, it suggests a penalty should be applied to the Survival DC. The highest I could see going is maybe a +10 for trying to live without food somewhere like Mordor or Eberron's Mournland - a place that is utterly and completely inhospitable to life. Someone who is pretty good at Survival can make it, but generally not by enough to feed a large group by themselves. You bring supplies to that kind of area.

Two halflings from the Shire were able to make it through, though. Did one have Survival at +12 to be able to take 10 (or did Gollum have +14 Survival and they had enough to sporadically succeed and keep body and soul together)?

I'm not sure I'd use people used to surviving in a terrain as examples - I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that they have some facility with Survival if they are native to a harsh area and have to fend for themselves on occasion. I seem to recall that Pathfinder has several traits that make Survival a class skill with "native to X area" as a requirement - a trait like that and one point means you can make a DC 14 Survival check without any trouble. That's going to cover a lot of territory, even with higher base DCs based on terrain.

Aren't the PC's native to a world that is much more rural than our own?

If I was playing in a game that actually had wilderness travel as a part of it - say mapping unexplored territory, or a Dark Sun game where part of the flavor is surviving the environment - I might consider not allowing taking 10 on Survival checks. I'd also consider a natural 1 to reflect some kind of natural hazard - bad food/water, a natural predator or hazard, something like that. It'd serve to inject some flavor into the survival process.

As noted above, I could see Survival being denied the "take 10" option. If you want wilderness survival to be fairly routine, then leave Take 10 in (the environment is just backdrop - heroic souls overcome such challenges with ease). Try a typical take 10 on a lot of other skills in comparison to Joe Average and I suspect the result is well above the average, so Survival is no different in that respect.

 

[S'mon]

Two halflings from the Shire were able to make it through, though. Did one have Survival at +12 to be able to take 10 (or did Gollum have +14 Survival and they had enough to sporadically succeed and keep body and soul together)?

I don't recall them catching Mordor bunnies or picking Mordor mushrooms. They were eating elf bread. There was a lot of stuff about ration management AIR.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What should the bonuses for making preparations be? Presumably, enough to offset much or all of that penalty - so extremely high, if the DC is increased a lot. That would mean the same advance preparation that gives you a decent shot in extreme conditions makes less extreme conditions trivial.

"Perfect tools" grant a +2 bonus, so those advance preparations provide a limited bonus, don't they? I could certainly see a penalty for lacking "appropriate tools", such as appropriate clothing for the environment, and a bonus for having clothing specifically suited for the environment.

A skilled PC with Survivial wouldn't be wandering Death Valley at high noon - he would know to kep under cover at the heat of the day and travel when the temperatures are cooler.

Preparations means bring supplies and thus negating the whole need of a survival check at all. If you're out in the heat and don't have water that's it, your life expectancy is mere hours. A survival check could allow you to live longer *IN PLACE* (taking shelter from the heat) and wait for cooler temperatures but that's it.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

For what it's worth, I was just reading in the 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting (p. 163) about the Demon Wastes, a barren inhospitable desert like region that requires hourly fort saves to protect against extreme heat rising out of volcanic pits or the extreme cold that fill the plains (depending on which area you're in).
The text also says, "Survival checks to find food and shelter receive a -3 circumstance penalty due to the inhospitable nature of the wastes."

So, yeah. At worst, survival check DCs shouldn't be increasing by much, and not being able to take 10 is probably too brutal.

 

[Werebat]

Wow, didn't know this thread was still active.

I do in fact have Frostburn, and have modified its rules somewhat to keep things simple (no need to be rolling dice every damn day). Frostburn has levels of cold (from 0-4, 4 being "unearthly" cold) and levels of cold protection (from 0-3, in general). A typical PC has a natural protection level of 0, but a cold weather outfit raises this by a point and furs can raise it by another point. The Endure Elements spell provides level 3 cold protection for the recipient and his/her gear.

You only begin to have problems if the cold level outside is higher than your level of cold protection.

Your average winter day would be cold level 1. Night generally raises the cold level by a point, and altitude raises it another point. High winds also raise the cold level by a point. A typical night on the mountain in winter is cold level 3 (and bad weather can increase the cold level to 4).

Core does indeed mention a Survival ability regarding finding shelter from the elements; I've modified it to allow a +1 (half move) or +2 (stay put) modifier to the cold protection level of the people helped. Thus, your average human with cold weather gear and furs (CPL 2) would need some Survival help in order to make it through a night on the mountain in winter, or a winter night in the lowlands during a storm. To survive a nighttime blizzard on a mountain, that Survival check would involve staying put.

Works for me, anyway. Of course eventually they will wise up and find (relatively cheap) means of getting Endure Elements on everyone (including their pack and riding animals).

Now for another question -- can Aid Another be used on a survival check? How many people can Aid the main survivalist? Can every survivalist in the party make the check? The rules say nothing about this but making it a free-for-all would seem to make the checks themselves all but pointless.