Temperate. You are unharmed by temperatures of 0 degrees Fahrenheit or lower, and 100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. (DMG p233)
I feel like the devs didn't quite phrase this correctly... As written, this "minor property" could easily be argued to confer cold and fire immunity. I suspect that the intent was that you were unharmed by any temperature BETWEEN 0 Fahrenheit and 100 Fahrenheit. I.e. you are good wandering in the snow, out in the (mild) desert, where others might be subject to environmental effects/hypothermia/dehydration etc. If I were to rewrite this, I'd recommend flipping the underlined "Lower" and "Higher" and B) Increasing the temperatures slightly on both (?) ends:
"You are unharmed by temperatures of 10 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, and 110 degrees Fahrenheit or lower."
Still a nice feature, let's you walk in the Greypeak Mountains, or out into the Sands of Anauroch without changing your outfit, but doesn't apply to Dragon Breath on either end of the spectrum... ;)
As written, this "minor property" could easily be argued to confer cold and fire immunity.
Again no. Stupid arguments can always be made (or made up as in this case) but that doesn't mean they should be taken seriously. Nothing in the description says that it confers such benefits (and nothing in the descriptions of those damage types says that they are reliant on temperature alone) and thus it doesn't.
This is one of the cases where you have to apply real-world logic to the rules. To take fire damage from something, it will have to be REALLY hot. Inverse for cold damage. No source of cold/fire damage is going to be between zero and 100 degrees.
You don't even need real-world logic; you just need the actual rules of the game. As Thezzaruz pointed out, the rules already specify that characters aren't harmed by temperatures in that range.
Most of the features in this table are barely a cantrip level effect ("Guardian" being perhaps the glaring exception). But as written, it's specifically saying you don't take damage from the Extreme ends (Hotter and Colder) and specifically, doesn't set a CAP on how much more hot or cold than those extremes.
The name of the Property is "Temperate" , which generally means "Not Extreme" when used in terms of climate or temperature (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temperate), it would seem to imply that it provides... comfort in what might normally be the uncomfortable ends of a less extreme climate.
For comparison, here's the description of the Cold Resistance property of the Boots of Winterlands (an Uncommon magic item): Cold Resistance. You have Resistance to Cold damage and can tolerate temperatures of 0 degrees Fahrenheit or lower without any additional protection.
Note that this item (which DOES grant Resistance to Cold Damage), again specifies "0 degrees fahrenheit or lower".
My point, which seems to have been missed, is that in this specific family of magic item properties (of generally very minor, or even flavor only effects), this would most likely NOT be intended to provide actual cold resistance (or fire resistance), but is far more likely to be intended to provide comfort in the relatively NON-EXTREME temperatures that might otherwise cause problems (if not actual damage), and therefor, that the property as written is likely incorrect.
For examples- Conan the Barbarian, Bare-Chested, wearing only Breechloths + Conan A - Wearing Boots of the Winterlands Conan B - Wearing Boots of Striding and Springing with the Temperate Property under discussion Conan C - Wearing normal non-magical boots.
1) Walking down a street in Waterdeep on a fine spring day. A/B/C no difference 2) Walking up a Mountain in the Greypeaks after a fresh snow - (20 degrees fahrenheit, i.e. 12 degrees below freezing) - A and B no problem... C? Probably suffering from Frostbite (exhaustion?) unless he finds shelter. DM's will flavor or rule as their discretion dictates. 3) Walking across a Glacier outside of Ten-Towns (Temperature -15 degrees fahrenheit) - A - no problem. B- [RAW] also no problem? C - taking damage until shelter/fire.
My entire argument here is that in Scenario 3, only the actual cold resistance should protect them, but as written, the Temperate item works just as well as Boots of Winterlands. Please re-read my original post and let me know if I'm being unclear here.
What it seems like you're missing in your original post is that if it worked the way you suggest it was intended to work — i.e., it protects you from temperatures between 0 and 100 Fahrenheit — this would provide no benefit at all, since the environmental effect rules in D&D already say that no one suffers harm from temperatures in this range regardless of what they're wearing.
The rules already define what happens in your scenarios 1 and 2. Scenario 1 does not cause problems for A, B, or C, because again, the temperature is between 0 and 100. Scenario 2 does not cause damage to C, but does require a DC 10 Constitution save each hour to avoid taking a level of Exhaustion.
But as written, it's specifically saying you don't take damage
It actually says nothing about damage at all. "Unharmed" is referring to the effects of Extreme Cold and Extreme Heat, which deal Exhaustion levels
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But as written, it's specifically saying you don't take damage
It actually says nothing about damage at all. "Unharmed" is referring to the effects of Extreme Cold and Extreme Heat, which deal Exhaustion levels
Thank you for providing links. While on a personal level I dislike this definition of "Unharmed", I suspect you and the devs are on the same wavelength in this case, as I see the same wording in the description for the Ring of Warmth (another temperature mitigation item, but this one does NOT provide "Resistance", instead reducing damage by a set amount): If you take Cold damage while wearing this ring, the ring reduces the damage you take by 2d8. In addition, while wearing this ring, you and everything you wear and carry are unharmedby temperatures of 0 degrees Fahrenheit or lower.
And again in the description for Laeral Silverhand's "Spellfire" ability: She gains resistance to cold damage, and she is unharmed by temperatures as low as −50 degrees Fahrenheit.
In both instances the damage resistance is separate from the "unharmed" language. Next time I will do a search on the troublesome phrase first... :) Thanks All!
This is one of the cases where you have to apply real-world logic to the rules. To take fire damage from something, it will have to be REALLY hot. Inverse for cold damage. No source of cold/fire damage is going to be between zero and 100 degrees.
There's just one problem with that approach:
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world. Don’t let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn’t define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round.
Keep in mind that the rules discussed in this thread are meant to apply only to naturally occurring temperatures that might exist in the environment.
In the 2014 DMG, for example, the chapter was called "Adventure Environments" and within that was a section called "Wilderness Survival". This had a subsection called "Weather" and within that subsection were the rules for "Extreme Cold" and "Extreme Heat".
The 2024 Basic Rules just have a section called "Environmental Effects". Within that section are the rules for "Extreme Cold" and "Extreme Heat" which are listed among many other effects which are all clearly meant as referring to things that are naturally occurring in the environment. That's the "cap" for the temperature ranges where these rules and mechanics apply.
As such, those rules are not meant to be applied to a situation where a creature is locked inside of an oven that is set to maintain sustained temperatures of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, for example. If you were to create your own Campaign setting where this was the naturally occurring temperature for some reason, then you'd have to work out for yourself how adventuring in such a world is even possible.
Within this context, the "Temperate" property means that all possible naturally occurring weather environments feel temperate to you and as such you feel no ill effects from them.
Yea I'd agree with this. If you get dropped in magma/lava then the Temperate property won't help. The Icewind Dale adventure have cold weather clothes that lets you ignore the cold weather but it also specifies that they stop working if get them wet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel like the devs didn't quite phrase this correctly...
As written, this "minor property" could easily be argued to confer cold and fire immunity.
I suspect that the intent was that you were unharmed by any temperature BETWEEN 0 Fahrenheit and 100 Fahrenheit. I.e. you are good wandering in the snow, out in the (mild) desert, where others might be subject to environmental effects/hypothermia/dehydration etc.
If I were to rewrite this, I'd recommend flipping the underlined "Lower" and "Higher" and B) Increasing the temperatures slightly on both (?) ends:
"You are unharmed by temperatures of 10 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, and 110 degrees Fahrenheit or lower."
Still a nice feature, let's you walk in the Greypeak Mountains, or out into the Sands of Anauroch without changing your outfit, but doesn't apply to Dragon Breath on either end of the spectrum... ;)
No. That is already the case, it is only when the temperature passes below 0F or above 100F that it becomes an issue.
Again no. Stupid arguments can always be made (or made up as in this case) but that doesn't mean they should be taken seriously. Nothing in the description says that it confers such benefits (and nothing in the descriptions of those damage types says that they are reliant on temperature alone) and thus it doesn't.
This is one of the cases where you have to apply real-world logic to the rules. To take fire damage from something, it will have to be REALLY hot. Inverse for cold damage. No source of cold/fire damage is going to be between zero and 100 degrees.
You don't even need real-world logic; you just need the actual rules of the game. As Thezzaruz pointed out, the rules already specify that characters aren't harmed by temperatures in that range.
pronouns: he/she/they
0 degrees Fahrenheit is 32 degrees below freezing btw. But I believe that this property is NOT (RAI) meant to mitigate damage at all.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/dmg-2024/treasure#MagicItemsMinorProperty
Most of the features in this table are barely a cantrip level effect ("Guardian" being perhaps the glaring exception).
But as written, it's specifically saying you don't take damage from the Extreme ends (Hotter and Colder) and specifically, doesn't set a CAP on how much more hot or cold than those extremes.
The name of the Property is "Temperate" , which generally means "Not Extreme" when used in terms of climate or temperature (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temperate), it would seem to imply that it provides... comfort in what might normally be the uncomfortable ends of a less extreme climate.
For comparison, here's the description of the Cold Resistance property of the Boots of Winterlands (an Uncommon magic item):
Cold Resistance. You have Resistance to Cold damage and can tolerate temperatures of 0 degrees Fahrenheit or lower without any additional protection.
Note that this item (which DOES grant Resistance to Cold Damage), again specifies "0 degrees fahrenheit or lower".
My point, which seems to have been missed, is that in this specific family of magic item properties (of generally very minor, or even flavor only effects), this would most likely NOT be intended to provide actual cold resistance (or fire resistance), but is far more likely to be intended to provide comfort in the relatively NON-EXTREME temperatures that might otherwise cause problems (if not actual damage), and therefor, that the property as written is likely incorrect.
For examples- Conan the Barbarian, Bare-Chested, wearing only Breechloths +
Conan A - Wearing Boots of the Winterlands
Conan B - Wearing Boots of Striding and Springing with the Temperate Property under discussion
Conan C - Wearing normal non-magical boots.
1) Walking down a street in Waterdeep on a fine spring day. A/B/C no difference
2) Walking up a Mountain in the Greypeaks after a fresh snow - (20 degrees fahrenheit, i.e. 12 degrees below freezing) - A and B no problem... C? Probably suffering from Frostbite (exhaustion?) unless he finds shelter. DM's will flavor or rule as their discretion dictates.
3) Walking across a Glacier outside of Ten-Towns (Temperature -15 degrees fahrenheit) - A - no problem. B- [RAW] also no problem? C - taking damage until shelter/fire.
My entire argument here is that in Scenario 3, only the actual cold resistance should protect them, but as written, the Temperate item works just as well as Boots of Winterlands.
Please re-read my original post and let me know if I'm being unclear here.
What it seems like you're missing in your original post is that if it worked the way you suggest it was intended to work — i.e., it protects you from temperatures between 0 and 100 Fahrenheit — this would provide no benefit at all, since the environmental effect rules in D&D already say that no one suffers harm from temperatures in this range regardless of what they're wearing.
The rules already define what happens in your scenarios 1 and 2. Scenario 1 does not cause problems for A, B, or C, because again, the temperature is between 0 and 100. Scenario 2 does not cause damage to C, but does require a DC 10 Constitution save each hour to avoid taking a level of Exhaustion.
pronouns: he/she/they
It actually says nothing about damage at all. "Unharmed" is referring to the effects of Extreme Cold and Extreme Heat, which deal Exhaustion levels
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Thank you for providing links.
While on a personal level I dislike this definition of "Unharmed", I suspect you and the devs are on the same wavelength in this case, as I see the same wording in the description for the Ring of Warmth (another temperature mitigation item, but this one does NOT provide "Resistance", instead reducing damage by a set amount):
If you take Cold damage while wearing this ring, the ring reduces the damage you take by 2d8.
In addition, while wearing this ring, you and everything you wear and carry are unharmed by temperatures of 0 degrees Fahrenheit or lower.
And again in the description for Laeral Silverhand's "Spellfire" ability:
She gains resistance to cold damage, and she is unharmed by temperatures as low as −50 degrees Fahrenheit.
In both instances the damage resistance is separate from the "unharmed" language.
Next time I will do a search on the troublesome phrase first... :)
Thanks All!
There's just one problem with that approach:
(From the 2024 DMG)
Keep in mind that the rules discussed in this thread are meant to apply only to naturally occurring temperatures that might exist in the environment.
In the 2014 DMG, for example, the chapter was called "Adventure Environments" and within that was a section called "Wilderness Survival". This had a subsection called "Weather" and within that subsection were the rules for "Extreme Cold" and "Extreme Heat".
The 2024 Basic Rules just have a section called "Environmental Effects". Within that section are the rules for "Extreme Cold" and "Extreme Heat" which are listed among many other effects which are all clearly meant as referring to things that are naturally occurring in the environment. That's the "cap" for the temperature ranges where these rules and mechanics apply.
As such, those rules are not meant to be applied to a situation where a creature is locked inside of an oven that is set to maintain sustained temperatures of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, for example. If you were to create your own Campaign setting where this was the naturally occurring temperature for some reason, then you'd have to work out for yourself how adventuring in such a world is even possible.
Within this context, the "Temperate" property means that all possible naturally occurring weather environments feel temperate to you and as such you feel no ill effects from them.
Yea I'd agree with this. If you get dropped in magma/lava then the Temperate property won't help. The Icewind Dale adventure have cold weather clothes that lets you ignore the cold weather but it also specifies that they stop working if get them wet.