Kerym Ammath's page

Going to vote right now. You might want to contact a mod and see if you can post this in General Discussion, a lot of people don't make it down to Gamer Talk.

Unless it is cultural, racial, gender, sexual preference, religiously motivated hate I never flag. I would much rather see the fool continue to make a jackass out of themselves, continue to get posts deleted (i.e. they waste their time, and we don't have to see it mostly), and eventually anger the moderators to the point of receiving the Banhammer of Doom +5. Always leave the fools enough rope to hang themselves, nine out of ten times they will eventually figure out how to tie the rope correctly and execute in an efficient manner.

Did I tell you I hate casters? No really - from a 2nd ed background Concentration checks come off as a very nice gimmie to all casters, so my sympathy is a bit short.

Actually, I could see a DM separating out a distraction (rain, etc) vs. actual damage into two smaller checks since they are two different types of distractions (damage and weather effect).

Can't say I hate casters, but I do dislike a lot of what 3.x did to them. The biggest thing being concentration checks. Before 3.x casters simply lost any spell they were attempting to cast if they took damage. Fly was not ubiquitous because it was a big bullseye. Wizards fired off spells from as well protected a position as possible, the meat shields were vitally important, and while at high levels enough protective spells were available to forgo the meat shields you were giving up a lot to make sure you could cast spells. So when I see a conversation like this I have no pity for the caster. Whatever provides the greatest difficulty is the way to go.

That said, although I hear about concentration checks being too easy, I've yet to have a caster take damage in mid-cast - a five-foot step is just too easy to do.

What about the ubiquitous thrown dagger in the back? I miss Thieves World. I just might have to see if I can get any reprints. In fact I really miss 1st and 2nd edition D&D rules on casting. Any damage caused loss of a spell. It made meat shields and defensive magic much more valuable.

As far as alignments go, well most RPG's don't even have them. Mostly the older ones where everyone was kind of copying D&D. So if you have played games outside of D&D there is a 90% chance you have played games without alignment. Most of the time when I run a D&D based game I use alignment as a loose guideline simply because so many powers/spells are alignment specific. If you do run a no alignment game the characters background story, motivations, etc. become much more important, without attention paid to these items you will quickly be playing in a chaotic crazy campaign.

As to the no magical item healing. Well no one forces the Cleric to run around healing people. If you don't want to be the combat medic don't play a cleric. Usually a GM does this to make magic healing more meaningful, and to make things grittier. Of course the opposite side of things is that it encourages the casters to nova, and increases the frequency of rest if done incorrectly, which seems to be the case in this instance.

Both items an be a good thing for a well thought out campaign, and setting, however from your description it just seems like your DM is being a douche.

Kerym Ammath wrote:

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! Chicken little, please shut yer trap.

What was the point of this post?

In reference to the post preceding it.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! Chicken little, please shut yer trap.

Not to be an @ss but consider yourself lucky. 3.x and the Concentration skill were at the heart of casters being better than everyone else. Pathfinder has attempted to rectify this to a degree. Personally I preferred 1st and 2nd where any disruption caused loss of the spell. In other words fear the thrown dagger, instead of making a successful concentration roll as the mountain lands on top of you. Casters used to have to be smart and ultimately had to rely on some really good meat shields making sure they had the opportunity to unleash mass destruction.

Kerym Ammath wrote:

Relkor wrote:

I believe his plan is to use intimidate to enable sneak attack.

Just out of curiosity, how does that happen ...

Dazzling Display -> Shatter Defenses (eventually)

Gotcha, three feats just to get the sneak attack. Seems kind of counter intuitive, or rather unreliable.

KaeYoss wrote:

Mistah Green wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

I played a paladin/duellist that drove our GM to tears.

That weak, huh?

This is a jab at Duelists, not Paladins.

More like "went through enemies like a hot knife through butter". Of course, that's what warriors do, but that GM never got that.

Yeah, except you're a Duelist. So CR - 6 encounters?

Nothing personal, but the Duelist always has been a joke class.

Except in 1st edition.

I believe his plan is to use intimidate to enable sneak attack.

Just out of curiosity, how does that happen because nothing under intimidate would seem to allow that unless you are really reaching with the attitude change. Of course the attitude shifting ability seems tied to essentially non combat usage since it takes a minute of conversation. The demoralize usage only causes the target to be shaken, and while this will give it penalties does not change how you threaten the target for purposes of sneak attack. Lastly it increases MAD for the character.

Sorry this is slightly off-topic...
Been there done that got the t-shirt. I don't know how your group works or even the players you game with, but usually players only continue with those kind of DMs because another game/DM is not available. The ultimate goal is typically, to have fun and participate in a story while spending time with friends, that can be difficult and demoralizing when your on "Bob the Fighter #3". However that largely depends on how he handles the deaths, new characters and the overall mentality of the group... "role play" (An epic story of heroes and their struggle.) or "roll play" (If it bleeds, we can kill it!).

EDIT: Long story short... if a DM wants to kill you, there isn't a "meat shield" that's gonna save you, as your friend would hope.

There is a fine balance between intelligent tactical play and a killer GM. It sounds more like the GM in question wants the players to understand that a tactical retreat is acceptable, that using terrain to your advantage is necessary, that charging headlong into a group of opponents who outnumber you may not be the smartest thing to do, in general requiring players to play intelligently rather than depending on the GM giving them a Live for Free (Necessary for Plot Advancement) Card. I don't see how that is a bad thing. I've run into the same thing with players who assume they can beat things, because previous GM's provided a milquetoast environment, sometimes an encounter is there for you to avoid or figure another way around.

Only one problem I see with the Rogue Sneak Attack angle, it always requires someone else to be in position for you to be able to flank. If you are the lone melee type it kind of makes that difficult, even if you are not and your party is more of a distance damage group it can put a serious crimp in its use. Just a thought, I don't know your party or their style of play.

I also altered the "cast defensively" check from DC 15 + 2 x spell level (too hard at low levels, too easy at high levels) to DC 10 + 1/2 BAB of threatening enemy + 2x spell level (scales with prowess of guy you're fighting). (Note to Pathfinder purists: Jason Bulmahn hates this idea -- he wants high-level casters to auto-succeed -- so you may not want to do this.)

1st and 2nd had it right. Not only did you have casting times which often took more than one round, you also had the caster devoting a lot to not getting hit at all. One dagger and the caster was screwed. In 3.5 you had to hit him with a mountain for a chance at failure.

Annndddd in other news Thundarr on DVD!!! It was finally released last week after years of waiting, thank the Lords of Light!

Ariel, Ookla, RIDE!!!

Don't forget the minis that someone sharpened the weapons on for some damn reason I've yet to discern.

Take pics!

You never know when you might need a weapon at hand, because you never know who is coming to get you.

So just out of curiosity, did it work?

Good job Cleric. What did you use, Raise Dead or Resurrection?

It's a common fallacy that firearms spelled the end for heavy armour; in fact early firearms had the same kind of penetrating power as a longbow or crossbow, and many suits are armour were considered 'proofed' against them. What killed heavy armour was the cost of it: you simply could not get sufficient numbers of heavily armoured men to be militarily viable against the far larger numbers of lightly armoured or unarmoured men you could field. In the same way, longbowmen were not made unemployed by crossbowmen or musketeers because those weapons were better, longbows simply took to long to train men with and cost too much when compared to the cost of a musket and a week's training for a peasant.

Cost drives many things, but in general it does not drive warfare except when the cost is followed by a more effective means of conducting war. The firearm spelled the end for heavy armor, because not only did it rapidly become comparable in price, and lethality to available missile weapons it was also easier to train a soldier to utilize, and of utmost importance the logistics of the weapon were better than either crossbow or longbow, both of which were more susceptible to weather damage. The principal factor behind initial adaptation of firearms was the disparity in weight and density, that is to say mobility and equipment volume. The soldier armed with a smoothbore flintlock or wheelock firearm, could carry much more ammunition, and due to the smaller volume of needed supplies it was easier to keep a unit of musket in supply than it was keeping longbows and crossbows with arrows and bolts. This allowed the fielding of larger units, which increased the mass fire lethality of the firearm, at which point the cost of Heavy Armor became a lose, lose scenario, because not only were you going to die because the bullet was going to penetrate that chunk of steel, but the cost of that armor could have been better spent elsewhere since your survivability was now increased by essentially blending in with the troops or more commonly commanding from the rear. They were forced by the advance of offensive technology to become Generals instead of Warlords. So that is what is meant by firearms were the reason for heavy armor disappearing, and it is entirely accurate, unless you also want to delve into the rise of guilds, towns, and the loss of power of the rural nobility, along with the beginnings of industrialism.

As for damage, greater kinetic energy is a big factor, but speed and accuracy is also a factor. Any martial artist can tell you that the pressure required to kill a man is less than that which a six-stone weakling can exert, if it is applied in the right place. How do you factor that as damage? It doesn't help that the D&D combat system is abstract in how it deals with damage, of course. But the system seems to work on the principal that weapons with greater raw kinetic energy have larger damage dice and critical multipliers, and those with greater precision potential have greater threat ranges.

Agreed. The problem was that in 3.0 and 3.5 this is not really the case in the instance of weapons. A point of threat range does not equal a change in dice size. A point of threat range does however equal a point of multiplier or close to it in most cases. If for instance the Scimitar did 1d8/18-20/x2 and the Longsword did 1d8/19-20/x3 their damages would be entirely equivalent even with bonuses. This is how they should have been stated up. Different but ultimately equal. One had higher high and lower lows, the other was old reliable. Pathfinder did not address the issue and actually made it worse with the introduction of Critical Feats. So to balance it out leaving the Scimitar as is and making the Longsword have the x3 multiplier I believe has the desired effect.

That said, I think your assessment of the longsword isn't too bad, with x3 multiplier. Myself I'd give it more x2.5, but that would complicate things a lot more.

The 2.5 would be closer without the critical feat availability.

That depends on what you are fighting, I think. The scimitar is great against foes that are susceptible to critical hits, on average. The longsword is better against a wider range of foes and it's more reliable if you have a run of bad luck (I've had games where the dice just seem to hate me) and don't score any critical hits.

The Longsword is on average better against a wider range of foes by 1 point of damage, and bad luck still means 1 point of damage per hit difference. Good luck or against the wider range of foes who are not immune to critical hits the Scimitar does a lot more damage, and the stronger the wielder is or rather the more bonuses the better, in rapid disproportion to the longsword, oh and to add offense to injury we will add critical feats to the equation. Luck is luck eventually it turns, but the Scimitar being superior is eternal.

Interestingly the longsword in Europe was gradually replaced with the rapier, a more sophisticated weapon, which is a match for the scimitar in terms of damage and threat range. For myself, I like the idea of a rapier-wielding sophisticated (lower str, high dex/int) fencer as opposed to a broadsword-wielding brute, but the rules favour the latter over the former, and skewing the critical-range further in the direction of the broadsword/longsword makes it even harder.

The rapier replaced the longsword simply because of firearms negating the use of heavy armor, whereupon lighter faster blades became viable since they no longer needed to worry about running into a tin can. From a pure damage perspective the weapon delivering more kinetic energy to the point of attack should be doing more damage, and this is not the case. I like the idea of the no armor swashbuckling character too, but in a game where both exist side by side, he is going to be at a disadvantage particularly when firearms are not available and in a system which does not model the advantages of armor very well.

It is entirely possible--nay, likely--that the game isn't trying to duplicate or even replicate real life. Having an esoteric argument about whether a dagger vs. a rapier can find someone's heart better completely brushes aside the fact that this is a game.

It's a game, a game that the designers (beginning with Gygax and Arneson) felt would be cooler if there were a multitude of weapons represented rather than, say, five--sword, club, spear, axe, and bow. But with the multiplicity of weapons choices comes the need to differentiate them numerically. "Sharp pointy metal things" become actual choices when they have different damage dice, threat ranges, and crit multipliers. If not for those variations, five weapons would have been sufficient. Heck, even one generic weapon would have been enough, and then D&D would have looked more like Risk.

Cool your jets, fellows. We're not trying to say that a dagger only does 1-4 points of damage, 19-10/x2 on a crit. I mean really...we all KNOW that a dagger can kill you in one shot. Period. Quit kidding around with this strange talk of real life, because it falls apart, like, instantly.

Uhmmmm...no one is really trying to associate with real life, however weapons in game do have an origin in reality, and while I don't expect the game to model reality, I like the mechanics to somewhat support the fluff. So when someone is running around with a Longsword instead of a Scimitar, currently there is a disconnect, why would the idiot do that? All I am trying to say is there must be a way to have the answer be based on a logical choice, the logical choice which has always been presented by the designers, but never in fact being true. This is more so the case now with the critical feats. I want all the weapons to have a mechanical reason to be used, not just a character whim.

I do understand where you are coming from, but that the system isn't that way isn't the fault of the system, it just takes a different perspective.

if you want to generalise and say light weapons = 1d6 damage, one handed = 1d8 and two handed = 2d6 damage, you can do, and assign every weapon 20/x2 for threat range, but it makes life boring and it means that a lot of concepts stop working.

I don't think it is so much boring as not really 3.x. As to concepts not working, if they are built around a particular weapon purely because they are uber weapons I can live without those. I think there is a middle ground, which I am exploring right now.

The Scimitar and Longsword are supposed to be equivalent weapons, as it stands however the Scimitar is the hands down winner. The dice don't really matter it is the bonuses that get added to them which really affect the damage output. In 3.x we did not have a real balancing factor in Pathfinder we do, the critical feats, however nothing was done to fix the weapons. Essentially we have a situation where high threat weapons became even more uber than before.

How to fix it? Well it turns out that by changing the Longsword (just an example) to a 19-20 x3 weapon it has increased damage output pretty much from start to finish, while the Scimitar has a better chance of getting critical hits, which combined with the critical feats make up for the damage disparity. They each have a viable niche in this situation where as before the Scimitar was the pure winner from start to finish, particularly after improved critical is added to the equation.

What makes a dagger less likely to find the heart? Thickness - a rapier is a long, narrow blade that gets between the ribs easier.

Really? You do realize that is a cliche which holds very little water. A Rapier is a long thrusting weapon it has the advantage of reach, but you want to talk about putting the hit exactly where you want it a knife or dagger is where it is at.

Similarly other weapons function in slightly different ways - curved slashing edges are more effective against flesh, less so against armour. There are a LOT of differences between them, and this is where the changes come in.

I know there are differences. A Scimitar and Katana are esentially draw cut weapons, they require the wielder to actually get in closer for the attack, but D&D was never intended to model this level of detail.

Yes, a sword is a sharp piece of steel, but try the heft and balance of different swords and you start to understand where the differences come from. Heavy swords are likely to inflict more savage wounds than light ones, but light ones are easier to place where you want them no matter what your strength. So the heavy sword has the greater mean damage, the lighter one the better threat range.

I have handled enough weapons both modern and ancient to understand the benefits of different weapons. The benefits are all situational however. It's kind of like a ballistic argument, bigger bullet versus hydrostatic shock, ultimately all that really matters is that you either break something vital or bleed them out. Game over. Whether I lop off a body part or run you through the liver it is still game over. A light blade or heavy blade, a maul or a spear, it is not going to matter. The fact you are ignoring here is that location, and accuracy is a function of the method of employment not just the weapon. If I am using a principally thrusting weapon I have to go for more critical areas of the body because otherwise I am not doing much, with a big club I shoot for joints or the head, with a cutting weapon I go for extremities, all of them are going to either result in neural override, bleeding, blunt force trauma or a combination of the three. Assigning a different critical range is implying that one is better at doing this than the others. This is fine if it is a function of the physics involved in fighting, but in this case it is not. Plate Armor did not fall out of favor because of the Rapier, but that seems to be what you are suggesting.

You base everything on the assumption that there's no real difference between weapons IRL when there most definitely is, and I have handled enough to know!

As have I and if you are drawing that conclusion from my comments, I apologize because that is far from the truth. Each weapon is specifically designed to counter an advancement in technique, armor, or weaponry. Each item is built to be really good against something and decent against a lot of things. The system does not model this well. What I am proposing is essentially giving weapons benefits closer to what they were designed for, by really using the combat maneuver system which is where many of the real benefits of different weapons really lie. Strangely enough 1st edition D&D did a better job of this with its different weapon speeds, and armor adjustments. At least I did not have to worry about someone with a Rapier poking a dragon and hurting it more than someone using a Great Axe.

Kerym Ammath wrote:

The real problem is that the Critical Threat Range has never made any sense, and is FUBAR. The only time they work is in a vacuum where we completely ignore bonuses to damage. Add damage bonuses, and crit feats and weapons with a high crit range win every time. There has to be some sort of middle ground where these items work out in a sensible fashion, problem being a lot of people would scream about the real solution, which is essentially what they did in the Saga Edition of Star Wars. Increase base damage, all weapons crit the same.

I'd have to disagree - it makes perfect sense to me. It becomes a balancing factor with weapons of low damage like the scimitar or the rapier because while these lighter weapons may inflict lighter damage, they can be lethal if the wielder places them in the right place, hence the high threat range. Stabbing somebody through the arm isn't as effective as lopping it off, but running somebody through the heart kills them as dead as lopping their head off.

Yes, a lot of people would scream if you did that, because it changes the entire balance of the weapons for a lot of characters. In Star Wars Saga, how many different melee weapons are really used a lot, other than lightsabers which are energy weapons? I don't remember seeing many in the movies.

Now in D&D, as in the medieval period, there are a shed-load of specialist melee weapons with various purposes. Threat ranges and critical multipliers is one way of differentiating them, and giving weapon specialists something to sing about.

What makes a scimitar more likely to lop off a bodypart versus a longsword? Nothing. What makes a rapier more likely to find the heart than a dagger? Nothing. I perfectly understand why they differentiated them this way, but a world of Scimitars, Rapiers, and Falcata wielding characters really makes no sense. Ultimately a weapon is only as good as the person wielding it, all are designed to do certain things well, and some have tricks you use with them. For instance axes and the like are good at hooking (maybe a bonus on reposition attempts), rapiers have complex hilts to prevent disarms or aid the wielders attempts, some weapons have reach, others disarm people with greater ease, some give bonuses to break weapons, some are better against armor, there are a ton of ways to differentiate weapons without the garbage created by channeling people into specific weapons because of damage, especially because of the combat maneuver system. Ultimately a sword is a piece of sharp pointy steel, a mace a glorified club, an axe somewhere between.

I think what I am going to do is 1) All weapons crit on a 20, 2) Improved Crit increases that to a 19-20, 3) All weapons crit multiplier is x2, 4) Keen weapon increases that to x3, 5) All weapon damage rewritten towards more base damage, 6)At BAB +6 get additional die of damage, 7) At BAB +16 yeat another die of damage, 8) Crits do not need to be confirmed.

Kerym Ammath wrote:

The real problem is that the Critical Threat Range has never made any sense, and is FUBAR. The only time they work is in a vacuum where we completely ignore bonuses to damage. Add damage bonuses, and crit feats and weapons with a high crit range win every time. There has to be some sort of middle ground where these items work out in a sensible fashion, problem being a lot of people would scream about the real solution, which is essentially what they did in the Saga Edition of Star Wars. Increase base damage, all weapons crit the same.

Another option, which I've toyed with, is this:

Critical Hit multiplier only applies to base weapon damage (so crit on a longsword isn't full damage x2, it's full damage + 1d8)
Threat Range is +2 to threat confirmation roll for every point below 20 (so a longsword would have a +2 on threat confirmation rolls to crit)
All weapons dice increase by 1 step per iterative of the wielder (so actually, that sword does 2d6 damage and crits for +2d6 damage if wielded by a 6th level fighter)

I haven't gotten the chance to test it yet, but I will sometime.

That sounds interesting only problem is it kind of nerfs martial characters because of the lack of multiplying bonuses. The adding of a damage dice based on the level of the wielder was something I considered, also crit ranges and multipliers. I just never liked Exotic Weapon Proficiencies and High Crit Range Weapons, and how the two essentially become must haves and generally make weapons which do not "perform" disappear. You know every orc has a falcata, every noob has a rapier.

The real problem is that the Critical Threat Range has never made any sense, and is FUBAR. The only time they work is in a vacuum where we completely ignore bonuses to damage. Add damage bonuses, and crit feats and weapons with a high crit range win every time. There has to be some sort of middle ground where these items work out in a sensible fashion, problem being a lot of people would scream about the real solution, which is essentially what they did in the Saga Edition of Star Wars. Increase base damage, all weapons crit the same.

Pondering seriously this line of thinking...

What about this: a keen weapon (whether by spell effect or enhancement) increases the critical threat range. Period.
The Improved Critical feat does what its name implies; that is, improves the critical multiplier by 1. Period.
Then, with both in place, both sides of the critical equation are affected. Ex.: a keen longsword has a critical of 17-20/x2; a wielder of a longsword and the Imp. Crit. feat has a critical of 19-20/x3; a wielder of a keen longsword and the Imp. Crit. feat has a critical of 17-20/x3. Which is basically what Dabbler said...

Each by itself is about the right price for its power. Combined, they don't actually stack at all, but rather complement each other.

I always saw the Improved Critical as an increased chance to hit the right spot. Once you hit the right spot a sharper blade should go deeper, hack through easier etc. Plus it lets someone who devoted a feat to get the greater benefit.

If anything I have often thought about reducing Improved Critical to a +1 threat range (no longer double the range), thus giving every weapon an equal benefit, instead of a growing critical gap. It is even worse when you stack doubling effects. In the above example I would allow keen to stack and it would also increase the threat range by a +1. A Keen Scimitar with Improved Critical under this model would have a threat range of 16-20. The problem here is that the low threat range weapons benefit more proportionately from this setup than the high threat range. This is why critical multiplier increases instead of threat range increases may have been a better way to go, however then the randomness may be too much for some.

So what to do? Leave it as it is, and make keen somewhat useful by increasing the damage multiplier instead. This maintains the proportional benefit of improved critical without throwing the base out of whack or making critical hits occur too often, while allowing keen weapon to serve a purpose other than providing a free feat. Instead it makes the feat more worthwhile(allowing feat based classes to have an edge), and makes a keen weapon desirable, and it does this without throwing the whole system out of whack.

Well, I think that settles it then! Thanks everyone.

I can't wait to dump this stuff on a BBEG's head. :D

I just had an image of that giant stone cauldron from Conan the Barbarian mounted on a castle wall, in order to pour green slime on the poor bastards climbing up, or in a murder hole, of course clean up might be a little bit of a problem.

Kerym Ammath wrote:

I would say you would be better off with a glass container.

But glass isn't the same thing as stone. It looked as though it would eat anything that wasn't stone.

Actually farmerbob is right. Organic materials and metals only. When in doubt for something corrosive, glass or rather the right kind of glass is usually the answer. Of course some acids eat through glass too, they are usually very nasty.

Clay and stone while different in plasticity are essentially the same in the sense that they are composed of minerals. As far as glazing or any other finish on a clay jug, well I would say I really would not trust my life to the fact that the potter fired everything just right, not when it comes to green slime. I would say you would be better off with a glass container. Regardless your wizard could have an interesting science experiment by seeing how long it takes for green slime to penetrate a clay container, perhaps leading to timed versions of your grenade, or rather a green slime time bomb.

Dragonchess Player beat me to the history lesson :(

Of course from a cinematic view nothing is as cool as bellowing out "Fix...Bayonets!" followed by a 100 soldiers attaching bayonets in unison, it was kind of like the sound of pumping a shotgun of its day. Of course a fixed bayonet essentially turns your rifle into a spear, very effective.

Of course you could also do what many games and settings do, the armor repairs itself, after all it is magic ;)

I sure hope James and Jason read this before coming to a decision.

No you don't, or you would have referred Jason to the topic at hand instead of dropping loaded questions on his facebook.

No official ones yet. If you search the boards you should find several topics on this including an assortment of house rules for doing it.

It's pretty clear that Sleep needs to be clearly stated as a distinct status effect instead of only being implied.

I would recommend a NWoD basic game. Keep it in a modern day setting and just do something like a spy adventure, if they have zero experience it will be a lot easier for them to imagine being James Bond, than it would being Conan. Plus the system is very simple math wise.

I found this image in the paizo section of wayne reynolds website.

http://www.waynereynolds.com/Magazine%20Art/MagazineArt/N.jpg
Does anyone know who's that guy?

Sorry the name slips me but he is an Archfey of Winter for the 4E line. I could be mistaken however.

What a laugh. "Create my own definitions"? It's amusing you're accusing me of having blinders on, because you're clearly blinding yourself to the fact that not a single one of the definitions I posted have been created by me.

If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out, I guess.

Not my fault that your reading comprehension has been found lacking.

Feel free to create your own definitions. Tell the medical establishment they are wrong. Sleep is different from unconsciousness. Unconsciousness occurs because something is wrong with you. You will not become conscious because someone sticks your head in a toilet, you will simply drown. If you are asleep you will wake up and probably struggle. One indicates helplessness with zero response to external stimuli, the other indicates helplessness with diminished response to external stimuli. That is a huge difference, and if you feel like keeping the blinders on and wish to continue wallowing in your own ignorance feel free to do so, just don't expect to many others to join you.

Papa-DRB wrote:

Please keep the argument to game terms.

That would be a wonderful argument if Paizo had not specifically said at several points in the past that they specifically left out common-sense definitions. It's absolutely common sense that a person who is a sleep is not conscious. He cannot consciously (that is, intentionally) respond to stimuli. Thus, he is unconscious. That is common sense, and Paizo has repeatedly said that common sense rules should be followed as if they were game rules.

Furthermore, THE RULES DO NOT DEFINE "ASLEEP". Thus, we are left with the common sense, common dictionary definition, WHICH DEFINES ASLEEP PARTIALLY AS BEING UNCONSCIOUS.

No it is not common sense, just plain ignorance.

Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound,sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy.

If sleep=unconscious why are they listed separately?

Elven Immunities: Elves are immune to magic sleep effects and get a +2 racial saving throw bonus against

enchantment spells and effects.

Can you knock out an elf? No you can't if sleep=unconsciousness.

Creature making the check is asleep +10DC

So I do get a Perception Check if I am unconscious? No, only if sleep=unconsciousness, but medically that is not the case and it is pretty clear it ain't the case in Pathfinder either.

Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having

negative hit points (but not more than the creature’s Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

No mention of sleep.

It’s possible for a character to march into

unconsciousness by pushing himself too hard.

He does not march himself to sleep. Unconsciousness is forced, there is no reaction to stimuli, recovery requires medical care or natural healing. A loud noise will wake you from sleep. There is a difference sleep does not equal unconsciousness in Pathfinder or IRL.

@Zurai: The NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH disagrees with you.

Actually no it is a little beyond that.

Unconsciousness - first aid

URL of this page: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000022.htm

Unconsciousness is when a person is unable to respond to people and activities. Often, this is called a coma or being in a comatose state.

Other changes in awareness can occur without becoming unconscious. Medically, these are called "altered mental status" or "changed mental status." They include sudden confusion, disorientation, or stupor.

Unconsciousness or any other SUDDEN change in mental status must be treated as a medical emergency.

If someone is awake but less alert than usual, ask a few simple questions, such as:

* What is your name?
* What is the date?
* How old are you?

Wrong answers or an inability to answer the question suggest a change in mental status.
Considerations
Considerations

Being asleep is not the same thing as being unconscious. A sleeping person will respond to loud noises or gentle shaking -- an unconscious person will not.

An unconscious person cannot cough or clear his or her throat. This can lead to death if the airway becomes blocked.

No, I dare say you are quite wrong.

Sleeping creatures are unconscious. Any other ruling is sheer, arbitrary gamesmanship. Why not just drop a rock on the PC's head, since clearly you're not willing to let him play the damned game?

No it is not gamesmanship.

Sleep definition: a period of rest for the body and mind, during which volition and consciousness are in abeyance and bodily functions are partially suspended; also described as a behavioral state, with characteristic immobile posture and diminished but readily reversible sensitivity to external stimuli.

Unconsciousness definition: insensible; incapable of responding to sensory stimuli and of having subjective experiences.

They are different. No gamesmanship. If the NPC is able to react to external stimuli, you know the PC messing with him he is asleep, if he cant react he is unconscious. If he is asleep it does not follow that he is unconscious.

Wait wait wait...being asleep doesn't make you unconscious?

Correct and that is IRL, and in game. Look it up.

Kerym Ammath wrote:

The only problems I see is 1) Someone detects your scrying and sets a trap, and 2) Your DM allows him to wake when you touch him to cast the exit teleport at which point he is no longer willing.

Odds are, he would wake up after the teleport. Even if he doesn't that's what Reach Spell is for. I can teleport him without having to touch him.

I hope your DM feels the same way, and does not rule that your Reach Spell, is just like touching him but at a distance. Also as far as him waking after the teleport you might be surprised how quick you wake up when your living depends on it.

Jeremy that is frigging awesome, to be a part of the White Stag of gaming. I have been fortunate enough to have orchestrated three scenes where the line completely blurred between reality and game, of them in a long running Old World of Darkness Crossover game, another in a World of Darkness Vampire the Dark Ages, and the last in an Amber Diceless game. All of them got to the point where we had to leave things off because either the rage or sense of betrayal was so palpable that the players were having difficulty keeping their emotions separated from the game. The Crossover game actually involved one of my friends wives locking herself in the bedroom because she did not quite get that it was still a game, but when you have two werewolves raging in the living room it is understandable.

I think it all comes down to the group, the expectations, and where you are willing to go. Most importantly the GM needs to be able to fully invest himself in the NPC's, when it all comes together it is like the Holy Trifecta of Gaming. Once you hit it, you never know if you will again.