One of my new (old) players only played Basic DnD and has joined my group that runs PFRPG exclusively. He is playing the wizard and asked a question. He did not agree with my original response and re-reading the spell I understand what he is asking.
Three ways of looking at the SLEEP spell with 2 or more creatures of 4 HD each. The spell is set off next to creature A and 5 feet from creature B.
Option 1:
1) Creature A fails his save
2) Spell ends
Option 2:
1) Creature A makes his save
2) Spell ends
Option 3:
1) Creature A makes his save
2) Creature B has to save/fail
3) Spell ends
In other words, does the spell keep on going if the 1st creature (or more if there are a lot of creatures and they save) till 4 HD worth of creatures fail their saves (or there are no more left within the spell radius)? Or does it affect only the 1st 4 HD worth of creatures whether they save or fail?
-- david
Papa.DRB
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sleep affects 4 hit dice worth of creatures. If creature A fails his save, then creature B does not have to make a saving throw since the 4 HD limit of the spell is used up. If creature A makes his save, then he was not affected by sleep and the 4 HD limit has not been met, so creature B (being in range) must make a save. So, really, it's a fourth option you have not listed that requires all eligible creatures (using the progression described in the spell) to make saves until 4 HD of creatures have failed or there are no more eligible creatures.
I go with option #2, not option #3. But the wording is vague enough that it could go either way (is a creature that saves vs. Sleep "affected" by the spell or not?).
I always used option 3.
If the creature makes it's save the spell "moves on" to the next target in its area of effect until 4 hit dice worth of creatures are sleeping or all the creatures made their saves.
Option 2 is correct.
The spell affects 4 HD. A creature who successfully saved was still affected by the spell, otherwise it would not have had to make a saving throw.
While the creature was affected by the spell the spell had no effect.
A statement that is only logical in D&D :)
EDIT: option 3 was correct in D&D basic, AD&D, AD&D 2E, and 3.0 as far as I recall, so I understand your friend's confusion.
|
Actually, I'm pretty certain option #3 is correct.
The spell affects 4 total HD of creature(s). If a given creature makes his save, then it was not affected (i.e. put to sleep). It was targeted, meaning you attempted to effect it.
Basically, if you cast Sleep on a group of 4 creatures, each having 1 HD, you have a chance to affect each one of them. They each must make a save. If you cast on 4 creatures, each one having 4 HD, you have a chance of affecting any one - if the first makes his save, the spell moves on to the next creature until the spell eaither is able to affect one of them or they all make their save.
|
"Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell's point of origin are affect first."
A creature is affected if the spell has some sort of effect on it. If a creature has to roll a save, then the spell has had an effect on it.
Succeeding on a saving throw pg 216:
"A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.
Thus the spell's effect went off, the creature was just powerful-enough of will to resist the effects. It still counts against the limit of the spell.
You don't get to keep going through creatures if one saves against a spell you cast. It's not like the spell is guaranteed to eventually affect x creatures and you get to keep checking until x number of creatures have been hit by it.
You get to check if X number of creatures have been effected by it. Not all will be.
In the case of sleep, you get your 4 hit dice. To check, not to guarantee success.
Otherwise the application to 1 HD monsters would stop the spell as the 1st creature made its' save.......following the logic of option 2..........
I don't think that's what option #2 is saying.
Suppose you have eight 1 HD dire rats within the spell's area. Option #2 is saying that the spell stops affecting further creatures after four rat saving throws. Option #3 is saying that the spell stops affecting further creatures after four unsuccessful rat saving throws.
interesting, i am not sure, i dont know how this hasnt come up before in my game... I dont think the wording of the spell changed since 3.5 is there a 3.5 faq on it?
|
The spell says affects. That doesn't imply a failed save. Affects means that they have to make a saving throw to avoid the effect.
The spell Circle of Death has similar wording. I don't think that it means that it keeps making its way around the 40' burst until it kills 1d4 HD of creatures per caster level.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but hogarth's post is my what I was asking.
Does the spell end when 4 HD worth of creatures have to attempt saving throws, or does the spell continue till 4 HD worth of creatures fail (or you run out of creatures / remaining HD).
-- david
Papa.DRB
ps. if anyone is high enough to cast "Summon Bulmahn" please do.. (lol)
|
|
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but hogarth's post is my what I was asking.
Does the spell end when 4 HD worth of creatures have to attempt saving throws, or does the spell continue till 4 HD worth of creatures fail (or you run out of creatures / remaining HD).
-- david
Papa.DRBps. if anyone is high enough to cast "Summon Bulmahn" please do.. (lol)
Right. I think that hogarth's interpretation is correct.
Yes, what Hogarth said. You determine which 4 HD of creatures within the area of effect are the targets of the spell (lower HD monsters before higher HD monsters) and they make their saves. The total HD of the creatures making saves cannot exceed 4. Any others in the area of effect are not targeted and do not have to worry about making a saving throw.
|
I'm also tied with Hogarth's interpretation that the spell affects targets in the 10' burst area until 4 HD are asleep or every potential target has saved.
In summary, you've got enough power to put 4 HD of creatures to sleep when the spell hits. Once you've hit your "limit," you're done.
The spell does NOT say it "affects 4 HD" worth of creatures. Rather, it says you cause a "magical slumber to come upon 4 HD of creatures." You've got the power to put that many HD to sleep. It's not a restriction to how many can be subject to the spell itself.
This is the argument that my player is making also. (or is this you Neal!)
-- david
Papa.DRB
I'm also tied with Hogarth's interpretation that the spell affects targets in the 10' burst area until 4 HD are asleep or every potential target has saved.
In summary, you've got enough power to put 4 HD of creatures to sleep when the spell hits. Once you've hit your "limit," you're done.
The spell does NOT say it "affects 4 HD" worth of creatures. Rather, it says you cause a "magical slumber to come upon 4 HD of creatures." You've got the power to put that many HD to sleep. It's not a restriction to how many can be subject to the spell itself.
I think this is an affects versus effects problem q:
The result of making a saving throw is irrelevant. The spell affects you whether you make the saving throw or not. The saving throw determines what the effects of the spell are on you.
Written a different way: you negate the effects of the spell affecting you if you make your save.
I'm going to go ahead and agree that this spell shouldn't (and isn't intended) to keep rolling until 4HD actually fall asleep.
If you've got four elf wizard 1 and a human barbarian 2 in the burst's area, the barbarian can never be caused to fall asleep. The elves are immune to magical sleep but they're still affected by the spell, as meabolex points out.
What if I use Greater Iron Will or some similar one-re-roll-per-day mechanic to ensure I make my save? I don't fall asleep, but my abilities are clearly impacted by having been subjected to this spell. What if I have an ability that negates one spell per day cast on me? Again, my abilities are impacted by having been subjected to this spell. By being forced to make a save, you're clearly subjected to the gamble, the risk of failing. Sure, the elves in my scenario don't lose anything, but they're still subjected to the spell.
This is not a keep-trying-until-someone-fails-their-saves spell.
Come on guys, this one's pretty well explained in the rules:
Aiming a Spell
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
This says:
1. the caster must choose whom the spell is to effect.2. the caster must specifically choose the targets
3. the caster must select the targets at or before the instant he finishes casting his spell.
Problem solved.
You begin casting Sleep. You pick the center point of the spell and designate the targets to be affected. When you're done casting the spell, the DM rolls saves for each of those targets. Some might make it, some might not. Regardless of the results of their saving throws, your spell will only affect the targets you specified.
Me, I help the players choose their targets as follows:
Closest target to the center point is the first one affected. If two or more creatures are equal-distance from the center, then lowest HD is affected first. If two or more creatures are equal-distance and equal-HP, I choose the one closest to the caster. (that is all in the spell description anyway). The part I do differently is that if a creature should be affected, according to the above, but its HD are too large for whatever the spell has left, I don't end the spell at that time, but I continue looking within the area for other creatures with low enough HD to be affected. The text of the Sleep spell says the extra HD "are wasted" if they try to affect a creature with too many HD - this is the only part I ignore.
Oh good grief!
Forget the "depends what your definition of 'is' is" stuff!
Option 3. No brainer.
Oh good grief!
Forget the "depends what your definition of 'is' is" stuff!
Option 3. No brainer.
Except, it's definitely not a "no brainer" since option 3 clearly goes against what is written in the Core Rulebook.
You begin casting Sleep. You pick the center point of the spell and designate the targets to be affected.
No, you don't. The order in which creatures are affected is listed in the spell description; there's no "Targets" line in the spell, and the caster has no choice in the matter.
EDIT: ninja'ed
@DM_Blake: I'm sorry, but have you read the spell?
It DOESN'T have a "Target" line at all, as it is an Area Effect spell, i.e. you DON'T have to be able to see/target each creature you want to effect. Because you never "Target" any creature, the 4 HD limit applies to the creatures AFFECTED by the Spell, not as a limit to how many you may TARGET. Saving Throws (in Combat Ch.) read "Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect." and since the Save line of Sleep reads "Will: Negate", a passed Saving Throw results in "avoiding the effect", i.e. NOT BEING AFFECTED by it.
Further, the way you describe "helping" players "choose" targets is directly against how the spell description reads - which gives NO choice what so ever, but instead says "Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell's point of origin are affected first. HD that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted.".
Contrary to your approach prioritizing close-ness to center point, the Spell itself prioritizes "lowest HD first", and ONLY when there are multiple creatures of equal HD is proximity then prioritized. Because low HD is the #1 priority, your "ignoring" the bit about extra HD being "wasted" is pointless by the RAW, because the only situation where you will have "extra HD" is where there are no remaining creatures with HD less than or equal to the "extra HD" you have "left over", e.g. because you knocked out 3 1 HD creatures and there is only a 3 HD creature remaining in the area of effect, the final 1 HD is "wasted" because it isn't enough to effect the last creature - thus the wording: "HD that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted".
I have to say that Mauril and KenderKin's take on this seems to square up the best as I can tell.
You aren't "guaranteed" to effect 4 HD because if every eligible creature passes it's save, you end up with unused HD with no more eligible targets. But as long as there are eligible creatures in the AoE (whose HD fit within remaining HD limit) which haven't made a Save yet, the spell IS able to affect them (in the order it gives).
I find it strange how many posters who ARE generally well versed in the rules have given such varying responces to how such a basic spell works.
|
specifically, the PRD describes the burst area as affecting creatures that the caster can't even see - indicating that the caster does not pick which creatures to affect. Moreover, the spell specifically states that the lowest HD critter in the area of effect is affected first. Option 3 is the only way to go (which was my choice when I wasn't even bothering with reading the rules - sometimes fun overrules RAW)
@KK: Let's not muddy the waters with hypothetical situations not applying the RAW, that has already been done enough with varying 'interpretations'.
The spell should be clear enough, so let's focus on the RAW application for the benefit of the OP.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
EDIT: option 3 was correct in D&D basic, AD&D, AD&D 2E, and 3.0 as far as I recall, so I understand your friend's confusion.
Just curious as to what changed in 3.5/pfrpg that made you read the spell differently. I've always played it as option #3 above, but your post made me wonder why that was correct in prior editions but not in 3.5/pfrpg.
The problem here is the save. Sleep works exactly the same way it did all the way back in First Edition AD&D, except for the Will negates line added at some point in 3rd Ed. They added a saving throw to the spell but never updated the "affected" language, thus creating this problem.
I find the spell description to be insoluably ambiguous, and rule that the affected creatures are determined before saves are rolled; failed saves don't give the spell any more creatures to try. But I consider my ruling, as well as the opposite ruling, to be houserules either way.
But, guys, let's be honest -- if your Wizard 1 takes this for his spell and uses it on four 1-HD baddies, just put them to sleep. It's the most exciting thing he'll do all day.
Just curious as to what changed in 3.5/pfrpg that made you read the spell differently.
Saving throw: Will negates
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Just curious as to what changed in 3.5/pfrpg that made you read the spell differently.Saving throw: Will negates
Didn't a saving throw negate the effect in prior editions as well? Or is it that "negate" implies that the spell affected the creature and should therefore count against Sleep's HD limit.
I'm really surprised there's not an answer in one of the FAQ's, particularly since each of the options is pretty strange.
How does the Saving Throw change anything? To quote myself:
Saving Throws (in Combat Ch.) read "Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect." and since the Save line of Sleep reads "Will: Negate", a passed Saving Throw results in "avoiding the effect", i.e. NOT BEING AFFECTED by it.
I think it's not much of a stretch to say that "Negate" corresponds to "avoid[ing] the effect", while "Reflex: Half" corresponds to "reduc[ing] the effect". Likewise, Evasions reads "At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility", so passing a Save with Evasion would result in not counting towards HD being affected by a spell (since you are avoiding being affected). Only spells which have a REDUCED effect on a passed Save (Sleep isn't one of these) would still be AFFECTING targets who pass their Save.
Example:
If Sammy has enough paint to paint 4 people red, and each person gets a Reflex Save to avoid getting painted by Sammy, that means if Sarah passes her Save, she is not painted and has "avoid[ed] the effect", or "negated" Sammy's attempt. But she is not painted, so Sammy can still paint 4 more people.
The spell doesn't say you can TARGET 4 HD, it says you can EFFECT ("paint") 4 HD.
If it meant target, it should say that. But it doesn't. I don't see the confusion here.
Didn't a saving throw negate the effect in prior editions as well?
No; the saving throw was added in 3.0. That's why there was no confusion in AD&D about whether a creature is "affected" or not after a successful saving throw. Although I seem to remember discussion about whether a Sleep spell would "waste" hit dice if an elf were in the area of effect, or whether it would just ignore elves (maybe I'm misremembering, though).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No; the saving throw was added in 3.0. That's why there was no confusion in AD&D about whether a creature is "affected" or not after a successful saving throw.
Didn't a saving throw negate the effect in prior editions as well?
Sleep didn't have a saving throw in 2nd edition? I find that surprising - I thought it had a save v. spells.
RAW is Option 2.
1st edition (and before and after): You cast the spell and it would take out a random number, with a maximum of 4 HD total. There was no save.
3.0: Added a Will save, kept the random roll with 2d4 HD, with no creature of 5HD or higher affected. And here's a key line from it:
"Roll 2d4 to determine how many total HD of creatures can be affected. "
3.5/PF: Fixed the random roll to 4HD, thus the same 4HD limit, and made it a 1 round casting time. As Anguish pointed out, someone can easily be "affected" by the spell, without failing their saving throw. The word "Affect" is used because the creatures are not targeted; there's no other word in the game for "needs to make a saving throw for the spell but isn't targeted."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sleep didn't have a saving throw in 2nd edition? I find that surprising - I thought it had a save v. spells.Just looked, and nope. I wonder why the magic users I DMed for never used it. :/
Crazy. My players used it all the time, but I thought it had a save.
I can see both sides of the argument. 3.0 sleep was a more powerful beast though - given that it affected 2d4 HD worth of creatures. I can see how having a successful save count against the total HD affected might be an important balancing tool.
But, 3.5/pfrpg sleep has a HD cap that is (generally) lower. It's not a specatacular spell to begin with and having successful saves eat up HD seems to further restrict its power.
I use option 3 in my games, and will still use that option, but I don't think I could argue that it's a slam-dunk with zero ambiguity. I do think the other options impose more restrictions than are necessary on a spell that isn't all that powerful to begin with.
Holy s!*%, sleep takes 1 round to cast?!?!
Damn, they hit that spell hard with the nerf stick, didn't they.
Well, in it's defense. It's a first level kill spell essentially. It makes 1-4 HD critters helpless for the rogue to coup de grace at his leisure. It lasts for minutes per level.
It's only a win spell for the first couple levels of the game. We have used it in PFRPG and it was quite effective.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Holy s!*%, sleep takes 1 round to cast?!?!
Damn, they hit that spell hard with the nerf stick, didn't they.
Well, in it's defense. It's a first level kill spell essentially. It makes 1-4 HD critters helpless for the rogue to coup de grace at his leisure. It lasts for minutes per level.
It's only a win spell for the first couple levels of the game. We have used it in PFRPG and it was quite effective.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that it was too powerful in 3.0, but this seems to go pretty far. I can appreciate that it's effectively an insta-kill spell, but it's an insta-kill spell at low levels that only affects low level opponents, so it's never caused me much heartache.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It was a full round casting in 3.5 too. And it's still an incredibly useful spell at low levels.Holy s!@!, sleep takes 1 round to cast?!?!
Damn, they hit that spell hard with the nerf stick, didn't they.
Right - I was thinking of the 3.5 change in my statement above, but I can see how that's not particularly clear.
Just curious as to what changed in 3.5/pfrpg that made you read the spell differently. I've always played it as option #3 above, but your post made me wonder why that was correct in prior editions but not in 3.5/pfrpg.
EDIT: option 3 was correct in D&D basic, AD&D, AD&D 2E, and 3.0 as far as I recall, so I understand your friend's confusion.
I do not have the other editions at hand. I imagine it was the wording that changed... or maybe I got smarter ;)
EDIT: As AvalonXQ points out, the save came in at 3.5. Thats what changed the whole show.