Just curious as to what changed in 3.5/pfrpg that made you read the spell differently.Saving throw: Will negatesDidn'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.
Until 3.5 there was no save on Sleep. The HD cap was the spell's actual limitation. Sleep is a powerful spell today, but was a total party killer in earlier editions.
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.
The effect of the spell is to fall asleep. If you make the saving throw, you avoid the effects. Either way, you are affected by the spell.
To affect means to act on. For example, let's take the sentence:
Cold weather affected the crops.
In that sentence, the cold weather acted on the crops. What actually happened to the crops isn't defined. We can assume that cold weather would hurt crops. But that's not necessarily true. It could have done nothing.
See crummy spell, strictly 1st level noobs only......Holy s#*%, sleep takes 1 round to cast?!?!
Damn, they hit that spell hard with the nerf stick, didn't they.
It's super-awesome for a few levels (even with the 1 round casting time), and then obsolete for the rest of your career. I don't think that makes it a crummy spell, but maybe that's just because I play almost exclusively in low-level games.
Until 3.5 there was no save on Sleep.
3.0, not 3.5.
stuff
You're confusing affect and effect.
The sentence: "you are affected by a spell" means "you are acted on by a spell". Nothing is implied about what actually happens.
In the sentence:
Cold weather affected the crops.
You don't know precisely what happened to the crops. You just know that cold weather has acted on them. You can assume that cold weather is going to damage the crops, but that's an assumption. Cold weather may have had no effect on the crops. . . but they're still affected by the cold weather.
In PF, a spell effect is something very clear. You can use a dispel magic spell to end a sleep spell effect. You can save and negate a sleep spell effect. Regardless of whether you are actually subject to a sleep spell effect, you were still affected by the spell. In fact, creatures immune to sleep are affected by the sleep spell. They never gain the sleep spell effect because they're immune to sleep effects. But they don't get ignored by the spell. . . the sleep spell doesn't know that they're immune to sleep.
The sleep spell only acts on the first 4 HD of creatures in its area.
|
Yup.
Affected: You get to roll a save to determine the effect.
Effected: You fall asleep or you don't.
Affected means the spell has done something to you, and now you have to see if you can shake off the power of the spell or not.
Effect is what happens when you either resist the spell and, in this case, stay awake, or you don't resist the spell, fall asleep, and have your throat cut.
As per the spell: A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 HD of creatures.
This doesn't mean they fall asleep. This means they *might* fall asleep if they can't resist the magical slumber.
Magical slumber does NOT mean that they must be asleep for it to come over them. All it means is that the spell affects them with magical slumber, and they must roll to determine the effect: Either staying awake or falling asleep depending on what they roll.
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.
Nope, sleep was *the* spell back in the day because it didn't allow a save.
|
This spell was so broken in 1st/2nd editions, massive area of effect, no save, up to 16 HD of orcs put to sleep...I removed it from every enemy spell-list. Against a PC group of 4 with no elves, it was a guaranteed TPK spell (hence the nerfing for later editions).
Still useful in low-level Pathfinder; a 1 round save-or-die spell in some respects.
I believed the spell read clearly and am similarly surprised at the additional "nerfing" being done by some gamers to make the spell completely useless.
Nerfs from previous editions:
(1) Get a save
(2) 1 round cast time (was standard action)
(3) 4 HD limit (as compared to previous 2d4 HD worth),
(4) Reduced Area of Effect to 10'
(5) Forced to seek the lowest HD creatures first
(6) Unlike many 1st level spells, it will become useless around 5th level
And now folks want to add more?
Nerfs from previous editions:
[..]
(6) Unlike many 1st level spells, it will become useless around 5th level
Er...this was the case in every edition of D&D; it never worked on creatures with more than 4 HD.
I believed the spell read clearly
The spell is completely opaque. Which way do you read it?
Elves were affected by the spell and did not receive the sleep effect. Thus, if your party had 5 1st level characters and one was both an elf and closest to the point of spell origin, the elf would be affected by the spell (yet immune to the sleep effect) and the 5th member of the party -- presumably farthest from the spell effect origin -- wouldn't receive the sleep effect (the spell affected 4 HD worth of creatures already).
Edit: removed unintentionally false information (:
I've got to say, I'm an "option 3" guy myself.
Most of my arguments for this have been stated clearly above by other posters, but ultimately, even if you consider it option 3, it is a rather ineffective and underpowered spell.
I am not sure why it is provoking what seems like so much passion.
In 3.0, the sleep spell didn't have a save[..]
Yes, it did. At least according to the 3.0 SRD.
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Rgr 2, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Several living creatures within a 15-ft.-radius burst
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
A sleep spell causes a comatose slumber to come upon one or more creatures. Roll 2d4 to determine how many total HD of creatures can be affected. 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. No creature with 5 or more HD is affected, and HD that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted.
Creatures with fewer HD are affected first.
Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens affected creatures, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action.
Sleep does not target unconscious creatures, constructs, or undead creatures.
I'm a little surprised that everyone is calling Sleep a weak spell; that's my #1 tool for first and second level wizards, and I've brought many encounters to a screeching halt with it. I know some people like Color Spray more, but I don't like having to get that close to the bad guys.
In 3.0, the sleep spell didn't have a save[..]Yes, it did. At least according to the 3.0 SRD.
Wow, I just had a brain fart (: I even had the 3.0 SRD open this morning q: And of course it's not a weak spell. It's only weak if you're not using it for the first couple of levels and assuming its weak.
PCs should not be bunched up like that anyway.
In 3.0 the radius burst was 15 ft. (50% larger than 3.5/PF), which could easily put the entire party in the effect. . . especially in a dungeon setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Copied right from my 3.5 PH
I would guess it works the same in pathfinder.
Sleep
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: One or more living creatures within a 10-ft.-radius burst
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 Hit Dice of creatures. 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. Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted.
For example, Mialee casts sleep at one rat (1/4 HD), one kobold (1 HD), two gnolls (2 HD), and an ogre (4 HD). The rat, the kobold, and one gnoll are affected (1/4 + 1 + 2 = 3-1/4 HD). The remaining 3/4 HD is not enough to affect the last gnoll or the ogre. Mialee can’t choose to have sleep affect the ogre or the two gnolls.
Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action). Sleep does not target unconscious creatures, constructs, or undead creatures.
Material Component: A pinch of fine sand, rose petals, or a live cricket.
Ah...so it's a bit less ambiguous in the PHB than in the SRD (because there's an example). Interesting.
For example, Mialee casts sleep at one rat (1/4 HD), one kobold (1 HD), two gnolls (2 HD), and an ogre (4 HD). The rat, the kobold, and one gnoll are affected (1/4 + 1 + 2 = 3-1/4 HD). The remaining 3/4 HD is not enough to affect the last gnoll or the ogre. Mialee can’t choose to have sleep affect the ogre or the two gnolls.
Clearly since saves haven't been made yet, this example proves that option 2 is the correct answer.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For example, Mialee casts sleep at one rat (1/4 HD), one kobold (1 HD), two gnolls (2 HD), and an ogre (4 HD). The rat, the kobold, and one gnoll are affected (1/4 + 1 + 2 = 3-1/4 HD). The remaining 3/4 HD is not enough to affect the last gnoll or the ogre. Mialee can’t choose to have sleep affect the ogre or the two gnolls.Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action). Sleep does not target unconscious creatures, constructs, or undead creatures.
Material Component: A pinch of fine sand, rose petals, or a live cricket.
Whoda thunk RTFB would be the appropriate strategy?
Thanks Blackwing.
Whoda thunk RTFB would be the appropriate strategy?
Of course, in the context of this thread TFB is the Pathfinder Core Rulebook which doesn't have that example. :-)
In the sentence:
Cold weather affected the crops.
You don't know precisely what happened to the crops. You just know that cold weather has acted on them. You can assume that cold weather is going to damage the crops, but that's an assumption. Cold weather may have had no effect on the crops. . . but they're still affected by the cold weather.
I'm sorry, this is totally and completely wrong. If the cold weather had no effect on the crops, then the crops were not affected by the cold weather. The definition of "affect" is "to act on; to produce an effect or change in". No effect, no change, no affecting.
For all intents and purposes here, Zurai, you are totally and completely wrong. The crops got cold (hence were affected), but if they resisted (made the Fort Save, in effect), they took no damage (i.e. did not wilt).
The definition of "affect" is not "deal damage to". It is "have an effect on or change". If a news report is being made on a cold snap, but nothing has happened to the crops because of it, the reporters are going to say, "While the weather is colder than normal, crops havn't been affected so far" not, "The colder weather has affected crops, but hasn't actually done anything to them". And they'll be 100% correct in that usage.
I'm sorry, this is totally and completely wrong.
*sigh* I guess this isn't taught very well ):
See this link for a good explanation of affect versus effect.
Notice the aardvark picture. The arrow flying at the aardvark hasn't hit the him yet -- it still has affected him. The effect of the arrow hitting him hasn't come yet.
When the arrow hits the aardvark, the effect is that it causes the aardvark quite a bit of pain.
The crops are affected by a cold snap doesn't mean the plants are suffering or not suffering -- it just means a cold snap has acted on the crops. Some crops may be resistant to cold weather. In that case, the cold snap affects the crops but has no effect.
Affect, being a verb, CANNOT be used when no action has taken place. It would be incorrect to say "the cold affected the crops, but did nothing". In fact, the CORRECT thing to day was that "the cold snap DID NOT affect the crops".
You're mixing it up -- that's the whole point of the picture.
In the "arrow affected the aardvark" picture, the arrow didn't hit the aardvark. If it didn't hit the aardvark, the arrow hasn't necessarily had an effect on the aardvark. The arrow has acted on the aardvark but the result isn't implied -- that is, in that statement, the effect isn't necessarily defined.
If the arrow hit the aardvark and fell on the floor doing nothing, the arrow had no effect. But the arrow still affected the aardvark. Its effect -- the result -- was simply nothing.
It would be incorrect to say that the spell "affected" them, but had no "effect", except in legaleze.
Legaleze = rules = what we're talking about. What are you talking about? (:
For instance, "The arrow affected the aardvark, but had no effect" is essentially nonsence next to "The arrow appeared to affect the aardvark, but it has no effect"
Do you see the difference between those two statements? One clearly uses the forms in a correct manner, and leaves little ambiguity. The other engages in doublespeak.
You're dismissing one statement because you don't like it. That doesn't mean it's not true.
You're adding the phrase "appeared to" to help the reader visualize things, but it's not necessary to make the sentence. You also changed the tenses from "had" to "has". That helps the reader visualize a cause/effect relationship, but it's still not necessary to make the point.
I'm not saying the first sentence is easy to understand. I'll be the first to admit that it's quite cumbersome.
Reading legaleze requires a great deal of patience and knowledge of particular usages in the frame.
Well, given the verification from the 3.5 example and your discussion, I think my point has been made.
Wow!
Gone from the Sleep spell to Aardvarks!
Wow!
Gone from the Sleep spell to Aardvarks!
This thread has affected me.
This thread has affected me.Wow!
Gone from the Sleep spell to Aardvarks!
Calm blue ocean....Calm blue ocean...Calm blue ocean
Thank y'all for the interesting discussion and thoughts. I have enough data to make figure out what I will rule in the future. I am going to ponder for a few days and make the decision by Monday evening since that is our game night...
-- david
Papa.DRB
ps. I'll post it here
Ok, I have figured out how I am going to rule.
I will be using option 2, ie. Sleep is cast at a point, then within the 10 foot burst, the lowest hit die creatures are chosen, and if that is less than or equal to 4 HD, continue till 4HD are reached or there is "left over" because the next creature would go have the total over 4 HD, they all have to make saves. If it is greater than 4 HD than the closet one(s) have to make saves. The spell ends. No "moving" on to other creatures.
I base this on Magicdealer's append and Anguish's example of multiple opponents and Greater Iron Will example.
The spell Affects them in that they had to attempt save, but if they make their save the spell has no Effect.
As always, YMMV, limited duration warranty, yada, yada. And how you rule in your game is fine with me. This is for my game only.
-- david
Papa.DRB
"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.