Really? Your arguement is "No your wrong."
Well Mr. Fishy counters with
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.
Wait WHAT?
So if a doctor tells Mr. Fishy he's dead but the Webster says Mr. Fishy isn't then is Mr. Fishy still dead? What if some people don't speak English. That could be embarassing.
Amusingly, the medical definition of "dead" and the common definition actually do not agree, but in the opposite direction from your question here. It's possible to be dead via common definition but not quite dead yet (to borrow from Princess Bride) medically speaking.
Merriam and Webster plays Pathfinder with Cambridge at Oxford?
Do they need a fourth? Can Mr. Fishy's trollop play?
I have to go against you on this one Zurai. You say that in the absence of game terms, we have to go with common sense. Despite the precise definitions in the dictionary, I have never considered myself unconcious when I'm asleep. Like others have said, when you're unconcious, something is wrong with you. The anecdote about your friend sleeping through the party, well either he rolled really crappy on the Perception check, or maybe there was in fact something wrong with him that day (even if no one, including him, realized).
Or perhaps he's just a heavy sleeper. Myself, I wake up when anyone in the house even moves. I'm an incredibly light sleeper. Other people are incredibly heavy sleepers and require significant effort to awaken.
Whether you consider yourself unconscious or not has no bearing on whether you actually are. Tell me: do you regularly respond with intent to stimuli while you are asleep? Do you actively choose to roll over? Do you actively choose to wake up when your alarm sounds? Or, perhaps, do you subconsciously (defined as "without conscious thought") do so? If you're not consciously responding to stimuli, you are in fact not conscious; in other words, unconscious.
And by the way, people in comas can and do respond to stimuli. I guess that means they aren't unconscious, either.
Willing is not the same thing as not allowed a save.The goat and the fish are noisy but they are right !! Asleep is not unconscious (if it was, then eveyone will fail his save when subject to a nightmare).
I can't believe that after all the times I have tried to argue against sleeping=willing I had not thought of that.
but automatically willing is, unless they only mean automatically willing for helpful spells, but a normally helpful spell can be not so helpful at the right/wrong time.
Tell me: do you regularly respond with intent to stimuli while you are asleep? Do you actively choose to roll over? Do you actively choose to wake up when your alarm sounds? Or, perhaps, do you subconsciously (defined as "without conscious thought") do so? If you're not consciously responding to stimuli, you are in fact not conscious; in other words, unconscious.
Yes,Yes,No [Mr. Fishy hopes that it's broken.]No
Mr. Fishy has umm performed Fishy duties for his trollops asleep so unconcious that.
TIER FISHY!
but automatically willing is, unless they only mean automatically willing for helpful spells, but a normally helpful spell can be not so helpful at the right/wrong time.Willing is not the same thing as not allowed a save.The goat and the fish are noisy but they are right !! Asleep is not unconscious (if it was, then eveyone will fail his save when subject to a nightmare).
I can't believe that after all the times I have tried to argue against sleeping=willing I had not thought of that.
Unconscious targets are only willing for (harmless) spells and for spells that require willing targets. Nightmare is neither of those; thus, unconscious targets are still allowed their Will save to resist.
Though it probably didn't need to be stated, I agree with Zurai.
(Keep up the good fight Zurai!)
Unconscious targets are only willing for (harmless) spells and for spells that require willing targets. Nightmare is neither of those; thus, unconscious targets are still allowed their Will save to resist.but automatically willing is, unless they only mean automatically willing for helpful spells, but a normally helpful spell can be not so helpful at the right/wrong time.Willing is not the same thing as not allowed a save.The goat and the fish are noisy but they are right !! Asleep is not unconscious (if it was, then eveyone will fail his save when subject to a nightmare).
I can't believe that after all the times I have tried to argue against sleeping=willing I had not thought of that.
Ok, I can agree with that.
Rambling follows:To keep the train moving if I use a harmless spell in a harmful(not beneficial to the subject) manner does he still not get a will save. I would think from an RAI view that he should, but from a simulationist PoV I don't see how he would know to resist the spell. Maybe from a fluff PoV the caster's hostility is communicated through the magic.
Example: I cast a spell on the bad guy to give him SR, so that his cleric can't use heal spells on him or a spell that would help him to recover from another condition. Why don't I just coup d grace the enemy? Maybe he has to be taken alive.
"Unconscious" has an in-game definition and a way to achieve it. Until the rules are amended/clarified to include "sleeping" in that definition, then 'Dorks plan will not work.
The question and answer, however, are really a lot more simple than most are making it.
Do you want an "I win!" button in your game?
If yes, then sleeping does equal willing. Just be aware of the long term consequences of such a ruling.
If not, then sleeping does not equal willing. The players (or NPCs) will need to come up with some way to render the target unconscious (or charmed) quickly.
Note: One would think that the ability to bypass all guards (and almost all defensive measures) and ambush a sleeping character would be advantage enough. Obviously not, however.
"Unconscious" has an in-game definition and a way to achieve it. Until the rules are amended/clarified to include "sleeping" in that definition, then 'Dorks plan will not work.
Not technically true. Unless, of course, you believe that a spell that doesn't deal hit point damage or nonlethal damage cannot reduce you to unconsciousness directly (ie, color spray doesn't work).
In other words, there are ways to render someone unconscious that are not included in the in-game definition of unconsciousness. Thus, the in-game definition of unconsciousness cannot be considered all-inclusive, leaving the door open for sleep (which, again, is not defined in game).
"Unconscious" has an in-game definition and a way to achieve it. Until the rules are amended/clarified to include "sleeping" in that definition, then 'Dorks plan will not work.Not technically true. Unless, of course, you believe that a spell that doesn't deal hit point damage or nonlethal damage cannot reduce you to unconsciousness directly (ie, color spray doesn't work).
In other words, there are ways to render someone unconscious that are not included in the in-game definition of unconsciousness. Thus, the in-game definition of unconsciousness cannot be considered all-inclusive, leaving the door open for sleep (which, again, is not defined in game).
Spells or other effects that render a character "unconscious" are specific (and written) exceptions to the in-game definition of "unconscious." "Asleep" is not one of them. You're too well versed in the rules, Zurai, not to realize that.
By RAW, it won't work.
By RAI, it is unlikely to work, but it is a perfectly acceptable ruling to say that it does.
Spells or other effects that render a character "unconscious" are specific (and written) exceptions to the in-game definition of "unconscious." "Asleep" is not one of them.
Because there is no such thing as "asleep" according to the rules.
|
Spells or other effects that render a character "unconscious" are specific (and written) exceptions to the in-game definition of "unconscious." "Asleep" is not one of them.Because there is no such thing as "asleep" according to the rules.
PCs don't sleep, that would cut into their treasure hunting time. instead they recover from a long day by chasing tavern wenches around the bedroom.
Honestly though, I would side with RD and Zurai on this one, we should use a little common sense when making our rulings. this is not to say a GM who disallows this trick to work is wrong. But c'mon guys are we really arguing that you're still conscious when you're asleep? Let's leave Webster and all that out of it, in general use sleep=UNCONSCIOUS.
I would however allow for some gaurds close at hand, and the Gen. in question a perception, with penalty of course, to alert to the "attack".
On a side note I wouldn't allow the mage to whisper the spell so as not to be heard by the guards RIGHT OUTSIDE THE DOOR.
But c'mon guys are we really arguing that you're still conscious when you're asleep? Let's leave Webster and all that out of it, in general use sleep=UNCONSCIOUS.
The question isn't whether "in general use" sleep is the same as unconscious (altho in IRL there is a difference as well). The question is, does being asleep meet the in-game standard for the defined status of "unconscious."
It does not.
The "unconscious" status has very specific in-game consequences and effects. One of these is the effect on saving throws. It must therefore be judged on in-game standards. Natural sleep does not meet those standards.
Unless a character is given the in-game status of "unconscious", in the manner defined by the rules, he/she/it does not count as unconscious for the purposes of being a "willing" target.
What the 'Dork is doing here, is what he so often does: Try to find a justification for his latest "I Win at DnD!" scenario.
Creative use of spells to gain an advantage? Sure, I always reward that.
Manipulating the difference between in game definitions and common definitions to subvert existing rules in order to gain an "I win!" button? Absolutely not.
Edit: corrected formatting
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?
Unconscious has a specific meaning in the game which is not its English meaning.
Do you want an "I win!" button in your game?
If yes, then sleeping does equal willing. Just be aware of the long term consequences of such a ruling.
That's largely my problem with sleeping = willing for these purposes.
I mean, would it be fun if ten minutes later, the DM said, okay, the next time you fall asleep, a wizard teleports you to 50 guys with scythes who all instantly coup de grace you. You take a thousand points of damage and don't get a save.
No, that'd be dumb as hell, and rules that work for players have to work for NPCs, too.
|
|
But c'mon guys are we really arguing that you're still conscious when you're asleep? Let's leave Webster and all that out of it, in general use sleep=UNCONSCIOUS.The question isn't whether "in general use" sleep is the same as unconscious (altho in IRL there is a difference as well). The question is, does being asleep meet the in-game standard for the defined status of "unconscious."
It does not.
The "unconscious" status has very specific in-game consequences and effects. One of these is the effect on saving throws. It must therefore be judged on in-game standards. Natural sleep does not meet those standards.
Unless a character is given the in-game status of "unconscious", in the manner defined by the rules, he/she/it does not count as unconscious for the purposes of being a "willing" target.
What the 'Dork is doing here, is what he so often does: Try to find a justification for his latest "I Win at DnD!" scenario.
Creative use of spells to gain an advantage? Sure, I always reward that.
Manipulating the difference between in game definitions and common definitions to subvert existing rules in order to gain an "I win!" button? Absolutely not.
Edit: corrected formatting
(Re-replied to. Out of respect for your changes.)
I get what you're saying. But trust me, if a player wants to argue that sleep = unconscious, it does make some sense. However the general in question having guards, with alertness and max perception, right outside his door, a trusted hound at the foot of his bed, and he himself being a light sleeper, that makes a pretty good reason why the plan would be pretty damn risky in and of itself.
Now if the mage wants to gamble everything on his stealth check or face a fight he WILL NOT win, all by his lonesome, then I'd allow a pay off if he swings it. But I wouldn't want to hear his crying if/when he failed and lay in a bloody heap on the generals bearskin rug either.
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?Unconscious has a specific meaning in the game which is not its English meaning.
Really? So a 1 HD creature that fails its save vs color spray is reduced to -1 hit points? Man, I thought it was strong before...
That's largely my problem with sleeping = willing for these purposes.Do you want an "I win!" button in your game?
If yes, then sleeping does equal willing. Just be aware of the long term consequences of such a ruling.
Which is ignoring the actual definition of "unconscious = willing" that the game provides, mind. It works for teleport; it does not work for most other spells.
I mean, would it be fun if ten minutes later, the DM said, okay, the next time you fall asleep, a wizard teleports you to 50 guys with scythes who all instantly coup de grace you. You take a thousand points of damage and don't get a save.
This is a total red herring/strawman. It's actually easier to just teleport into the sleeping chamber and CDG with a scythe there. A single CDG with a scythe will kill pretty much anything in the game barring a natural 20 on the fort save (even with no bonus damage whatsoever, the coup de grace would deal 32 damage, for a DC 42 fort save or die; with a fighter power attacking with a decent strength, you're looking at well over DC 100 fort or die).
So, really, your complaint here is totally irrelevant.
Which is fortunate, because it's pretty explicitly not what the original poster was intending to do (despite what the roving smear campaign says). RD wanted to kidnap the guy, not kill him.
I get what you're saying. But trust me, if a player wants to argue that sleep = unconscious, it does make some sense. However the general in question having guards, with alertness and max perception, right outside his door, a trusted hound at the foot of his bed, and he himself being a light sleeper, that makes a pretty good reason why the plan would be pretty damn risky in and of itself.Now if the mage wants to gamble everything on his stealth check or face a fight he WILL NOT win, all by his lonesome, then I'd allow a pay off if he swings it. But I wouldn't want to hear his crying if/when he failed and lay in a bloody heap on the generals bearskin rug either.
For the record, I agree with this. Even leaving aside the "sleep vs unconsciousness" debate, the plan is risky because, seriously, what field general in a world where people can teleport wouldn't have precautions against people teleporting into his bedchamber?
Really? So a 1 HD creature that fails its save vs color spray is reduced to -1 hit points? Man, I thought it was strong before...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?Unconscious has a specific meaning in the game which is not its English meaning.
Color Spray grants the target the status of "unconscious" without affecting hp, the same way that Blindness/Deafness grants the blinded/deafened status without actually damaging the eyes/ears.
Which is fortunate, because it's pretty explicitly not what the original poster was intending to do (despite what the roving smear campaign says). RD wanted to kidnap the guy, not kill him.
Which is actually worse. Kill the guy and you deprive his army of his leadership. Kidnap the guy and you deprive the army of his leadership, trot him out before the battle to demoralize them, squeeze his mind for all the details of his battle plans, and/or replace him with an imposter.
All of which can be accomplished by good players who aren't relying on questionable interpretation of the rules in order to deny the target the single chance he/she/it has to avoid being taken in the first place.
All that in addition to adding an "I win!" button that will make the game far more difficult on the DM and have unforeseen negative consequences in the long term.
Which is ignoring the actual definition of "unconscious = willing" that the game provides, mind. It works for teleport; it does not work for most other spells.
I am not ignoring the "actual definition" that the game provides. I am insisting on it.
For the record, I agree with this. Even leaving aside the "sleep vs unconsciousness" debate, the plan is risky because, seriously, what field general in a world where people can teleport wouldn't have precautions against people teleporting into his bedchamber?
Apparently the ones in the campaign that 'Dork is playing in.
And for the record, I agree as well. No powerful personage in a fantasy would would be unprepared for such tactics. That doesn't change the fact that, assuming the facts as presented, it wouldn't work anyway.
What the 'Dork is doing here, is what he so often does: Try to find a justification for his latest "I Win at DnD!" scenario.
I don't think that's a fair assessment of me at all.
For the record, I agree with this. Even leaving aside the "sleep vs unconsciousness" debate, the plan is risky because, seriously, what field general in a world where people can teleport wouldn't have precautions against people teleporting into his bedchamber?However the general in question having guards, with alertness and max perception, right outside his door, a trusted hound at the foot of his bed, and he himself being a light sleeper, that makes a pretty good reason why the plan would be pretty damn risky in and of itself.
Now if the mage wants to gamble everything on his stealth check or face a fight he WILL NOT win, all by his lonesome, then I'd allow a pay off if he swings it. But I wouldn't want to hear his crying if/when he failed and lay in a bloody heap on the generals bearskin rug either.
I would probably, at a minimum, cast greater invisibility before undergoing such an endeavor.
Guards, guard dogs, a few magical wards (that could possibly thwart scrying and/or teleportation). These are all things I can reasonably expect to be in place around a powerful general, particularly during wartime (in other words, I as a player wouldn't complain--these are all perfectly logical things). The general getting a perception check (with penalties for sleeping) to wake up as I move over to touch him and then begin casting a spell (most people don't see spellcasting with verbal components as being at all quiet) is also quite reasonable.
One thing I would expect as a player, however, is a surprise round--and a round after that as well, should I win initiative. That may well mean I get to act quickly enough to whisk the general away before his guards can do anything about it.
And please don't bring up guards with readied actions. You can't ready an action until after an encounter starts and initiative is rolled (if you could, initiative would become moot as everyone would always hav a readied action), and initiative wouldn't be rolled until I arrive on scene to start the encounter anyways. Depending on the GM's interpretation, I might arrive on scene, thereby starting the encounter, THEN get my surprise round action, and THEN get a full round should I win initiative. Other GM's might consider the act of teleporting onto the scene as the surprise round action itself, which is fair I guess.
Color Spray grants the target the status of "unconscious" without affecting hp, the same way that Blindness/Deafness grants the blinded/deafened status without actually damaging the eyes/ears.Really? So a 1 HD creature that fails its save vs color spray is reduced to -1 hit points? Man, I thought it was strong before...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?Unconscious has a specific meaning in the game which is not its English meaning.
Thank you for reinforcing my point.
Sleep grants the target the "unconscious" status without affecting hit points, the same way color spray grants the target the "unconscious" status without affecting hit points.
I am not ignoring the "actual definition" that the game provides. I am insisting on it.
Clearly you are not, or you have no clue what I was actually saying there. The definition I was referring to is that unconscious targets are only considered willing for harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
Thank you for reinforcing my point.Sleep grants the target the "unconscious" status without affecting hit points, the same way color spray grants the target the "unconscious" status without affecting hit points.
Nonmagical sleep does NOT grant the "unconscious" status. Being asleep bestows the "helpless" status. What grants the "unconscious" status is clearly spelled out in the rules, either in the glossary or in spell descriptions. Being asleep is not one of them.
I am not ignoring the "actual definition" that the game provides. I am insisting on it.
Clearly you are not, or you have no clue what I was actually saying there. The definition I was referring to is that unconscious targets are only considered willing for harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
Then we are agreed. You must have the "unconscious" status to be considered willing for the purposes of certain spells. Being asleep is not one of the conditions that grants that status for game purposes. Ergo, "The Plan" will not work.
Edit: Fixed Quote tags.
The game definition of helpless would seem to suggest that sleeping and unconscious are different.
"A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy"
Maybe they're just being redundant, though.
What the 'Dork is doing here, is what he so often does: Try to find a justification for his latest "I Win at DnD!" scenario.I don't think that's a fair assessment of me at all.
Sure it is. Instead of planning a raid by your party in which they are teleported into the enemy camp, have to deal with the General's defenses, render him/her unconscious, then make a daring escape, instead you want to cast a couple of spells all by your self and subvert a perceived loophole that grants your opponent no means to resist. That's called "I win at DnD."
It's no different from your previous plan to use a single casting of [i]invisibility[i] to render an undead, multi-headed hydra, 5 PCs, and a wagon invisible. That plan, not coincidentally, also relied on a perceived exploit of the rules.
And please don't bring up guards with readied actions....
Well, since you're mentioning things NOT to bring up, how's about you refrain from saying, "It's a game of imagination! Why is everyone so unimaginative!"
Creative players do things that make the DM want to say "Yes." Manipulative players do things that make the DM want to scream, "No!"
Being asleep bestows the "helpless" status.
Please cite where the rules define what being asleep means, since you seem so adamant that there actually is a definition.
Then we are agreed. You must have the "unconscious" status to be considered willing for the purposes of certain spells. Being asleep is not one of the conditions that grants that status for game purposes.
For clarity's sake, that particular sub-thread never involved you or your peculiar assertions at all, so no, I'm not agreeing with you. You're trying to shoehorn your argument into a discussion that it has no place in. That particular discussion was over whether unconscious = willing was too powerful. Since your entire argument has nothing whatsoever to do with unconscious = willing (rather being about whether asleep = unconscious), you're barking up something that isn't even a tree, let alone the right tree.
Being asleep bestows the "helpless" status.Please cite where the rules define what being asleep means, since you seem so adamant that there actually is a definition.
I never said there was an offical "Asleep" status. What I DID say, is that a sleeping opponent is "Helpless" as per the rules. He/she/it is not, however, "Unconscious" as per the rules. A "Helpless" character suffers certain penalties. Forgoing a save vs. Teleport is not one of them. "Unconscious" characters suffer certain penalties. Forgoing a save vs. Teleport is one of them.
If you want to teleport an opponent against his/her/its will, then you must first render him/her/it "unconscious" as per the rules. "Helpless" isn't good enough.
Sure it is. Instead of planning a raid by your party in which they are teleported into the enemy camp, have to deal with the General's defenses, render him/her unconscious, then make a daring escape, instead you want to cast a couple of spells all by your self and subvert a perceived loophole that grants your opponent no means to resist. That's called "I win at DnD."What the 'Dork is doing here, is what he so often does: Try to find a justification for his latest "I Win at DnD!" scenario.I don't think that's a fair assessment of me at all.
It is no more a moment in the limelight then the other players get.
It's also not a loophole.
As for it being an "I win" button. Hardly. There are plenty of ways to thwart such a kidnapping attempt. Many such methods have been named just a few posts above this one.
And please don't bring up guards with readied actions....Well, since you're mentioning things NOT to bring up, how's about you refrain from saying, "It's a game of imagination! Why is everyone so unimaginative!"
It's a game of imagination! Why is everyone being so unimaginative?
I just couldn't resist after your comment.
Creative players do things that make the DM want to say "Yes." Manipulative players do things that make the DM want to scream, "No!"
Passive aggressive are we?
Most people consider me imaginative rather than manipulative.
I never said there was an offical "Asleep" status. What I DID say, is that a sleeping opponent is "Helpless" as per the rules. He/she/it is not, however, "Unconscious" as per the rules.Being asleep bestows the "helpless" status.Please cite where the rules define what being asleep means, since you seem so adamant that there actually is a definition.
And you have no actual rules to support that. You're pulling seeker's favorite trick of making up rules and stating that they're written in the book, but refusing to actually cite them for the rest of us that don't have your handwritten notes in the margins to draw from.
Until you can cite me an in-game definition for "asleep", there is no in-game definition of "asleep". Per Paizo's previous rulings, if a term is common in real life and is not defined in the rules, it should be defined using common sense/common usage. Common sense/usage for "asleep", as I have already shown multiple times, includes being unconscious.
Then we are agreed. You must have the "unconscious" status to be considered willing for the purposes of certain spells. Being asleep is not one of the conditions that grants that status for game purposes.For clarity's sake, that particular sub-thread never involved you or your peculiar assertions at all, so no, I'm not agreeing with you. You're trying to shoehorn your argument into a discussion that it has no place in. That particular discussion was over whether unconscious = willing was too powerful. Since your entire argument has nothing whatsoever to do with unconscious = willing (rather being about whether asleep = unconscious), you're barking up something that isn't even a tree, let alone the right tree.
Pretty sure that if you look closely, I was the one who started the discussion of whether or not is was too powerful.
The question and answer, however, are really a lot more simple than most are making it.
Do you want an "I win!" button in your game?
If yes, then sleeping does equal willing. Just be aware of the long term consequences of such a ruling.
And since you were actually quoting me, my response was appropriate.
Allowing asleep=unconscious is both contrary to the rules and overpowered. Contrary to rules because the conditions to be met for "unconscious" are clear, and overpowered because it allows the teleportation of sleeping characters with no chance to resist.
Edit: fixed quote tag
...and overpowered because it allows the teleportation of sleeping characters with no chance to resist.
Except there are plenty of ways to resist, waking up from somebody casting next to your bed or a guard sounding the alarm being chief among them.
Pretty sure that if you look closely, I was the one who started the discussion of whether or not is was too powerful.Then we are agreed. You must have the "unconscious" status to be considered willing for the purposes of certain spells. Being asleep is not one of the conditions that grants that status for game purposes.For clarity's sake, that particular sub-thread never involved you or your peculiar assertions at all, so no, I'm not agreeing with you. You're trying to shoehorn your argument into a discussion that it has no place in. That particular discussion was over whether unconscious = willing was too powerful. Since your entire argument has nothing whatsoever to do with unconscious = willing (rather being about whether asleep = unconscious), you're barking up something that isn't even a tree, let alone the right tree.
PLEASE, for the love of God, please read what I actually wrote and not what you imagined I wrote.
My argument in this particular subthread has never once even touched on sleeping. It has been entirely about which circumstances unconsciousness = willing in.
Further, no, you are not the one who started that particular sub-thread. concerro and wraithstrike were.
I never said there was an offical "Asleep" status. What I DID say, is that a sleeping opponent is "Helpless" as per the rules. He/she/it is not, however, "Unconscious" as per the rules.Being asleep bestows the "helpless" status.Please cite where the rules define what being asleep means, since you seem so adamant that there actually is a definition.And you have no actual rules to support that. You're pulling seeker's favorite trick of making up rules and stating that they're written in the book, but refusing to actually cite them for the rest of us that don't have your handwritten notes in the margins to draw from.
Until you can cite me an in-game definition for "asleep", there is no in-game definition of "asleep". Per Paizo's previous rulings, if a term is common in real life and is not defined in the rules, it should be defined using common sense/common usage. Common sense/usage for "asleep", as I have already shown multiple times, includes being unconscious.
If you look up "helpless" in the glossary, you will see that the definition includes characters who are asleep.
If you look up "unconscious" in the glossary, you will see that it does NOT include characters who are asleep.
Not really sure how it could be any more plain than that.
As for "making up rules"...really? I'm insisting on the rules. You're the one who's "making up rules" to expand the penalty for being asleep.
Need more?
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an
opponent’s mercy.
Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out
and helpless.
"Unconscious" is a more severe form of "Helpless." Sleeping characters are helpless. The penalties for such are clearly defined. Characters that have been "knocked out" are both "Helpless" and "Unconscious." The penalties for which are also clearly defined.
Assigning a sleeping character the status of "Helpless" and "Unconscious" is both contrary to the rules and overpowered.
...
In that last post you went from repeating yourself every few posts to repeating yourself a number of times in the same post.
/observation
Perhaps its time to agree to disagree on the matter?
|
Let's say you're sleeping peacefully and your Significant Other asks if you're willing to do something. Would you consider being asleep to be tacit acknowledgment that you're willing? I wouldn't.
<whisper>"Excuse me, Dear, I've just invited all the boys round for drinks, and Jimbo's bringing six strippers. Is that all right with you?"
"SZZZNNNoOOOOORKK!"
[Mr Burns]"Eeeeeeexcellent!"[/Mr Burns]
If you look up "helpless" in the glossary, you will see that the definition includes characters who are asleep.
If you look up "unconscious" in the glossary, you will see that it does NOT include characters who are asleep.
Not really sure how it could be any more plain than that.
What do you get when you look up "asleep" in the glossary?
Let me ask you this: How do you define "asleep" in game terms? What effects does it have? By your rules, you're actually able to cast Stilled Silent spells while asleep, because you're only helpless, not unconscious, and you can take purely mental actions (such as a Stilled Silent spell) while helpless.
PLEASE, for the love of God, please read what I actually wrote and not what you imagined I wrote.
My argument in this particular subthread has never once even touched on sleeping. It has been entirely about which circumstances unconsciousness = willing in.
Overly dramatic much?
Pretty sure you can draw a straight line between my comments and you quoting me. Not really sure what you're complaining about.
What do you get when you look up "asleep" in the glossary?
And, again, my point is that the glossary definition of "unconscious" is far from all-inclusive, and that there is no definition of "asleep". There are quite a few things that cause unconsciousness without involving hit point or subdual damage, none of which are listed in the definition of unconsciousness.
Let me ask you this: How do you define "asleep" in game terms? What effects does it have? By your rules, you're actually able to cast Stilled Silent spells while asleep, because you're only helpless, not unconscious, and you can take purely mental actions (such as a Stilled Silent spell) while helpless.
Hmmmm, instead of sleepwalking wizards, you get sleepcasting wizards. That's a cool idea for a minor curse. At least the time I've devoted to this thread wasn't all a waste.
As for your points:
1. Just because the status of "asleep" isn't specifically defined, doesn't mean you get to shoe horn it in everywhere.
2. "Sleeping" is specifically mentioned under "helpless." It is not listed under "unconscious." If sleeping characters were intended to have the additional penalty of being "unconscious," it would be mentioned there. Until it is, your argument carries little weight.
3. Sleep-casting: This is where the whole common sense thing comes into play. No, sleeping characters cannot take actions. Why? Because common sense dictates that they do not. Common sense also dictates that a sleeping character character can be awakened a lot easier than one that is "unconscious."
*
*
*
*
I'm done for the night. I'll check in again, in the morning, to see if you've come up with any better arguments.
|
Guards, guard dogs, a few magical wards (that could possibly thwart scrying and/or teleportation). These are all things I can reasonably expect to be in place around a powerful general, particularly during wartime (in other words, I as a player wouldn't complain--these are all perfectly logical things).
Exactly.
So, backtrack a moment.
Who, exactly, is this unprotected decoy, you're scrying on, again?
The fact you're able to scry on him means it's a trap.
But feel free to jump in.
And then we can have a thread where you whine about how unfair it all was that your GM allowed you to commit suicide.
(If you are RD's GM, and you haven't set this up as a trap, email me, and we'll discuss how to shut down this tactic.)
3. Sleep-casting: This is where the whole common sense thing comes into play. No, sleeping characters cannot take actions. Why? Because common sense dictates that they do not.
And why can they not take actions?
Because they are not conscious.
Mental actions are just that -- as long as you are conscious, you can take mental actions. Period. There is no possible way to debate that. A mental action only requires conscious thought to perform. Ergo, by saying that a sleeping character cannot take mental actions, you are saying that they are not conscious. That they are, in fact, unconscious.
And why can they not take actions?Because they are not conscious.
Mental actions are just that -- as long as you are conscious, you can take mental actions. Period. There is no possible way to debate that. A mental action only requires conscious thought to perform. Ergo, by saying that a sleeping character cannot take mental actions, you are saying that they are not conscious. That they are, in fact, unconscious.
Well, you can take physical actions while asleep in real life. Actions that require thought. Unless sleepwalking is not an action? No one who is unconscious (knocked out) is going to take a stroll. Sleeping people may. Sleeping people have also been known to talk. Dreams are a type of mental action for that matter. I'd say "sleep casting" while rare might be an actual disorder in a fantasy world. Interesting idea really...