|
This is one of Rd's threads so I'll skip the rules lawyering and just say what I'd do as DM.
RD teleports into Bob's room.
RD makes a stealth check opposed by the perception of everyone within reasonable range (AKA anyone who doesn't need to roll a 21 to notice RD). RD rolls a 24 for sake of argument.
If RD is noticed: Initiative, then RD dies or teleports out.
If no one else noticed RD he then spends his next action to cast a spell.*
If RD has cast a spell with verbal components RD is noticed: Initiative, then RD dies or teleports out.
If RD casts a silent spell, but it has somatic components RD rolls another opposed stealth check.
If RD is noticed: Initiative, then RD dies or teleports out.
If no one else noticed RD he makes concentration checks against all the damage he's taking**
If RD has cast a still, silent spell, and has any material component and/or focus required, he needn't make a stealth check,
If no one else noticed RD he makes concentration checks against all the damage he's taking**
**At this point the dogs are also barking to alert the general and his guards.
Edit: alert, not alter.
This is one of Rd's threads so I'll skip the rules lawyering and just say what I'd do as DM.
Facepalms at someone coming to the rules forum and ignoring the rules lawyering.
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.[Sentence omitted for being little more than a baiting attack.]
(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.)
The target in question is that fat hobgoblin guy from Dragonlance's War of the Lance novels (I can't remember his name). In the large scheme of things, he's just a pawn of bigger bads. I'd honestly be surprised if he had much in the way of magical protections. He might not even be a general.
In any case, he is a reoccurring villain who keeps escaping us. Once I learned teleport, I decided I wanted to be more proactive in fighting the enemy (instead of running away all the time trying to keep the refugees safe from the army of draconians at our backs).
My GM actually found a module that is designed to put our characters in the place of the novel's heroes, which works particularly well for us since none of us have read the novels (so no spoilers please!) except for the GM.
This is one of Rd's threads so I'll skip the rules lawyering and just say what I'd do as DM.
RD teleports into Bob's room.
RD makes a stealth check opposed by the perception of everyone within reasonable range (AKA anyone who doesn't need to roll a 21 to notice RD). RD rolls a 24 for sake of argument.
If RD is noticed: Initiative, then RD dies or teleports out.
If no one else noticed RD he then spends his next action to cast a spell.*
If RD has cast a spell with verbal components RD is noticed: Initiative, then RD dies or teleports out.
If RD casts a silent spell, but it has somatic components RD rolls another opposed stealth check.
If RD is noticed: Initiative, then RD dies or teleports out.
If no one else noticed RD he makes concentration checks against all the damage he's taking**
If RD has cast a still, silent spell, and has any material component and/or focus required, he needn't make a stealth check,
If no one else noticed RD he makes concentration checks against all the damage he's taking**
** spoiler omitted **
Edit: alert, not alter.
That looks tedious. I hate GMs who are of the opinion that PCs can't have/do nice things. I can see kidnapping the lead general of an army being practically impossible, but perhaps a high level hero should have a hope of successfully kidnapping a lesser general.
Some notes of my own:
- Many people follow the interpretation that scent can be defeated by stealth.
- I don't believe everyone would get a Perception check the moment I arrive in order to hear my arrival (teleporting doesn't say it makes any noise whatsoever). Visual-based spot checks for in-room guards, on the other hand, will probably auto-succeed unless I am invisible.
- Assuming I scryed the victim successfully, it stands to reason that I knew the dogs and other guards were close by and took appropriate measures.
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...
I'm kind of floored at the sheer chutzpah/hypocricy it takes to call strawman on someone else in the post you wrote immediately after this one.
I'm kind of floored at the sheer chutzpah/hypocricy it takes to call strawman on someone else in the post you wrote immediately after this one.
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 not a strawman. It's pointing out the absurdity in Jake's logic.
Even if it were a strawman...at some point in an argument in which the other side isn't listening, you are left with no other alternative then to fight fire with fire--speak their language so to speak.
That's not a strawman. It's pointing out the absurdity in Jake's logic.
If you believe that, I'm not sure you know what one is.
Even if it were a strawman...at some point in an argument in which the other side isn't listening, you are left with no other alternative then to fight fire with fire--speak their language so to speak.
I feel like you came here hoping people would say one thing, and since many of them aren't saying that thing, you aren't interested in any arguments to the contrary.
Facepalms at someone coming to the rules forum and ignoring the rules lawyering.Pointless in one of RD's threads, I've yet to see him bring up anything that's remotely plausible. Much like it's useless to tell the author of Punpun that the rules don't work that way, he will not listen.
Not even remotely plausible? I don't ever deal in the "not even remotely plausible" just the "plausible."
As for pun-pun, he IS an absolutely rules legal character build. It has been checked by hundreds of roleplayers with not one being able to show its illegality (to my knowledge). That being said, no sane GM would ever allow it to become anything more than a mental exercise from the internet.
I feel like you came here hoping people would say one thing, and since many of them aren't saying that thing, you aren't interested in any arguments to the contrary.
I don't mind people telling me they don't think the kidnapping attempt will work and why.
It does, however, somewhat offend my sensibilities to have people tell me that a person who is sleeping is not also unconscious.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
No spell that causes sleep applies the "Unconscious" condition. They do specifically apply the "Helpless" condition.
If sleep was meant to be understood as "Unconscious" there would be no reason to mention sleeping characters are "Helpless", since that's already included in the "Unconscious" definition.
They took the time to clarify what sleep means mechanically under the sleep spell, and chose NOT to call it "Unconscious".
|
|
That looks tedious.
If Rd whines, I relent and allow Scry and Win to auto-work.
Next time Rd sleeps, is KO'd, or pulls it's pants down, Scry and Win is used to destroy Rd, involving goblins to make the death more pathetic.
Rd is ejected from game.
I hate GMs who are of the opinion that PCs can't have/do nice things.
The caster has plenty of chance in my scenario, just needs to be able to make a concentration check or fifty.
I can see kidnapping the lead general of an army being practically impossible, but perhaps a high level hero should have a hope of successfully kidnapping a lesser general.
If 'high level' heroes are taking on 'lessers' that's not really heroic...
- Many people follow the interpretation that scent can be defeated by stealth.
If measures were taken to remove odor from oneself, maybe. Bring in another 'overpowering' odor just brings the scent creatures quicker.
- I don't believe everyone would get a Perception check the moment I arrive in order to hear my arrival (teleporting doesn't say it makes any noise whatsoever).
If there is something to be perceived characters are allowed a perception check. Unless you'd rather anything capable of teleport getting surprise rounds *after* they make themselves known with their first attacks.
- Assuming I scryed the victim successfully, it stands to reason that I knew the dogs and other guards were close by and took appropriate measures.
You're assuming quite a bit. If a character scries, then they're as prepared as they tell the GM when they teleport.
It does, however, somewhat offend my sensibilities to have people tell me that a person who is sleeping is not also unconscious.
I think the problem here is quite simply, there are degrees of (un)consciousness. I agree that by strict dictionary definition, you're unconcious when you're asleep. I do not agree that being asleep is the same as the Unconcious condition in the rules.
The state of unconciousness described in the rules, to me, is essentially a coma. There could be a fight between Red and Gold elder dragons going on right next to you, and all the Perception checks in the world aren't going to wake you. You can't do anything to protect yourself, at all. How you ended up in that state determines how you'll wake up (duration of spell ends, non-lethal damage heals, etc), and nothing else will work, period.
Being asleep however is a much milder form, and in real life varies from person to person. Some people are very much aware of their surroundings when they're asleep. Some can even react to outside stimuli, without awareness of it, and not even wake up. I know I've had coherant, reality-based (ie not nonsensical) conversations with people while asleep, and remember nothing of it when I wake up.
Let's look at another real life example. Anyone with kids knows that you can take a sleeping child from the car into the house without them waking. I also think it's obvious that it's far from a sure thing though. If the child is comfortable where they are, they will often resist, unconciously, being moved. And if you struggle too hard, they'll wake up. They are not automatically willing.
That looks tedious.If Rd whines, I relent and allow Scry and Win to auto-work.
Next time Rd sleeps, is KO'd, or pulls it's pants down, Scry and Win is used to destroy Rd, involving goblins to make the death more pathetic.
Rd is ejected from game.
Wow. Just wow.
A player comes up with an interesting, heroic, in-character, and sensible (if risky) idea in your game and instead of rewarding him with a fun encounter for his roleplaying efforts, you humiliate him and kick him out of your game?
I cannot do anything but condemn that kind of GMing.
I hate GMs who are of the opinion that PCs can't have/do nice things.The caster has plenty of chance in my scenario, just needs to be able to make a concentration check or fifty.
Or fifty? Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind about how this is going to go.
Why even bother having the players roll dice or have the illusion of choice if you are just going to brow beat them with your storybook hour?
I can see kidnapping the lead general of an army being practically impossible, but perhaps a high level hero should have a hope of successfully kidnapping a lesser general.If 'high level' heroes are taking on 'lessers' that's not really heroic...
Well, what other choice have you left your players with? You've already made it clear that there is NO hope of such a kidnap attempt ever working on ANYONE of any real worth.
I can't help it if you won't allow risky heroics in your game.
- Many people follow the interpretation that scent can be defeated by stealth.If measures were taken to remove odor from oneself, maybe. Bring in another 'overpowering' odor just brings the scent creatures quicker.
Fair enough.
- I don't believe everyone would get a Perception check the moment I arrive in order to hear my arrival (teleporting doesn't say it makes any noise whatsoever).If there is something to be perceived characters are allowed a perception check. Unless you'd rather anything capable of teleport getting surprise rounds *after* they make themselves known with their first attacks.
I can see a GM ruling (rightly) either way on this matter. I personally wouldn't mind either ruling provided the GM was clear on whether or not I could expect a surprise round.
- Assuming I scryed the victim successfully, it stands to reason that I knew the dogs and other guards were close by and took appropriate measures.You're assuming quite a bit. If a character scries, then they're as prepared as they tell the GM when they teleport.
Fair enough.
|
|
A player comes up with an interesting, heroic, in-character, and sensible (if risky) idea...
Scry and Win is none of these.
Or fifty?
Or 999 trillion, depends on how well the target's defended. Even a farmer/housewife will have a dog/cat nearby because they are useful.
I can't help it if you won't allow risky heroics in your game.
Firstly, this is *your* game we're discussing, not mine. Secondly, I posted exactly how I would allow the scenario to happen.
It does, however, somewhat offend my sensibilities to have people tell me that a person who is sleeping is not also unconscious.I think the problem here is quite simply, there are degrees of (un)consciousness. I agree that by strict dictionary definition, you're unconcious when you're asleep. I do not agree that being asleep is the same as the Unconcious condition in the rules.
The state of unconciousness described in the rules, to me, is essentially a coma.
That does not jive with how you can become unconscious. You cannot really walk yourself into a coma in real life. To the point where your body just shuts down and goes into a very deep sleep, yes; a coma, no. In Pathfinder, marching or hustling for too long can and will make you go unconscious. How do we know it's not a coma? Because a couple hours of sleep fixes it 100% of the time.
A player comes up with an interesting, heroic, in-character, and sensible (if risky) idea...Scry and Win is none of these.
Note that I never once said, or even implied, that it would be scry and win. Those are Jake's words.
There are lots of things that can go wrong. Several posters, including myself, posted some of them.
All I ask of a GM is that he be reasonable. A GM who dismisses a possible encounter idea out of hand is not being reasonable. A GM who seeks revenge on a player for using level-appropriate spells in the way they were intended even less so. If sleep is not enough for forced teleportation, the GM should inform the player before the plan is enacted. After all, a genius wizard would know how his own spells work.
Or fifty?Or 999 trillion, depends on how well the target's defended. Even a farmer/housewife will have a dog/cat nearby because they are useful.
There is a such thing as too well defended. If a simple military general is kept on another plane of existence in an antimagic zone inside an adamantine box lined with lead surrounded by any number of magical enchantments and guarded by 20th-level guards on dragon mounts...then I think it is safe to say that the GM is being unreasonable. Such defenses would be so costly as to preclude the army that the general supposedly leads.
Such a setup exists only out of GM spite in order to smite a player for using perfectly acceptable tools in his toolbox.
I know that's not what you said, but having a general's bed be completely surrounded by 50 guards, monsters, and traps (that would force the arriving wizard to make 50 concentration checks) is just as unreasonable. If nothing else, being surrounded by that much death may imperil the general himself!
A more sensible setup might be 2 guard animals in the war tent with as many as four guards immediately outside the tent. The general may also be protected by long lasting defense spells such as guards and wards, mage's private sanctum, etc. Naturally, he would also be surrounded by his entire army.
The wards themselves will likely foil the plan. Assuming the general isn't important enough for such things, however, the guard animals and guards alone might still prove to be enough of an obstacle. If you remember, the general only needs to wake up to avoid being kidnapped in the manner I describe. He may well do that on his own without any help from guards and wards (that's a pun yo!) if he rolls a good perception check.
All this, of course, assumes that my wizard arrives on target to begin with. He may well appear in the soldier's barracks by mistake.
It's hardly an "I win" button even if you leave the general wholly undefended!
I can't help it if you won't allow risky heroics in your game.Firstly, this is *your* game we're discussing, not mine. Secondly, I posted exactly how I would allow the scenario to happen.
Except your scenario isn't a scenario at all. Scenarios have multiple potential outcomes. The one you described has only one possible outcome (the defeat and humiliation of a supposed hero) and exists only to engender negative feelings between the GM and his player(s).
A player who thinks things through, knows the enemy, and makes a plan, (even going so far as to invest character resources such as the silent spell feat or a metamagic rod in order to keep from waking the general when he casts the second teleport spell) SHOULD have a reasonable chance of success.
After all, if the heroic, well-prepared, 10th-level, 26 intelligence wizard can't kidnap a low-level general...than who can?
Note that I never once said, or even implied, that it would be scry and win.I read the OP, you were describing Scry and Win.
Please. Point it out to me. I'm just not seeing it.
It is my intention to scry on an enemy army's general until he falls asleep. Once he falls asleep and is relatively vulnerable, I want to attempt to teleport to him, snatch him up, and teleport back to MY army camp--essentially kidnapping him for interrogation purposes.
However, I can only teleport a willing target.
I once heard or read somewhere that sleeping/unconscious targets were always considered willing. However, I cannot find any such rule now, if it exists at all.
Can someone please clarify the issue for me? Does such a rule exist, and if so, where?
I even used words such as "relatively vulnerable" and "attempt to kidnap." On what world does that equate to me describing a "scry and win" situation?
I have not once asked for, or even described, an auto-win scenario in this thread. You on the other hand, HAVE described auto-fail scenarios that you would use against me had I been attempting this as one of your players. Shame on you.
I'm thinking you must have not handled a similar situation very well in one of your past games and are now coming at me with biased emotional baggage or some such similar thing. <-- Merely a theory, not an accusation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does, however, somewhat offend my sensibilities to have people tell me that a person who is sleeping is not also unconscious.I think the problem here is quite simply, there are degrees of (un)consciousness. I agree that by strict dictionary definition, you're unconcious when you're asleep. I do not agree that being asleep is the same as the Unconcious condition in the rules.
The state of unconciousness described in the rules, to me, is essentially a coma. There could be a fight between Red and Gold elder dragons going on right next to you, and all the Perception checks in the world aren't going to wake you. You can't do anything to protect yourself, at all. How you ended up in that state determines how you'll wake up (duration of spell ends, non-lethal damage heals, etc), and nothing else will work, period.
Being asleep however is a much milder form, and in real life varies from person to person. Some people are very much aware of their surroundings when they're asleep. Some can even react to outside stimuli, without awareness of it, and not even wake up. I know I've had coherant, reality-based (ie not nonsensical) conversations with people while asleep, and remember nothing of it when I wake up.
Let's look at another real life example. Anyone with kids knows that you can take a sleeping child from the car into the house without them waking. I also think it's obvious that it's far from a sure thing though. If the child is comfortable where they are, they will often resist, unconciously, being moved. And if you struggle too hard, they'll wake up. They are not automatically willing.
This is a good point that I believe has not been properly developed to the appropriate level of clarity.
Zurai spoke before on the instruction from Paizo to treat common-sense concepts as Rules-as-Written (what I will call "The Common-Sense Rule"). There is a common-sense appreciation of what is meant by "conscious" and a common-sense appreciation of what is meant by "unconscious". In general, a conscious person is able to interact with his environment and initiate directed actions of her own accord. In general, an unconscious person is unable to do these things, and further is unresponsive to stimuli in a meaningful or directed way (either firsthand or secondhand stimuli, that is, events happening to him or goings-on around him).
Heretofore, this discussion has focused on a binary consideration of the subject of unconsciousness, that is that a person is either unconscious or conscious, with this binary state being described as pertaining to sleep in a manner that either does or does not consider a sleeping person to be "willing" as the concept of "willing" applies to spells designated as "(harmless)" or "requiring a willing target". ZappoHisbane introduced the notion of a non-binary, sliding scale of consciousness, which is also alluded to by the phrasing of several of the dictionary definitions referenced much earlier in the thread by Zurai.
I believe that a common-sense perspective on "being asleep" involves a definite absence of conscious behaviour (as I have described above), but still retains the concept of "subconscious" behaviour - behaviour that may be undirected, or imaginary, or meaningless, or potentially unrelated to exterior stimuli, but that nevertheless may be any or all of those things in the absence of awareness or direction. Further, a "subconscious" person, that is a person neither conscious nor unconscious, may exhibit diminished or nonexistent reactions to secondhand stimuli (as in the example given of a person sleeping through a loud party), and may even exhibit diminished response to firsthand stimuli, but retains the potential to react and regain a conscious state. This is clearly a differentiable concept in common-sense reasoning from the unconscious person who is totally unresponsive to any form of stimulus.
There may be cases where "sleeping" people also become "unconscious" -- even if this state of affairs does happen to exist as a relatively frequent occurrence, it is insufficient justification for conflating the two conditions, and is also an insufficient basis on which to assert that a sleeping person is always unconscious. Further, the application of The Common-Sense Rule to various definitions of "sleep" or variations thereof in the absence of the recognition under The Common-Sense Rule of the subconscious state is disingenuous. The set of things that are asleep is not a subset of the set of things that are unconscious in the common-sense understanding of the terms.
That said, I am saddened by the various arguments advanced heretofore on the subject of the definition of Unconscious provided by the Pathfinder Rules. While the definition provides an indication of certain causes which *can* cause unconsciousness, the definition is not and exclusive one, and therefore those listed causes cannot be assumed to be the only causes of unconsciousness. The only resolution of the original question ("Are sleeping creatures 'willing'?") is dependent on the resolution of the question "Are sleeping creatures 'unconscious'?" which is ultimately a question for each GM to make individually. It is my belief that Paizo intends such decisions to be informed by common-sense reasoning as indicated in The Common-Sense Rule, and as such have provided my thoughts on the subject through the lens of common-sense.
(*Edited for specific responses*)
In response to the original question, I believe that sleeping creatures, while not conscious, are generally only subconscious and not unconscious, and therefore would not be considered 'willing' targets by definition.
On the subject of the question "Does my Wizard know that?":
If sleep is not enough for forced teleportation, the GM should inform the player before the plan is enacted. After all, a genius wizard would know how his own spells work.
My response to that line of thought is (1) if you asked me as a GM ahead of time if the plan would work, I would allow your character to make an Intelligence check or a Knowledge (Arcana) check to determine if this aspect of How Magic Works was included in his education and then eitehr tell you that your character thought is was a bad idea for the reason above (if you made the DC) or that your character couldn't see anything wrong with the intended course of action (if you missed the DC), and (2) if you announced your plan of action without asking me, I would make the check in secret assuming a 10 on your roll, and acting accordingly. Naturally, the DC for such a check is not clearly delineated and I would be making it up on the spot. That's the job of a GM. It is not his job to reflexively "look out" for the welfare of the various characters and make blanket statements on the feasibility of any proposed courses of action.
Thanks for the indepth observation, Steele!
Also, Jason Bulmahn said sleeping characters are indeed unconscious on his Facebook page.
That does not jive with how you can become unconscious. You cannot really walk yourself into a coma in real life. To the point where your body just shuts down and goes into a very deep sleep, yes; a coma, no. In Pathfinder, marching or hustling for too long can and will make you go unconscious. How do we know it's not a coma? Because a couple hours of sleep fixes it 100% of the time.It does, however, somewhat offend my sensibilities to have people tell me that a person who is sleeping is not also unconscious.I think the problem here is quite simply, there are degrees of (un)consciousness. I agree that by strict dictionary definition, you're unconcious when you're asleep. I do not agree that being asleep is the same as the Unconcious condition in the rules.
The state of unconciousness described in the rules, to me, is essentially a coma.
Fair enough, perhaps describing it as a coma is pushing it slightly. It's certainly a more severe state than when you go to bed at night though. Perception checks alone will not wake you up from the effects of non-lethal damage.
On the other hand, how would we describe a coma in game terms? Perhaps as an effect that causes continual non-lethal damage accumulation, outpacing the ability of the body to heal it? Seems appropriate to me...
Thanks for the indepth observation, Steele!
Also, Jason Bulmahn said sleeping characters are indeed unconscious on his Facebook page.
Oof. Shot down! ^_^;
I still think that my analysis and conclusion is valid, but I also respect the need for easy-to-use, tidy rules that cater to binary definitions of this nature.
That said, now that a clear statement of intent from a designer has been made, I can go back to being secure in the knowledge that when my barbarian ally is magically put to sleep and is no longer able to fend off the onrushing hordes of the abyss, I will be able to lean over and grab his shoulder while uttering the words of power to whisk us away from danger and will not discover to my utter dismay that I have left my stalwart ally behind due to the fact that he was asleep, but not unconscious, when I cast the spell...
Thanks for the indepth observation, Steele!
Also, Jason Bulmahn said sleeping characters are indeed unconscious on his Facebook page.
Definitely gives some weight to your position RD, but I'd personally prefer see the response here after consideration of all the facts. I can easily see myself giving the same kneejerk answer, having forgotten about the whole willing/unwilling side of the situation.
Also, Jason Bulmahn said sleeping characters are indeed unconscious on his Facebook page.Definitely gives some weight to your position RD, but I'd personally prefer see the response here after consideration of all the facts. I can easily see myself giving the same kneejerk answer, having forgotten about the whole willing/unwilling side of the situation.
You are welcome to ask him to join the discussion, but I'd be surprised if he found the time for it.
You are welcome to ask him to join the discussion, but I'd be surprised if he found the time for it.Also, Jason Bulmahn said sleeping characters are indeed unconscious on his Facebook page.Definitely gives some weight to your position RD, but I'd personally prefer see the response here after consideration of all the facts. I can easily see myself giving the same kneejerk answer, having forgotten about the whole willing/unwilling side of the situation.
I don't think it's a critical clarification that needs to be made. Nor do I know how one summons a developer anyway. :) I just figured they're like us, taking a peek at the boards when they have time and jumping into discussions that seem worthwhile.
I don't think it's a critical clarification that needs to be made. Nor do I know how one summons a developer anyway. :) I just figured they're like us, taking a peek at the boards when they have time and jumping into discussions that seem worthwhile.You are welcome to ask him to join the discussion, but I'd be surprised if he found the time for it.Also, Jason Bulmahn said sleeping characters are indeed unconscious on his Facebook page.Definitely gives some weight to your position RD, but I'd personally prefer see the response here after consideration of all the facts. I can easily see myself giving the same kneejerk answer, having forgotten about the whole willing/unwilling side of the situation.
Another method is to go to Facebook and ask a follow-up question. (Which it seems Jason responded to, affirming this interpretation, "To the best of [his] knowledge at this point. Consider this an unofficial ruling (as should anything not contained in an update or FAQ)." http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jason-Bulmahn-Game-Designer/123944470959154)
So there it is, and my barbarian ally is safe in any of Jason's games, and the enemy General should seriously invest in some dogs and guards and maybe a trip-wire or two...
Wait wait wait...being asleep doesn't make you unconscious?Correct and that is IRL, and in game. Look it up.
+1. Having had several advanced first aid courses, that's also what I've been taught. Unconsciousness and being asleep are two different things (though they can appear alike at a glance). In most first aid courses, people are actually taught how to determine whether someone is unconscious or merely sleeping (such as pinching their ear). Unconscious people don't react to pain, sleeping people do...
Unconscious people don't react to pain, sleeping people do...
Medically comatose people also don't get better 100% of the time through nothing but sleep, which is always the case for unconscious people in D&D.
Fortunately common sense won out here.
Unconscious people don't react to pain, sleeping people do...Medically comatose people also don't get better 100% of the time through nothing but sleep, which is always the case for unconscious people in D&D.
Fortunately common sense won out here.
If only unofficially.
I would be perfectly fine with a GM ruling the other way.
So you're (mostly) good to go, since Jason is not GMing for you.
Also keep in mind that NotMousse has a point - if you open the door to "Wizard Teleportation Kidnappings," your DM has every right to walk through it. So once Toade goes missing, the Dark Chain of Command is activated. Someone who's incredibly smart will come in and put two and two together to make five (for sufficiently large values of two). They'll figure out what you've done. So not only will this never work again, but the Forces of Evil will have your creative plan and they have more wizards. So, when all is said and done, you're going to have one treacherous general, who may not know much and has a five-headed dragon goddess who can make him suffer eternally if he talks. You will also have Black Robes (and the occasional pragmatic Red) carrying off damsels, mission critical NPCs, and your own party members (if you're not careful) in the night.
Gotta ask yourself if the limelight is worth all the possible consequences.
Unconscious people don't react to pain, sleeping people do...Medically comatose people also don't get better 100% of the time through nothing but sleep, which is always the case for unconscious people in D&D.
Fortunately common sense won out here.
I thought you just argued that unconcious =/= comatose. Which I agreed with, and posited how comas might work in d20.
Funny how common sense works completely opposite for different people. I don't think my interpretation is nonsensical, though I concede the other interpretation isn't either. Can't you do the same and agree to disagree, rather than "I'm right, you're wrong?"
I thought you just argued that unconcious =/= comatose. Which I agreed with, and posited how comas might work in d20.
By saying "medically comatose" there, I was referring to the state of consciousness that others are simply calling "unconscious according to the medical definition". There are ... 7, I think ... stages of consciousness. Comatose is the bottom one, with somnulence (sleep) one step above that. Technically, medically, a person is only "unconscious" at stage 7.
What the statement you're responding to is attempting to say is that "unconscious" in D&D does not equal "comatose" in medical terminology. Which is entirely consistent with my arguments elsewhere in this thread.
So you're (mostly) good to go, since Jason is not GMing for you.
Also keep in mind that NotMousse has a point - if you open the door to "Wizard Teleportation Kidnappings," your DM has every right to walk through it. So once Toade goes missing, the Dark Chain of Command is activated. Someone who's incredibly smart will come in and put two and two together to make five (for sufficiently large values of two). They'll figure out what you've done. So not only will this never work again, but the Forces of Evil will have your creative plan and they have more wizards. So, when all is said and done, you're going to have one treacherous general, who may not know much and has a five-headed dragon goddess who can make him suffer eternally if he talks. You will also have Black Robes (and the occasional pragmatic Red) carrying off damsels, mission critical NPCs, and your own party members (if you're not careful) in the night.
Gotta ask yourself if the limelight is worth all the possible consequences.
We've been sleeping in a rope trick since level 4. They'll need extraplanar spells to 'port into our bedroom. What's more, should I have reason to believe the enemy figured out what happened (a guard who witnessed the kidnapping survived, let's say) then you can bet your butt that I will be using anti-divination magic from now on.
Kind of hard to port-nap someone if you don't know where your target is.
In any case, I never expected it to work more than once. Smart army leaders tend to put up anti-teleportation magic after something like this, if they hadn't done so already.
Thanks for the indepth observation, Steele!
Also, Jason Bulmahn said sleeping characters are indeed unconscious on his Facebook page.
If Jason Bulmahn says that was the intent, then that was the intent. I do, however, believe that he has made a very poor and inconsistent ruling on this one.
On a related note:
So in addition to checking the FAQ, the boards, and the errata, now I have to get a Facebook account to keep up with rules clarifications? What's next, will I need to follow everyone on Twitter, as well?
Thanks for the indepth observation, Steele!
Also, Jason Bulmahn said sleeping characters are indeed unconscious on his Facebook page.
If Jason Bulmahn says that was the intent, then that was the intent. I do, however, believe that he has made a very poor and inconsistent ruling on this one.
On a related note:
So in addition to checking the FAQ, the boards, and the errata, now I have to get a Facebook account to keep up with rules clarifications? What's next, will I need to follow everyone on Twitter, as well?
Keep up with the times old man! :P j/k
Wow... are we seriously taking facebook screenshots as official errata now?
Reading the actual comments on the facebook page there, Jason Bulmahn says that it should be considered "an unofficial ruling (as should anything not contained in an update or FAQ)." No word on whether this particular ruling actually will be included or not.
Wow... are we seriously taking facebook screenshots as official errata now?Reading the actual comments on the facebook page there, Jason Bulmahn says that it should be considered "an unofficial ruling (as should anything not contained in an update or FAQ)." No word on whether this particular ruling actually will be included or not.
Not only that, but I was very careful to directly quote that statement, as well as link to the page (rather than posting an image) in this thread as well. I think that this is, at the firmest, a "shot from the hip" that was identified as such from the source.
I will say that I think that, even taking Jason's comment into consideration, both perspectives (that sleeping creatures either are or are not conscious) are legitimate positions to hold, based on the discourse in this thread in favor of both interpretations.
Juddson apparently is.Wow... are we seriously taking facebook screenshots as official errata now?
Please call me Ravingdork or "RD" while on the forums. I have a reputation to uphold. :P
Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never once said it was errata, FAQ, or anything remotely similar or official.
I merely asked the lead game designer for his thoughts, and he gave them (unofficially). I then shared them with you all.
Not only that, but I was very careful to directly quote that statement, as well as link to the page (rather than posting an image) in this thread as well. I think that this is, at the firmest, a "shot from the hip" that was identified as such from the source.Wow... are we seriously taking facebook screenshots as official errata now?Reading the actual comments on the facebook page there, Jason Bulmahn says that it should be considered "an unofficial ruling (as should anything not contained in an update or FAQ)." No word on whether this particular ruling actually will be included or not.
I posted a picture because Facebook changes a LOT and finding the same correspondence a week from now would be a real pain for anyone trying to follow up. The picture on the other hand, will remain as long as I decide to host it.
In any event, the spell is only a no-save if it has the harmless descriptor, and the target is unconscious. Teleport does state that the target has to be willing.
Being unconscious has a specific game definition that results from hit point lost, or a special effect saying you are unconscious. Being asleep is not the same as unconscious(in game terms).
I would also advise RD and any other player not trying a tactic that they would get upset for the DM using against them.
Example: When I was still playing 3.5 a DM had an issue with the gate spell, so I suggested that it was likely that at least one of those monsters had a boss, and the boss would not be happy with a one of his high level employees going missing, and that he should gate the PC's over for a friendly visit.
PS: I think the players were gating monsters over to farm them for XP or wishes. I don't remember which of the two it was.
Being unconscious has a specific game definition that results from hit point lost, or a special effect saying you are unconscious. Being asleep is not the same as unconscious(in game terms).
This is basically my take on it; there's a state in which you can't, for example, get perception checks to notice things. Being non-magically asleep fairly clearly isn't that state.
The next thing I'd say is: even if the rules clearly allowed for this tactic, I would think it's something a reasonable person would look at and think: clearly this is a loophole that wasn't meant to exist and probably will be corrected in the next edition if it comes to the developers' attention. Kind of like how you can grapple someone while hiding in plain sight from them in 3.5, but you can't in PF.
I would also advise RD and any other player not trying a tactic that they would get upset for the DM using against them.
That's the rest of my position.
There's a thin line between "I, the player, came up with something clever" and "I, the player, noticed a loophole that, if we assume it works the way I want it to work, we also have to assume that people have been doing this for thousands of years because it's disproportionately effective." To me, this is clearly in category #2 -- if it worked that way, people are going to figure it out by accident very quickly after the teleport spell was first invented, and troublesome PCs would die this way almost constantly.
|
Though it probably didn't need to be stated, I agree with Zurai.
(Keep up the good fight Zurai!)
Really? "Keep up the ... fight"?
Please, don't encourage them. There is no longer any rational discussion.
Note to my players: being "willing" means making an active choice about something IMO, so the PF rules are *bogus* and in my campaigns a willing creature must be able to acknowledge that there was a choice and they must make an affirmative decision in regards to that choice. 8)
Unless I decide to rule otherwise for a given situation. ;)
We've been sleeping in a rope trick since level 4. They'll need extraplanar spells to 'port into our bedroom. What's more, should I have reason to believe the enemy figured out what happened (a guard who witnessed the kidnapping survived, let's say) then you can bet your butt that I will be using anti-divination magic from now on.
Kind of hard to port-nap someone if you don't know where your target is.
In any case, I never expected it to work more than once. Smart army leaders tend to put up anti-teleportation magic after something like this, if they hadn't done so already.
"Our incredibly fat high-value agent disappeared in the night without provisions or the guards hearing/seeing anyone pass through the door of his tent" is not a far logical leap from "Someone kidnapped him, using magic to enter and escape." Plus a lot of the nondetection magic I see is (Will negates, harmless) and good luck getting him to sleep for a while. Hope you like staying in Rope Trick for the entire duration of Toade's captivity. (Oh, and any information Toade gives you is going to involve having him alive for a loooooooooooooooong time, if your DM is clever, so it could be quite a while.)
Plus, I don't see where Rope Trick protects the NPCs the game world needs to function. There are a few people I can think of that would really cause a problem if they were to be grabbed by a wizard and transported directly to the heart of Tiamat's lair.
Though it probably didn't need to be stated, I agree with Zurai.
(Keep up the good fight Zurai!)
Really? "Keep up the ... fight"?
Please, don't encourage them. There is no longer any rational discussion.
Correct; you're being irrational.
Note to my players: being "willing" means making an active choice about something IMO, so the PF rules are *bogus* and in my campaigns a willing creature must be able to acknowledge that there was a choice and they must make an affirmative decision in regards to that choice. 8)
Unless I decide to rule otherwise for a given situation. ;)
I'm sure your players are glad to hear that teleport won't work to get them out of a bad situation, and they'll need to make Will saves to resist cure light wounds if they're reduced to negative hit points. Congratulations for saving them from the evils of playing the game as written and as intended.
"Our incredibly fat high-value agent disappeared in the night without provisions or the guards hearing/seeing anyone pass through the door of his tent" is not a far logical leap from "Someone kidnapped him, using magic to enter and escape."
The enemy coming to that conclusion is certainly possible. It is certainly possible that they suspect their agent of abandoning the cause, defecting, going for a walk and falling off a cliff, on any number of other possibilities. Not having witnesses/evidence certainly leaves it to the imagination. A well-planned kidnapping may even leave behind false evidence.
Plus a lot of the nondetection magic I see is (Will negates, harmless) and good luck getting him to sleep for a while. Hope you like staying in Rope Trick for the entire duration of Toade's captivity. (Oh, and any information Toade gives you is going to involve having him alive for a loooooooooooooooong time, if your DM is clever, so it could be quite a while.)
We have methods of making people talk. In any event, the worst case interrogation scenario is we don't get any info and we end up disposing of a long time enemy. As far as I'm concerned, that is an...acceptable alternative.
Kind of like how you can grapple someone while hiding in plain sight from them in 3.5, but you can't in PF.
Why not? I am not advocating using the tactic, but I could not find the rules to stop it.
Correct; you're being irrational.
Congratulations on being the first person to take it old school (by which I mean first grade) and say "I know you are, but what am I?"
and they'll need to make Will saves to resist cure light wounds if they're reduced to negative hit points.
Nah, that's actually unconscious. :)
"Our incredibly fat high-value agent disappeared in the night without provisions or the guards hearing/seeing anyone pass through the door of his tent" is not a far logical leap from "Someone kidnapped him, using magic to enter and escape."The enemy coming to that conclusion is certainly possible. It is certainly possible that they suspect their agent of abandoning the cause, defecting, going for a walk and falling off a cliff, on any number of other possibilities. Not having witnesses/evidence certainly leaves it to the imagination. A well-planned kidnapping may even leave behind false evidence.
Plus a lot of the nondetection magic I see is (Will negates, harmless) and good luck getting him to sleep for a while. Hope you like staying in Rope Trick for the entire duration of Toade's captivity. (Oh, and any information Toade gives you is going to involve having him alive for a loooooooooooooooong time, if your DM is clever, so it could be quite a while.)We have methods of making people talk. In any event, the worst case interrogation scenario is we don't get any info and we end up disposing of a long time enemy. As far as I'm concerned, that is an...acceptable alternative.
The likelihood of defection, or other possibilities depends on the individual, and in a world with magic abduction is not a far stretch for a high level official. Walking out of the camp without being seen is a far stretch without magic however. At the very least he was helped by someone if he has no magical powers to leave on his own without being noticed, and commune can get a lot of answers. If I use commune all I need to know is did he leave voluntarily, and where he is or who took him. I think commune is limited to yes/no, but process of elimination can still narrow the suspects and location down. The detection may also be a 24 hour effort. You have to leave that rope trick sooner or later.
With all of that said I unconscious and sleep are not the same, and even if they were it is a loophole that would need to be fixed so DM's can't kidnap PC's at will.
Why not? I am not advocating using the tactic, but I could not find the rules to stop it.
Kind of like how you can grapple someone while hiding in plain sight from them in 3.5, but you can't in PF.
Batman did it all the time. Swoop out of the shadows, grab someone, drag them away quietly (or screaming depending on what he wanted) all the while not being seen by anyone at all. Not even the person he was nabbing.