Why not? I am not advocating using the tactic, but I could not find the rules to stop it.
Point being, the idea that someone is physically grabbing you and pinning you but you essentially have no idea at all where they are (and can't target them) is stupid. Even in a world full of magic it makes no sense at all -- which is why it was fixed in PF.
(Well, probably that and Jason Bulmahn running one too many Living Greyhawk tables with players abusing exactly that case.)
Batman did it all the time.
If "Batman can do it!" is a reasonable argument for what's physically possible, I give up.
If "Batman can do it!" is a reasonable argument for what's physically possible, I give up.
Batman did it all the time.
Actually, it is. Batman was mortal, not like Superman or all these other people with magical powers.
What's more, like the DC universe, Pathfinder is a world full of heroes capable of doing amazing things. Why shouldn't my hero be able to pull off a small aspect of Batman?
Why not? I am not advocating using the tactic, but I could not find the rules to stop it.Point being, the idea that someone is physically grabbing you and pinning you but you essentially have no idea at all where they are (and can't target them) is stupid. Even in a world full of magic it makes no sense at all -- which is why it was fixed in PF.
(Well, probably that and Jason Bulmahn running one too many Living Greyhawk tables with players abusing exactly that case.)
I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying you could not grab/grapple someone while using hide in plain sight. Holding on to someone is an entirely different matter.
If "Batman can do it!" is a reasonable argument for what's physically possible, I give up.
Batman did it all the time.Actually, it is. Batman was mortal, not like Superman or all these other people with magical powers.
What's more, like the DC universe, Pathfinder is a world full of heroes capable of doing amazing things. Why shouldn't my hero be able to pull off a small aspect of Batman?
Movie reality and pathfinder reality don't work the same.
PS:Please no strawman/other illogical attacks on the word "reality". I am sure everyone knows the point I am trying to make.
Actually, it is. Batman was mortal, not like Superman or all these other people with magical powers.
Theoretically, and yet he still does things that, in practice, no person in the real world can.
What's more, like the DC universe, Pathfinder is a world full of heroes capable of doing amazing things. Why shouldn't my hero be able to pull off a small aspect of Batman?
This kind of brings things full circle: because if it's possible, it's possible for everyone, and you would think it was obnoxious, as a player, if an NPC snuck up on your PC, grabbed you, and you couldn't do anything* about it as they very slowly kill you.
*Obviously, some PCs could do something about it, but a lot can't.
Movie reality and pathfinder reality don't work the same.
Care to elaborate? The only difference I see is that Pathfinder is more interactive.
Theoretically, and yet he still does things that, in practice, no person in the real world can.Actually, it is. Batman was mortal, not like Superman or all these other people with magical powers.
Which has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever as neither the DC universe nor the Pathfinder universe is anything like the "real world."
What's more, like the DC universe, Pathfinder is a world full of heroes capable of doing amazing things. Why shouldn't my hero be able to pull off a small aspect of Batman?This kind of brings things full circle: because if it's possible, it's possible for everyone, and you would think it was obnoxious, as a player, if an NPC snuck up on your PC, grabbed you, and you couldn't do anything* about it as they very slowly kill you.
And why wouldn't I be able to do anything about it? Whether or not I can see my attacker, I would still be able to make an escape artist check or grapple check to escape a grapple or pin.
*Obviously, some PCs could do something about it, but a lot can't.
If they can't, its because their escape artist/CMB modifiers are too low, or the attacker's CMD is too high. This may well happen even without invisibility, HiPS, or similar abilities muddying things up.
Movie reality and pathfinder reality don't work the same.Care to elaborate? The only difference I see is that Pathfinder is more interactive.
Basically movies and games follow different laws. Pathinder has rules to say how things happen. In movies they normally just happen with detailed explanation. Saying Batman can do it is not a good reason to break rules because his rules don't line up with pathfinder rules.
Spiderman had a strength of about 50 in D&D. I doubt you will find any medium sized creatures with a strength of 50 in D&D that are only have the augmented humanoid subtype.
Movie reality and pathfinder reality don't work the same.Care to elaborate? The only difference I see is that Pathfinder is more interactive.
Basically movies and games follow different laws. Pathinder has rules to say how things happen. In movies they normally just happen with detailed explanation. Saying Batman can do it is not a good reason to break rules because his rules don't line up with pathfinder rules.
Spiderman had a strength of about 50 in D&D. I doubt you will find any medium sized creatures with a strength of 50 in D&D that are only have the augmented humanoid subtype.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. I still think it should conceivably be possible to nab someone without them seeing you. Bad guys do it all the time in games, movies, real life, etc.
HiPS might not be enough for it, but it should still be possible somehow (even if the GM has to make a quick ruling).
Movie reality and pathfinder reality don't work the same.Care to elaborate? The only difference I see is that Pathfinder is more interactive.
Basically movies and games follow different laws. Pathinder has rules to say how things happen. In movies they normally just happen with detailed explanation. Saying Batman can do it is not a good reason to break rules because his rules don't line up with pathfinder rules.
Spiderman had a strength of about 50 in D&D. I doubt you will find any medium sized creatures with a strength of 50 in D&D that are only have the augmented humanoid subtype.Yeah, I suppose you're right. I still think it should conceivably be possible to nab someone without them seeing you. Bad guys do it all the time in games, movies, real life, etc.
HiPS might not be enough for it, but it should still be possible somehow.
The issue with this tactic and others is that players often whine when their tactics are used against them.
Either something is legit or not in my games, and many other DM's games. Being a PC does not mean you get one set of rules, while the NPC's get a different set.
I am not saying you are asking for special treatment, but many players do whether they know it or not.
Now I have played under some hardcore DM's that allow a lot more than I do, but they also have no problems "returning the favor". I avoid the issue by just not allowing things the players would get upset about if I do it to them, and yes it varies depending on who I am DM'ing for. The more you(player's in general) can take without complaining, the more I will allow you to do.
I don't remember if I mentioned it before, but if the players starting gating demons to farm XP I would have no issues gating them to the where the demons came from to answer to someone well above their power level for the missing employees.
|
You know, a first level spell called Alarm would stop this. Anyone who is important and living in this magical world who does not have this while they sleep, deserves to be nabbed.
Director of Games
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.. it appears I was not given all the info on this particular issue when asked the question.
I am looking into it, but there may be a problem in the rules here that need clarification. I guess my problem is that treating an unconscious character as willing opens up a lot of loopholes that were not intended. Sleeping should equal unconscious, but I am not 100% sure that unconscious should always equal willing.
Looking into the matter.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
For the record, unconscious does not always equal willing. It only does so in two circumstances: harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
I don't think there's really any problem with it.
For the record, unconscious does not always equal willing. It only does so in two circumstances: harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
I don't think there's really any problem with it.
Agreed. Please keep this in mind, Jason, should you decide to make an official ruling on the matter.
Also, being unconscious (and therefore willing) does not equate to giving up a saving throw like some people believe.
For the record, unconscious does not always equal willing. It only does so in two circumstances: harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
I don't think there's really any problem with it.
A "harmless" spell could become harmful with a creative player(looking at you RD*) so I think some clarification of intent should be posted. It would also help for any new spells that might be created in the future.
PS:Being creative is not a bad thing, but for DM's that don't know the books or understand intent it could be an issue.
Zurai and RD, I've actually been silently on your side for this entire battle. However, Jason said he's going to work on the issue and get back to us. I find it odd that you would then commence to remind the Lead Designer of his own rules.
Let the man think on it and get back to us.
|
Creative Director
|
For what it's worth, here's my take:
In order to be willing, you need to be conscious, since being willing is a choice you make. If you're not able to choose, you can't choose at all, and therefore by definition you are unwilling.
If I were running a game, though, I'd let the player choose if he were willing or unwilling even if he were unconscious because that at least lets the player of a character who is at least temporarily out of the game keep playing by having input into the events.
For what it's worth, here's my take:
In order to be willing, you need to be conscious, since being willing is a choice you make. If you're not able to choose, you can't choose at all, and therefore by definition you are unwilling.
As written, the rules are pretty clear that unconscious people are considered willing. (The only thing being debated in this thread is whether or not sleep counts as unconscious for the same purpose.)
If that is something you are looking to implement in the game, you will have to do it through errata I'm thinking. Otherwise, I could have my rogue sap you over the head and then I could teleport you anywhere I wanted.
Hmm.. it appears I was not given all the info on this particular issue when asked the question.
I find it odd that you would then commence to remind the Lead Designer of his own rules.
I gave Jason exactly as much information as was needed to answer the question asked of him. His very comment above is proof that not even the game designers remember every little detail and consequence when they make a ruling (official or otherwise). Therefore, it makes perfect sense for someone to remind them from time to time, just in case. Game designers are only human, after all.
This is also why the people over on the WotC Star Wars boards granted me an official title: Rules Lawyer From Hell--I often knew the rules better than the people who designed them AND I would even question/correct the very designers from time to time.
I've never meant any disrespect by it, I am merely an excitable customer/fan who wants to have a hand in making the game better for everyone. It's my dream to be a game designer like Jason Bulmahn or Rodney Thompson one day.
Rodney Thompson himself once jokingly told me, "I don't hate anyone. I just wish I could shoot you with tranquilizer darts through the internet."
For what it's worth, here's my take:
In order to be willing, you need to be conscious, since being willing is a choice you make. If you're not able to choose, you can't choose at all, and therefore by definition you are unwilling.
If I were running a game, though, I'd let the player choose if he were willing or unwilling even if he were unconscious because that at least lets the player of a character who is at least temporarily out of the game keep playing by having input into the events.
The only problem with this perspective (paragraph 1) on "willing" is in how it interacts with "(harmless)" spells - some spells that are "(harmless)" can be employed in a similarly disadventageous manner by one's enemies, but the various healing spells are also "(harmless)", so if one is unwilling by default, one suddenly becomes harder to heal.
This solution (paragraph 2) feels like the best one to me, and is even appropriate to apply to all creatures - if necessary, explain the ability to choose willing vs. unwilling while unconscious by the mechanism of the interaction of the magic with the soul/ego/life-essence/whatsis of the creature in question. Shift the "blame" for the way it works onto the magic itself, as it were. This, of course, begs the question of how much the "whatsis" of the creature (that allows the willing/unwilling choice) can tell about the spell in question...
I think, in answer to my own question and drawing on the concept as it is presented in the various life-restorative spells, that the unconscious creature has a good idea of who is casting the spell before deciding whether the creature is willing or unwilling with respect to the spell effect.
I think that, unless I see a better suggestion on how to deal with willing/unwilling, I'll implement this sort of reasoning in situations calling for the determination of willingness in an unconscious creature, and that with that alteration, I am perfectly happy to allow sleeping to indicate unconsciousness.
I definitely feel the easiest and most intuitive way to deal with this, is to note that "sleeping" is not the same as "unconscious", and sleeping characters are not willing targets the way "unconscious" characters are. Since both sleeping and unconscious characters are "helpless", what additional benefit is there to giving all sleeping characters the "unconscious" condition? It just creates exploits that are unnecessary.
I definitely feel the easiest and most intuitive way to deal with this, is to note that "sleeping" is not the same as "unconscious", and sleeping characters are not willing targets the way "unconscious" characters are. Since both sleeping and unconscious characters are "helpless", what additional benefit is there to giving all sleeping characters the "unconscious" condition? It just creates exploits that are unnecessary.
Though I disagree that sleep does not at least in part equal unconscious, this would make for an easy fix.
For the record, unconscious does not always equal willing. It only does so in two circumstances: harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
I don't think there's really any problem with it.
A "harmless" spell could become harmful with a creative player(looking at you RD*) so I think some clarification of intent should be posted. It would also help for any new spells that might be created in the future.
PS:Being creative is not a bad thing, but for DM's that don't know the books or understand intent it could be an issue.
"Harmless" doesn't necessarily mean harmless. It means you don't have to be effected by the spell if you don't want to. But if you don't know you don't want to...
I definitely feel the easiest and most intuitive way to deal with this, is to note that "sleeping" is not the same as "unconscious", and sleeping characters are not willing targets the way "unconscious" characters are. Since both sleeping and unconscious characters are "helpless", what additional benefit is there to giving all sleeping characters the "unconscious" condition? It just creates exploits that are unnecessary.
I agree with this. That would get rid of a lot of loopholes.
"Harmless" doesn't necessarily mean harmless. It means you don't have to be effected by the spell if you don't want to. But if you don't know you don't want to...For the record, unconscious does not always equal willing. It only does so in two circumstances: harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
I don't think there's really any problem with it.
A "harmless" spell could become harmful with a creative player(looking at you RD*) so I think some clarification of intent should be posted. It would also help for any new spells that might be created in the future.
PS:Being creative is not a bad thing, but for DM's that don't know the books or understand intent it could be an issue.
but I think the intent behind "harmless" was to be harmless. If that was not the case undead would not get saves against cure spells, since they are not harmless to them. They put in a line for this in the spell so players could not get around the "harmless" line. The other spells don't have any special lines because the loop holes had not been thought of.
but I think the intent behind "harmless" was to be harmless. If that was not the case undead would not get saves against cure spells, since they are not harmless to them. They put in a line for this in the spell so players could not get around the "harmless" line. The other spells don't have any special lines because the loop holes had not been thought of."Harmless" doesn't necessarily mean harmless. It means you don't have to be effected by the spell if you don't want to. But if you don't know you don't want to...For the record, unconscious does not always equal willing. It only does so in two circumstances: harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
I don't think there's really any problem with it.
A "harmless" spell could become harmful with a creative player(looking at you RD*) so I think some clarification of intent should be posted. It would also help for any new spells that might be created in the future.
PS:Being creative is not a bad thing, but for DM's that don't know the books or understand intent it could be an issue.
Of course Cure spells are harmless. Except to undead. Of course, when do undead sleep or get knocked unconscious.
For what it's worth, here's my take:
In order to be willing, you need to be conscious, since being willing is a choice you make. If you're not able to choose, you can't choose at all, and therefore by definition you are unwilling.
If I were running a game, though, I'd let the player choose if he were willing or unwilling even if he were unconscious because that at least lets the player of a character who is at least temporarily out of the game keep playing by having input into the events.
The only problem with this perspective (paragraph 1) on "willing" is in how it interacts with "(harmless)" spells - some spells that are "(harmless)" can be employed in a similarly disadventageous manner by one's enemies, but the various healing spells are also "(harmless)", so if one is unwilling by default, one suddenly becomes harder to heal.
This solution (paragraph 2) feels like the best one to me, and is even appropriate to apply to all creatures - if necessary, explain the ability to choose willing vs. unwilling while unconscious by the mechanism of the interaction of the magic with the soul/ego/life-essence/whatsis of the creature in question. Shift the "blame" for the way it works onto the magic itself, as it were. This, of course, begs the question of how much the "whatsis" of the creature (that allows the willing/unwilling choice) can tell about the spell in question...
I think, in answer to my own question and drawing on the concept as it is presented in the various life-restorative spells, that the unconscious creature has a good idea of who is casting the spell before deciding whether the creature is willing or unwilling with respect to the spell effect.
I think that, unless I see a better suggestion on how to deal with willing/unwilling, I'll implement this sort of reasoning in situations calling for the determination of willingness in an unconscious creature, and that with that alteration, I am perfectly happy to allow sleeping to indicate unconsciousness.
If you are unconscious(by RAW, not actually just sleeping) I don't mind the "harmless" spells working without a save, but sleep should not allow auto-teleports or other loop holes.
I think James interpretation is more of a "this is how I would do it", than a "this is how it is" argument.
Of course Cure spells are harmless. Except to undead. Of course, when do undead sleep or get knocked unconscious.but I think the intent behind "harmless" was to be harmless. If that was not the case undead would not get saves against cure spells, since they are not harmless to them. They put in a line for this in the spell so players could not get around the "harmless" line. The other spells don't have any special lines because the loop holes had not been thought of."Harmless" doesn't necessarily mean harmless. It means you don't have to be effected by the spell if you don't want to. But if you don't know you don't want to...For the record, unconscious does not always equal willing. It only does so in two circumstances: harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
I don't think there's really any problem with it.
A "harmless" spell could become harmful with a creative player(looking at you RD*) so I think some clarification of intent should be posted. It would also help for any new spells that might be created in the future.
PS:Being creative is not a bad thing, but for DM's that don't know the books or understand intent it could be an issue.
The point I tried to make, and admittedly horribly failed at is that the intent for was for "harmless" was to be harmless. A better example is casting "spell resistance" on an enemy to prevent him from getting a beneficial affect from someone on his team.
Stuff that I wroteI think James interpretation is more of a "this is how I would do it", than a "this is how it is" argument.
I apologize if my remarks were unclear - I meant to indicate that I liked James's take on the question and would implement his idea in my own fashion in my own games. I happen to like his statement of how he would do it, and I wanted to express that.
I didn't mean to represent his idea and opinion as The Proper Method, just that I liked it and would be implementing it in the absence of something else I liked better.
I elaborated on my interpretation of how to implement the concept in order to provide grist for the mill of public discussion and insight, to offer an explicit solution implementing James's perspective, and against the possibility that someone could implement the idea better than me.
I agree that James was presenting a statement about how he would do it.
|
The only problem with this perspective (paragraph 1) on "willing" is in how it interacts with "(harmless)" spells - some spells that are "(harmless)" can be employed in a similarly disadvantageous manner by one's enemies, but the various healing spells are also "(harmless)", so if one is unwilling by default, one suddenly becomes harder to heal.
I think the problem with the healing spells comes from the other direction, as it were, and thus requires a change to the spell, rather than trying to contort the unconsciousness rule to allow for it.
IE, Cures and Inflicts should really have the line 'Save: None (see below)' and only require a save if the energies are actually harmful to the target, based on its positive/negative biased nature.So unconscious living creatures don't need to be aware to accept a cure, since it never had a save anyway.
This solution (paragraph 2) feels like the best one to me, and is even appropriate to apply to all creatures - if necessary, explain the ability to choose willing vs. unwilling while unconscious by the mechanism of the interaction of the magic with the soul/ego/life-essence/whatsis of the creature in question. Shift the "blame" for the way it works onto the magic itself, as it were. This, of course, begs the question of how much the "whatsis" of the creature (that allows the willing/unwilling choice) can tell about the spell in question...
This is also something that will vary by GM.
Is the spirit of the unconscious person hovering over the scene, like an out-of-body experience? If so, he can decide whether to trust the caster. Of course, he loses all memory of this once he wakes...
The point I tried to make, and admittedly horribly failed at is that the intent for was for "harmless" was to be harmless. A better example is casting "spell resistance" on an enemy to prevent him from getting a beneficial affect from someone on his team.Of course Cure spells are harmless. Except to undead. Of course, when do undead sleep or get knocked unconscious.but I think the intent behind "harmless" was to be harmless. If that was not the case undead would not get saves against cure spells, since they are not harmless to them. They put in a line for this in the spell so players could not get around the "harmless" line. The other spells don't have any special lines because the loop holes had not been thought of."Harmless" doesn't necessarily mean harmless. It means you don't have to be effected by the spell if you don't want to. But if you don't know you don't want to...For the record, unconscious does not always equal willing. It only does so in two circumstances: harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
I don't think there's really any problem with it.
A "harmless" spell could become harmful with a creative player(looking at you RD*) so I think some clarification of intent should be posted. It would also help for any new spells that might be created in the future.
PS:Being creative is not a bad thing, but for DM's that don't know the books or understand intent it could be an issue.
If "harmless" spells could never, EVER cause harm, then they would be "Saving throw/Spell Resistance: None"
|
|
I definitely feel the easiest and most intuitive way to deal with this, is to note that "sleeping" is not the same as "unconscious", and sleeping characters are not willing targets the way "unconscious" characters are. Since both sleeping and unconscious characters are "helpless", what additional benefit is there to giving all sleeping characters the "unconscious" condition? It just creates exploits that are unnecessary.
Given that everyone can come up with anecdotal evidence, of people they know being such light sleepers that they leap to their feet if a twig snaps; or such heavy sleepers that they keep snoring through a bombing raid, it's clear that the term 'sleeping' covers a very wide spectrum between 'awake' and unconscious'.
Would it be too straightforward to flip a coin, to determine which side of the spectrum the intended target is sleeping on?
I have to go with old faithful: politely outline your thought process and reasoning to your DM, roll your dice & take your chances.
Then, don't cry if things do not work out or his ruling goes in the other direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.. it appears I was not given all the info on this particular issue when asked the question.
Color. Me. Shocked.
If "harmless" spells could never, EVER cause harm, then they would be "Saving throw/Spell Resistance: None"The point I tried to make, and admittedly horribly failed at is that the intent for was for "harmless" was to be harmless. A better example is casting "spell resistance" on an enemy to prevent him from getting a beneficial affect from someone on his team.Of course Cure spells are harmless. Except to undead. Of course, when do undead sleep or get knocked unconscious.but I think the intent behind "harmless" was to be harmless. If that was not the case undead would not get saves against cure spells, since they are not harmless to them. They put in a line for this in the spell so players could not get around the "harmless" line. The other spells don't have any special lines because the loop holes had not been thought of."Harmless" doesn't necessarily mean harmless. It means you don't have to be effected by the spell if you don't want to. But if you don't know you don't want to...For the record, unconscious does not always equal willing. It only does so in two circumstances: harmless spells and spells that only work on willing targets.
I don't think there's really any problem with it.
A "harmless" spell could become harmful with a creative player(looking at you RD*) so I think some clarification of intent should be posted. It would also help for any new spells that might be created in the future.
PS:Being creative is not a bad thing, but for DM's that don't know the books or understand intent it could be an issue.
I am not saying never ever. In an earlier post I even stated that if the opponent is actually unconscious(by RAW) he should not get a save, but the fact the neither James nor Jason agrees with using it on a sleeping individual means the rules are not working as intended.
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?
I don't think that by RaW, the "teleport slumbering victims" trick should work.
Asleep is not a condition. However, the sleep spell description states that sleeping creatures are helpless. Whether this only applies to magically slumbering creatures or not isn't mentioned, but I think we could assume it does.
Helpless, is a condition, so is unconscious, which in games terms seems to be a deeper level of "unconsciousness". I couldn't find any rule references that would indicate that helpless creatures are also unconscious.
We also know that unconscious victims are willing (vs harmless spells that allow a Will save to resist). There are no mentions of whether helpless victims are similarly willing or not. In absence of ruling that seems otherwise rather specific, I think it is fair to conclude that by RaW, sleeping creatures are not willing.
However, I agree with Zurai to a certain extent that disallowing the trick by obedience to RaW is bordering gamesmanship. It takes as much interpretation from the DM to justify why a sleeping creature cannot be teleported away than to justify why it should logically work.
'findel
[edit] hummm. I failed to notice that there was page 2, 3 and 4 worth of posts after page 1. I'm probably just rambling then...
hummm. I failed to notice that there was page 2, 3 and 4 worth of posts after page 1. I'm probably just rambling then..
For what it's worth, I still agree with your point...
I don't think that by RaW, the "teleport slumbering victims" trick should work.
It's still a good plan, I'd just give a saving throw (and 1 or more perception checks for the victim, depending on what is done by the teleporter), so such an audacious plan can at least have some small element of risk involved.
It's pretty clear that Sleep needs to be clearly stated as a distinct status effect instead of only being implied.
An easier fix would be to add it under the unconscious status effect, which already exists.
I don't think that by RaW, the "teleport slumbering victims" trick should work.
On this we disagree.
It takes as much interpretation from the DM to justify why a sleeping creature cannot be teleported away than to justify why it should logically work.
On this point, however, I absolutely agree--particularly if you are talking about internal rationalization rather than adherence to (alleged) game rules.
It's pretty clear that Sleep needs to be clearly stated as a distinct status effect instead of only being implied.An easier fix would be to add it under the unconscious status effect, which already exists.
I don't think that by RaW, the "teleport slumbering victims" trick should work.On this we disagree.
It takes as much interpretation from the DM to justify why a sleeping creature cannot be teleported away than to justify why it should logically work.On this point, however, I absolutely agree--particularly if you are talking about internal rationalization rather than adherence to (alleged) game rules.
So I ask again would you be ok if the DM did it to the PC's?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't think that by RaW, the "teleport slumbering victims" trick should work.Asleep is not a condition. However, the sleep spell description states that sleeping creatures are helpless. Whether this only applies to magically slumbering creatures or not isn't mentioned, but I think we could assume it does.
Helpless, is a condition, so is unconscious, which in games terms seems to be a deeper level of "unconsciousness". I couldn't find any rule references that would indicate that helpless creatures are also unconscious.
We also know that unconscious victims are willing (vs harmless spells that allow a Will save to resist). There are no mentions of whether helpless victims are similarly willing or not. In absence of ruling that seems otherwise rather specific, I think it is fair to conclude that by RaW, sleeping creatures are not willing.
The problem I have with this is that making sleeping creatures merely helpless, rather than unconscious, means that a sleeping character can actively take mental actions, such as using Spell Like Abilities and casting spells with no V/S/M components. This is patently ridiculous, but is also absolutely and indisputably correct in the RAW. There must therefore be some more severe condition than "helpless" that applies to sleeping creatures, and the only condition that fits that is defined by the game is "unconscious".
The problem I have with this is that making sleeping creatures merely helpless, rather than unconscious, means that a sleeping character can actively take mental actions, such as using Spell Like Abilities and casting spells with no V/S/M components. This is patently ridiculous, but is also absolutely and indisputably correct in the RAW. There must therefore be some more severe condition than "helpless" that applies to sleeping creatures, and the only condition that fits that is defined by the game is "unconscious".
I sure hope James and Jason read this before coming to a decision.
Also, I totally agree.
So I ask again would you be ok if the DM did it to the PC's?
Remember all the guards, wards, and skill checks our example general had? Remember all the crap my wizard would have to go through to kidnap even a simple farmer from his bed (everything from dogs to multiple skill checks)?
If the GM gave me some or all of those things prior to my kidnap (in short, everything the NPC got), then no, I would not have any problem.
Trying to escape (and staying hidden after the fact) might even be loads of fun.
If, on the other hand, the GM pressed the "I win" button that some of you have described and simply said "They teleport next to you while you sleep and coup de grace/kidnap you" without any apparent Perception rolls, saving throws (for the scrying), or similar checks to avoid it, only then would I have a very serious problem.
The problem I have with this is that making sleeping creatures merely helpless, rather than unconscious, means that a sleeping character can actively take mental actions, such as using Spell Like Abilities and casting spells with no V/S/M components. This is patently ridiculous, but is also absolutely and indisputably correct in the RAW. There must therefore be some more severe condition than "helpless" that applies to sleeping creatures, and the only condition that fits that is defined by the game is "unconscious".
I don't think that by RaW, the "teleport slumbering victims" trick should work.Asleep is not a condition. However, the sleep spell description states that sleeping creatures are helpless. Whether this only applies to magically slumbering creatures or not isn't mentioned, but I think we could assume it does.
Helpless, is a condition, so is unconscious, which in games terms seems to be a deeper level of "unconsciousness". I couldn't find any rule references that would indicate that helpless creatures are also unconscious.
We also know that unconscious victims are willing (vs harmless spells that allow a Will save to resist). There are no mentions of whether helpless victims are similarly willing or not. In absence of ruling that seems otherwise rather specific, I think it is fair to conclude that by RaW, sleeping creatures are not willing.
By RAW the dead condition allows things also. I don't think a DM will allow a sleeping character to continue to use any abilities though.
They could however rewrite sleep, and also say the intent is "...".
So I ask again would you be ok if the DM did it to the PC's?Remember all the guards, wards, and skill checks our example general had? Remember all the crap my wizard would have to go through to kidnap even a simple farmer from his bed (everything from dogs to multiple skill checks)?
If the GM gave me some or all of those things prior to my kidnap (in short, everything the NPC got), then no, I would not have any problem.
Trying to escape (and staying hidden after the fact) might even be loads of fun.
If, on the other hand, the GM pressed the "I win" button that some of you have described and simply said "They teleport next to you while you sleep and coup de grace/kidnap you" without any apparent Perception rolls, saving throws (for the scrying), or similar checks to avoid it, only then would I have a very serious problem.
If is not the GM's job to provide defenses for your character. If the party member on duty does not notice the invisible wizard is standing over you then too bad. Now if the wizard teleports in, while in plain view of everyone he deserves what he gets, and he should expect to roll initiative before he can even get the spell off. Either the rule should work or it shouldn't. Currently teleport is not a "harmless" spell, but even if it was I would not allow it unless the PC's agreed that it was ok if I did so.
I sure hope James and Jason read this before coming to a decision.No you don't, or you would have referred Jason to the topic at hand instead of dropping loaded questions on his facebook.
It wasn't a loaded question.
It is not the GM's job to provide defenses for your character.
No. No it is not. It IS his job, however, to make sure everyone is on an even playing field and that everyone gets all the checks and saves that they are entitled to. It is also his job to make sure that everyone (including himself) is having fun at the table.
A GM who says "a guy teleports next to you in your sleep, stabs you in the neck, killing you" is doing neither.
Why do posters insist on painting me in the light of someone who would want otherwise? I guess it makes them feel better about their own shortcomings.
It is not the GM's job to provide defenses for your character.No. No it is not. It IS his job, however, to make sure everyone is on an even playing field and that everyone gets all the checks and saves that they are entitled to. It is also his job to make sure that everyone (including himself) is having fun at the table.
A GM who says "a guy teleports next to you in your sleep, stabs you in the neck, killing you" is doing neither.
Why do posters insist on painting me in the light of someone who would want otherwise? I guess it makes them feel better about their own shortcomings.
and I quote
Remember all the guards, wards, and skill checks our example general had? Remember all the crap my wizard would have to go through to kidnap even a simple farmer from his bed (everything from dogs to multiple skill checks)?
If the GM gave me some or all of those things prior to my kidnap (in short, everything the NPC got), then no, I would not have any problem.
That is why I made that statement. He should give you relevant checks, but it is up to you as the players to make sure you earn the checks. If you did not really mean the DM should provide guards then I completely misunderstood you.