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.
I suppose I could have phrased it better. What I meant by that was that, if I had guards (NPCs, animal/familiar companions, party members, whatever) than they should be useful (that is be given checks).
I suppose I could have phrased it better. What I meant by that was that, if I had guards (NPCs, animal/familiar companions, party members, whatever) than they should be useful (that is be given checks).
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.
I can agree with that.
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.
@Jason: The rules work as they are written. Please don't change them.
Sleeping characters are helpless according to the rules. Sleeping characters are not considered "willing" according to the rules. Sleeping characters cannot take actions, according to common sense.
The most, the absolute very most, that needs to be done is to add this:
"Asleep: Asleep is considered a milder form of unconscious. Sleeping characters are helpless and may not take actions, but are not otherwise considered unconscious for other penalties."
The most, the absolute very most, that needs to be done is to add this:
"Asleep: Asleep is considered a milder form of unconscious. Sleeping characters are helpless and may not take actions, but are not otherwise considered unconscious for other penalties."
Alternatively, simply add the word "sleep" to the description of unconscious.
I agree that a big rules change/errata would do more harm than good at this point.
The most, the absolute very most, that needs to be done is to add this:
"Asleep: Asleep is considered a milder form of unconscious. Sleeping characters are helpless and may not take actions, but are not otherwise considered unconscious for other penalties."
Alternatively, simply add the word "sleep" to the description of unconscious.
I agree that a big rules change/errata would do more harm than good at this point.
It does not take a rules change, only a clarification of intent.
It does not take a rules change, only a clarification of intent.
Though I would prefer errata, this is kind of a fringe case, anyways, isn't it?
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.
Whether RaW "make sense" on this particular subject is debatable. I only said that it appears clear to me, that RaW doesn't allow the "teleport slumbering victims" trick. That was also before I read page 2, 3 and 4 which I had neglected to notice before I submitted my post.
I agree that a sleeping person, especially magically induced sleep, should be closer to unconscious than merely limp of body and unable to take physical actions (helpless) for reasons you have explained over the last 4 pages of this thread. But until we have precisions from Mr Bullman, RaW seems pretty explicit that sleeping victims are not willing, and ruling it otherwise, for the better or for the worst, is of the domain of houseruling.
Now if you know me, you'd agree that I'm particularly fond of houserules and use many myself. But I've been taught that within the Rule section of the board, RaW solutions are sought.
Yet this whole conversation brought a valid point and a potential weakness of the current system. It has come under the attention of the designers that ruling sleep as helpless has its issues, and ruling it as unconscious may open a can of very, very ugly worms.
[edit] emphasis on the "may".
I shall follow this thread with attention
'findel
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.
I think I would disagree with you here. I like the unconscious = automatically willng part. Changing that would screw up a lot of things, such as the last PC standing heroically rescuing his unconscious party mates by teleporting out with them (would suck to be the one who made that save). Similarly if the PCs have beaten someone down with subdual damage I don't believe it is at all game breaking to be able to teleport them back to town for justice. Or wherever else they may go.
I feel that the rules as written currently work well; someone being asleep does not mean they forgo their save vs being telported out of their bed, since to be unconscious you need to either have been beaten down to negative HP or had something else bad happen to you, such as failing vs a spell. To pull that teleport without allowing them a save you would have to subdue and knock them out (likely dealing with any guards they may have nearby first). This seems pretty clear as RAW and is also how I would want it to be played out from a common sense perspective.
So to sum:
By RAW Sleeping =/= unconscious. Sleeping character gets save vs teleport, unconscious character does not. This is as it should be, IMO, and so for whatever my opinion is worth my preference would be that any errata would be just to clarify the above.
So to sum:
By RAW Sleeping =/= unconscious. Sleeping character gets save vs teleport, unconscious character does not. This is as it should be,
As it should be, maybe. That's not how it is, though, even setting aside the sleep ?= unconscious question, teleport ONLY works on willing targets. You cannot teleport unwilling targets. If sleeping != unconscious, then you cannot teleport a sleeping character. Period.
Maybe we simply need to clarify what "willing" means.
It seems to me that unless you're aware that a person is casting a spell on you, and/or you want it to happen, you aren't a willing target.
Awareness and consent are the key points here.
Let's hash it out. We could safely assume that a person would give blanket consent to a trusted friend to cast spells on them. I'd like to assume that an enemy doesn't have your consent to manipulate you magically in any way, unless you've been sufficiently enchanted by them. The question of being asleep/unconscious is a different issue at that point, and I'd guess it'd still be tricky (so I won't go there now).
Is this a can of worms?
I like the 'blanket consent to allies' idea, but let's poke at it. Say an ally teleports you out of a battle in your best interest when you'd rather stay and fight against all odds. Or if a spellcaster deceives you into thinking he was casting a different spell? Without making Spellcraft and Sense Motive checks, how would you be aware that it was being attempted? Does the party wizard need to explain his intentions and ask everyone's permission before teleporting the group out of harm's way? It could make things interesting, to say the least.
I feel like I'm looking under a rock we're not supposed to disturb.
Edit: Looks like I missed the last few posts and you guys were already poking around here. That's what I get for letting my inspired urge to share a thought override my duty to totally finish reading the thread. In my defense, it's been a long one and got a little circular for a while there. I'm so glad this community has these sorts of discussions, and that it seems to be civil enough. I think I'll stick around.
Maybe we simply need to clarify what "willing" means.
It seems to me that unless you're aware that a person is casting a spell on you, and/or you want it to happen, you aren't a willing target.
This blatantly contradicts the rules which are both quite explicit on the subject on unconscious characters being willing and on what being willing actually does.
It also creates hopeless positions and death spirals. If you are only willing if you're conscious and aware of the spell being cast on you, then combat healing becomes essentially worthless, and it's almost impossible to have a recurring villain.
Maybe we simply need to clarify what "willing" means.
It seems to me that unless you're aware that a person is casting a spell on you, and/or you want it to happen, you aren't a willing target.
This blatantly contradicts the rules which are both quite explicit on the subject on unconscious characters being willing and on what being willing actually does.
It also creates hopeless positions and death spirals. If you are only willing if you're conscious and aware of the spell being cast on you, then combat healing becomes essentially worthless, and it's almost impossible to have a recurring villain.
Ok, can of worms it is. I was hoping for magic bullet since this one's so sticky at the moment. I guess we wait while Paizo chews on this one.
As it should be, maybe. That's not how it is, though, even setting aside the sleep ?= unconscious question, teleport ONLY works on willing targets. You cannot teleport unwilling targets. If sleeping != unconscious, then you cannot teleport a sleeping character. Period.So to sum:
By RAW Sleeping =/= unconscious. Sleeping character gets save vs teleport, unconscious character does not. This is as it should be,
Right you are, my bad. No teleporting the sleeper, then, just the unconscious. I think I'm OK with that too.
I might as well weigh-in on the topic since I popped in earlier with a slight derail. Forgive me for re-treading. All I've got to reference at the moment is the conditions page at D20PFSRD.
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.
Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.
Seems pretty clear-cut. Sleeping and unconscious are included under Helpless, implying that there's a difference. Being unconscious appears to be an extreme state of helplessness. If it were my game, I'd rule against teleporting a sleeping target. I can easily understand a GM allowing it for whatever reason, though.
Unconscious - not conscious; without awareness, sensation, or cognition.Sleep - cease being awake.
Dead, also applies to these, but then you're teleporting an unattended object not a creature. *snorts*
A few posters hinted that somebody teleporting into a location to attack enemies may not be granted a free surprise round.
If that was the case, why would the Teleport Sense feat exist?
Source Pathfinder Campaign Setting 99
Like many Mendevians, you have faced so many demons teleporting that you have developed a sort of sixth sense for it.
Prerequisites: Wisdom 13, Mendev affinity.
Benefit: Whenever a creature uses a spell or effect from the conjuration (teleportation) school to appear within 60 feet of you, you may make a Sense Motive check to detect the teleportation. The DC equals 10 + caster level of the effect. If you succeed on this check, you are automatically not surprised and can act in the surprise round if combat begins immediately. If combat against the creature that teleported near you begins within 1 minute of the teleportation you gain a +4 bonus on the initiative check in that battle. If the creature teleporting in is a demon, you gain a +5 bonus on the Sense Motive check to detect it.
A few posters hinted that somebody teleporting into a location to attack enemies may not be granted a free surprise round.
If that was the case, why would the Teleport Sense feat exist?
** spoiler omitted **
I never knew teleporting gave you a surprise round. It does not even seem to be implied, but that feat says otherwise. I have never seen teleporting used that way in a published campaign or a homebrew one, and I guess the others had not either.
I never knew teleporting gave you a surprise round. It does not even seem to be implied, but that feat says otherwise. I have never seen teleporting used that way in a published campaign or a homebrew one, and I guess the others had not either.A few posters hinted that somebody teleporting into a location to attack enemies may not be granted a free surprise round.
If that was the case, why would the Teleport Sense feat exist?
** spoiler omitted **
Assuming combat hadn't yet started, and the enemy wasn't expecting anyone to teleport into their vicinity, why wouldn't the teleporter get a surprise round?
It's literally *poof* "CHARGE!"
I dunno about you, but if I was out watering my garden and that happened I would be caught pretty off guard.
Dream Shield provides a rule-based answer.
If the target falls asleep or is otherwise rendered unconscious
This makes it clear that a sleeping character is considered unconscious. In fact, the spell description takes this further and uses the words "sleeping" and "unconscious" interchangeably.
You ward the target’s mind against intrusion and influence while she is unconscious. While sleeping, the target [gains benefits].
and
If the target falls asleep or is otherwise rendered unconscious, the [benefits gained when sleeping] of the dream shield resume.
1) This is quite the thread necromancy ...
2) One of the issues raised was the possible difference between using the common term 'unconscious', (which appears to be equated with sleeping), and the game term 'Unconscious', (which may not). I have previously seen it said that this confusion in terminology tends to happen in non-mainline products, (inc. Player Companions). Look up the Material Manipulator Mesmerist Archetype - it states that you can alter Type/Subtype as per Polymorph/Greater Polymorph, when no Polymorph Effect in Pathfinder does that, (I would think that 'form' or 'shape' are more apt). So Dream Shield may be using the common use term - d20pfsrd links to things incorrectly all of the time. Undine's Curse, (in the Advanced Race Guide), specifically calls out sleeping as also covered by unconscious, seemingly as if this was not normally the case, (using common terms instead of game definition terms). Sleep only indicates that sleeping causes the Helpless Condition, it does not give Unconscious as a consequence. It comes down to interpretation again, unless I have missed a clarification somewhere, (which I very might well have).
3) Paizo is uncomfortable with Unconscious as Willing, (both then and in Pathfinder v.2.0), so this thing is a bit of a mess anyway ...
4) This was a thread largely made of vitriol and strung together with spit, please leave it alone as some posters may still be around. Watching. Waiting. O-O
