|
The glossary give us a definition of the unconscious condition
Unconscious: 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.
So far so good, but, then we have at least 1 ability, the Ice Tom hex, that impose this condition on a failed saving throw.
If the target fails its save, it is paralyzed and unconscious ...
The hex applies 2 separate conditions:
- paralyzed and several creatures are immune to it;- unconscious and, AFAIK, no creature is immune to that condition, even those that die at 0 hp and/or are immune to nonlethal damage.
Let's look other effects that impose that condition.
I have found:
Color spray and Scintillating Pattern are spells that apply the unconscious condition.
Suffocation too, but that is because it bring you to 0 hp.
Knock-Out Blow will make the target unconscious.
So we have at least 2 mind affecting spells that make creatures unconscious, one that is based on reducing your hp and an ability that is based on sneak attack beside the ice tomb hex.
The mind affecting spell aren't a big problem. The creatures immune to them are clearly stated and I don't see a problem with color spray making a elemental unconscious.
Suffocation similarly isn't a big problem. It bring the target at 0 hp if he fail his ST, the unconsciousness part is a effect of that.
Knock-Out Blow start to be a problem. It is saved by requiring a fortitude save and targeting a creature, not an object (so Undead and Constructs are immune to it) and being based on sneak attack (so Elementals and Oozes are immune to it).
The Ice tomb hex instead apply the condition to anything that it can target. Today FAQ has cleared the targeting part as it "targeting a creature", not an object:
In the second printing of Ultimate Magic, the text says, "A storm of ice and freezing wind envelops the creature...," so it only affects creatures, not objects.
so Undead and Constructs should be immune to the unconscious part.
We are still left with a plethora of creatures that are immune to paralyzation and sleep that will be subject to this hex.To me it seem that creatures that have both immunity to sleep and to paralyzation should be immune to the unconscious condition from things that don't deal hp of damage. Or better (as the color spray spell has a reasonable basis to be able to affect elementals) that the unconscious part should be removed from the Ice tomb hex and used with extreme caution in other abilities.
Why are we saying immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Being immune to sleep is not the same as being unable to be knocked unconscious, even from a magical effect like Ice Tomb.
I really don't see a problem with the unconscious part, this sounds, to me, more like splitting hairs than anything else.
|
|
Why are we saying immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?
This is all we have about the unconscious condition:
Unconscious: 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.
I would say that it is a given that an elemental or a ooze can be made unconscious by HP damage. Neither is immune to nonlethal damage so they can even be made unconscious by enough non lethal damage.
I would rate "unconscious" as a stronger version of "stunned" or of being asleep when it isn't the result of HP of damage, so creature immune to one would be immune to the other, but that isn't RAW and will probably generate some other problem (with color spray giving an example of the possible problem, it make the target unconscious).
Why are we saying immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?
Dragons can't be knocked unconscious, now? Uh oh.
Why are we saying immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?Dragons can't be knocked unconscious, now? Uh oh.
Now?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sleep and Unconscious have nothing to do with one another. Being asleep doesn't make one "Unconscious" as far as game terms are concerned. It makes one "Helpless".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we saying immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?
Well, I'm not saying it because I have no problem with color spray, for example, knocking out elves.
Now?Why are we saying immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?Dragons can't be knocked unconscious, now? Uh oh.
Dragon goes from 1 hp to -1 hp from 2 points of damage. Dragons are immune to sleep. Let's see...
Yep, it's dying, but apparently isn't unconscious. Looks like dragons and elves both get Diehard for free, except better, because they're not staggered unless they are dropped to exactly 0 hp.
Immunity to sleep =/= Immunity to unconscious.
Immunity to sleep =/= Immunity to unconscious.
I have to agree.
Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not.
Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless.
They are similar in that the affected creatures are mechanically helpless.
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.
The definition of Helpless makes a deliberates distinction between being unconscious and being asleep. Treating immunity to sleep as immunity to unconsciousness (or vice versa) throws the RAW distinction out the window.
If there is a critter or effect somewhere that provides immunity to being Helpless, (seems unlikely) then that would confer immunity to both sleep and unconsciousness.
Now?Why are we saying immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?Dragons can't be knocked unconscious, now? Uh oh.Dragon goes from 1 hp to -1 hp from 2 points of damage. Dragons are immune to sleep. Let's see...
Yep, it's dying, but apparently isn't unconscious. Looks like dragons and elves both get Diehard for free, except better, because they're not staggered unless they are dropped to exactly 0 hp.
Immunity to sleep =/= Immunity to unconscious.
Don't you think that is a little silly?
If there is a critter or effect somewhere that provides immunity to being Helpless, (seems unlikely) then that would confer immunity to both sleep and unconsciousness.
Would it?
If there is a critter or effect somewhere that provides immunity to being Helpless, (seems unlikely) then that would confer immunity to both sleep and unconsciousness.Would it?
Yup. Mechanically speaking, Sleep (spell) and Unconscious (condition) are both dependent for functionality on Helpless (condition).
If you couldn't ever be made Helpless, the other two wouldn't mean anything. (Which is one reason why immunity to the Helpless condition would b a very silly thing, as it's arguably the most fundamental mechanic in the system; If you take it away, everything dependent on it breaks.)
Not in the least. First, "sleeping" is not a kind of "unconscious" in Pathfinder; "unconscious" is a technical term. You can't wake someone up from being unconscious, they have to be treated. Secondly, even if you used the plain English meanings, there are many kinds of unconscious that aren't sleep.Don't you think that is a little silly?Now?Why are we saying immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?Dragons can't be knocked unconscious, now? Uh oh.Dragon goes from 1 hp to -1 hp from 2 points of damage. Dragons are immune to sleep. Let's see...
Yep, it's dying, but apparently isn't unconscious. Looks like dragons and elves both get Diehard for free, except better, because they're not staggered unless they are dropped to exactly 0 hp.
Immunity to sleep =/= Immunity to unconscious.
I agree with everything you just wrote. But I still think what he wrote was silly.
Specifically the "Yep, it's dying, but apparently isn't unconscious. Looks like dragons and elves both get Diehard for free, except better, because they're not staggered unless they are dropped to exactly 0 hp." part.
Dragons aren't immune to being unconscious now or ever. And it is silly to say that they are simply because they have sleep immunity.
I asked a question about the OPs suggestion that there is something wrong with the idea that sleep immunity and the unconscious condition don't interact. Then proceeded to get really weird replies from people.
All I've done up to this point is ask questions. Specifically I am curious as to why the OP feels that immunity to sleep has anything at all to do with the unconscious condition. He spent quite a bit of effort breaking it down and comparing them... I just wanted to know why he felt there needed to be a relationship between the two.
|
|
I am pretty sure undead and constructs are both "creatures", they are just not living creatures.
If you are speaking of the discussion about the unconscious condition both have this row of text, so they are immune to the Ice tomb hex.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless).
I think that the hex creator intention was to disallow the option to use at will teleportation magic or other abilities that only require the ability to think to flee the Ice tomb. Paralysis alone would allow that.
The problem is that the unconscious condition is peculiar in how it work and if applied as a separate condition independent from the paralysis part will allow the hex to affect creatures that are immune to paralysis.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I asked a question about the OPs suggestion that there is something wrong with the idea that sleep immunity and the unconscious condition don't interact. Then proceeded to get really weird replies from people.
All I've done up to this point is ask questions. Specifically I am curious as to why the OP feels that immunity to sleep has anything at all to do with the unconscious condition. He spent quite a bit of effort breaking it down and comparing them... I just wanted to know why he felt there needed to be a relationship between the two.
Aha! I see the point of confusion. Your original question doesn't ask that at all.
Why are we saying immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?
Rewritten slightly: why are we saying that immunity to sleep doesn't stop a creature from being unconscious?
From your apparent intent, you meant to ask "why are we saying immunity to sleep prevents a creature from being unconscious?"
Which would have elicited a completely different answer from me.
I asked a question about the OPs suggestion that there is something wrong with the idea that sleep immunity and the unconscious condition don't interact. Then proceeded to get really weird replies from people.
All I've done up to this point is ask questions. Specifically I am curious as to why the OP feels that immunity to sleep has anything at all to do with the unconscious condition. He spent quite a bit of effort breaking it down and comparing them... I just wanted to know why he felt there needed to be a relationship between the two.
Aha! I see the point of confusion. Your original question doesn't ask that at all.
Why are we saying immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?Rewritten slightly: why are we saying that immunity to sleep doesn't stop a creature from being unconscious?
From your apparent intent, you meant to ask "why are we saying immunity to sleep prevents a creature from being unconscious?"
Which would have elicited a completely different answer from me.
Eh... I don’t want to split hairs, but I did mean it the way I asked it.
Maybe: Why are we talking about how immunity to sleep doesn't prevent a creature from being unconscious?
The emphasis was on the "why are we saying", but I guess that wasn't clear. It is like saying Immunity to fire damage doesn't prevent the dead condition...and now let’s break down a bunch of ability that do cause people to die. Why even say it?
I get that it doesn't prevent unconscious...but... why are we even discussing it? Why in such detail? How is that important? Etc.
What seebs said.
And the thing that gets me about the hex in question is the redundancy of paralysed and unconscious. I understand that paralysed can be worked around by spell-like abilities, but unconscious on its own solves that issue. Remove paralysed from the effect and you lose absolutely nothing in terms of power.
Huh. If I see "why are you saying X doesn't Y?", that nearly always implies that you think X does Y, and virtually never means "it is so obvious that X doesn't Y that I don't understand why you mentioned it."
I do think it's very odd that this hex specifies "unconscious" straight up, because it is normally only a result of other things.
Hrm, I'll try to watch for that then. I was always taught that questions are asking for information and not telling information.
Hrm, I'll try to watch for that then. I was always taught that questions are asking for information and not telling information.
I see.... so, if I ask "can you please shut the window," the answer is "yes, I can'"?
I see.... so, if I ask "can you please shut the window," the answer is "yes, I can'"?
Hrm, I'll try to watch for that then. I was always taught that questions are asking for information and not telling information.
That is the answer, yes. Unless you cannot, of course.
But I do recognize that it is an informal use of language that has been adopted to mean "I am requesting that you close the window".
I know this is a bit of a derail, but I'm quite interested in the subject.
Am I right in saying that the question could have been phrased "what is the purpose in discussing..." and we would not have had the ambiguity that caught me out?
Clear communication in text format is vastly harder than with the spoken word (I know that I fall prey to it all the time), and having a broader understanding of how to phrase questions like this one would be quite useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is a bit of a derail, but I'm quite interested in the subject.
Am I right in saying that the question could have been phrased "what is the purpose in discussing..." and we would not have had the ambiguity that caught me out?
Clear communication in text format is vastly harder than with the spoken word (I know that I fall prey to it all the time), and having a broader understanding of how to phrase questions like this one would be quite useful.
You are correct in that I could have phrased it better, yes. I just disagreed with the initial proposed rewording. This one would have been far superior to what I used, but at the time I wasn't really expecting the question to be dissected, and it seemed fairly straightforward... but, I have a tendency to think in excessively rigid linear ways instead of the more common intuitive informal ways the bulk of the population does. (There is a reason, but I won’t go into it here >.>)
I encounter these issues often, I'm used to it, though continue to try and improve on my end, since I recognize that being narrowly pedantic is usually simply going to lead to miscommunication. I slip up from time to time though.
Something to the effect of "What is the purpose in discussing the relationship between sleep immunity and the unconscious condition? As far as I was aware, there isn't one." would have been much clearer and to the point.
I know this is a bit of a derail, but I'm quite interested in the subject.
Am I right in saying that the question could have been phrased "what is the purpose in discussing..." and we would not have had the ambiguity that caught me out?
Clear communication in text format is vastly harder than with the spoken word (I know that I fall prey to it all the time), and having a broader understanding of how to phrase questions like this one would be quite useful.
"Immunity to sleep doesn't prevent unconsciousness". Starting a question out with "Why are we saying" or even "What is the purpose in discussing if" both very strongly imply that the point in question does not need to be discussed. The implied meaning is, "Why are we asking if Immunity to sleep doesn't prevent unconciousness?" Basically, it's another way of saying "Why is this even a question" (the "this" in this case being if immunity to sleep doesn't prevent unconsciousness).
Questions don't just request information. They often provide information to frame the question. The structure of this question implied (even if unintentionally) that the asker's belief was not only that immunity does prevent unconsciousness, but that there is little point in even having conversation about it because the point is so well-established.
Also, placing emphasis on "why are we asking" doesn't clarify meaning. It actually makes the implication that conversation is pointless even stronger, rather than negating the point being proposed.
These implications are even more clear given the context of asking them. The OP states (paraphrased): "I believe creatures immune to sleep and paralysis should also be immune to unconsciousness." Implication: These creatures are not now immune to unconsciousness.
Question asked (paraphrased): Why are you saying creatures immune to sleep are not immune to unconsciousness? Implication: These creatures already are immune to unconsciousness.
EDIT: Remy's rephrasing would make it explicitly clear what his point was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Implication: These creatures already are immune to unconsciousness.
Yeah. This implication was not intended. You nailed it. I wasn't even considering implied meaning sneaking into the question. But I think I can see it now that it has been pointed out. I'll try to watch out for that.
Getting back on track then:
...To me it seem that creatures that have both immunity to sleep and to paralyzation should be immune to the unconscious condition from things that don't deal hp of damage...
@Diego: What is the basis upon which you draw this conclusion?
|
|
Getting back on track then:
...To me it seem that creatures that have both immunity to sleep and to paralyzation should be immune to the unconscious condition from things that don't deal hp of damage...@Diego: What is the basis upon which you draw this conclusion?
As I pointed out, it is a hypothetical solution (not a conclusion) that will generate problems with other things.
The unconscious condition is used in a way in the three examples that I have found that apply it without bringing the target at 0 or less hp, those examples are:
Color spray,Scintillating Pattern and Knock-Out Blow.
Immunity to sleep should not help you with them.
Then we have Ice tomb.
Unconsciousness is used to simulate a form of cryosleep.
In this situation adding the unconscious condition, that will affect anything, as no creature is immune to it, will generate problems.
To me it seem an oversight to allow a form of cryosleep to affect creatures that are immune to (inclusive) paralysis and sleep.
So I am trying to get what is the forum opinion of how the unconscious condition work and if it is right to apply it as a separate condition.
Currently if someone were to write a spell/feat/ability that apply the unconscious condition it would affect anything, including constructs and undead. So I think that the use of the condition should be closely monitored and if possible avoided.
Or the abilities of the different creatures should be updated to add a immunity to the unconscious condition when appropriate.
In this situation adding the unconscious condition, that will affect anything, as no creature is immune to it, will generate problems.
I fail to see how this is a problem.
In this situation adding the unconscious condition, that will affect anything, as no creature is immune to it, will generate problems.
Yes, I understand that you have come to this conclusion, but what problems? In what situations?
Currently if someone were to write a spell/feat/ability that apply the unconscious condition it would affect anything...
There's precedent for effects that arbitrarily render the target unconscious. Should these things all be changed to prevent problems? If so, which problems?
Blue whinnis
Drow poison
Oil of taggit
Sleep Venom
Spell Sap
petrification
mummification
stat drain
forced march
blaze of glory
song of discord
Qlippoth, Chernobue
psychic crush
|
|
In this situation adding the unconscious condition, that will affect anything, as no creature is immune to it, will generate problems.Yes, I understand that you have come to this conclusion, but what problems? In what situations?
Currently if someone were to write a spell/feat/ability that apply the unconscious condition it would affect anything...There's precedent for effects that arbitrarily render the target unconscious. Should these things all be changed to prevent problems? If so, which problems?
Blue whinnis
Drow poison
Oil of taggit
Sleep Venom
Spell Sap
petrification
mummification
stat drain
forced march
blaze of glory
song of discord
Qlippoth, Chernobue
psychic crush
almost all the examples you give have inbuilt limits created by the nature of the effect that lead to unconsciousness, or don't generate unconsciousness.
The problem of using "unconsciousness" as a direct effect of something is that it is defined only as:Unconscious: 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.
Let's look your examples:
- Blue whinnis, Drow poison, Oil of taggit, Sleep Venom* Poisons, we know who is immune to them and how to remove their effects
- Spell Sap
* a spell blight, optional rule, and it is one of the uses of unconsciousness that I see as problematic. A mental effect that apparently can affect undead and constructs.
- petrification
* "A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious". Unconsciousness isn't the effect of the attack that petrified the target, it is an effect of being a stone. Removing the petrification remove it. Again, the limits of who can be affected are clear.
- mummification
* a alchemist discovery. The unconscious part become relevant only if the GM want it to become relevant. 24 hours once in a lifetime. Self inflicted. Not a problem.
- stat drain
* the unconsciousness is a by-product of having a stat reduced to 0, not an effect of the stat drain.
- forced march
* it deal stun damage. If your stun damage exceed your current hit point you fall unconscious. Exactly the glossary definition of unconsciousness.
- blaze of glory
* "If cast as a standard action, you are immediately reduced to –1 hit points, but stable, after casting the spell." Again, the glossary definition of unconsciousness.
- song of discord
"They do not, however, harm targets that have fallen unconscious." No, it has nothing to do with making someone unconscious.
- Qlippoth, Chernobue
* the poison from a Chernobue Qlippoth make someone unconscious. Again we know how poisons work.
- psychic crush
"Psychic Crush (Su) ... This is a mind-affecting effect." Again the limits are defined in the ability description.
You have found another example of a ability that apply unconsciousness with ill defined limits, Spell Sap, and for that I thank you. From my point of view your list support my position.
Unconsciousness used to define the effect of a power with in built limits work fine, use ad an effect that is applied without defined limits it is problematic, as the condition has not in built limits.
As I see it it is the difference between writhing he attach ability this way
Attach (Ex) When a stirge hits with a touch attack, its barbed legs latch onto the target, anchoring it in place. An attached stirge is effectively grappling its prey. The stirge loses its Dexterity bonus to AC and has an AC of 12, but holds on with great tenacity and inserts its proboscis into the grappled target's flesh. A stirge has a +8 racial bonus to maintain its grapple on a foe once it is attached. An attached stirge can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself—if its prey manages to win a grapple check or Escape Artist check against it, the stirge is removed.
where the limits are well defined.
And writhing it this way:
Attach (Ex) A stirge barbed legs latch onto the target, anchoring it in place. An attached stirge is effectively grappling its prey.
where we have a ill defined ability.
As "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." any use of the unconscious condition that isn't generated by the loss of hit point should be carefully considered.
What is the effect on undead and construct of being unconscious? they can be made unconscious?