Really, just changing 'helpless' to 'unconscious' fixes the whole thing.
Really pretending that sleeping means your still concious "strictly speaking" is "strictly" telling me this is a troll thread.
I fully hope it does get changed to make it all good.
No troll, if people don't want to use the rules as printed in the book, that's fine, but at least admit to doing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Again? Seriously? *sighs* I'll save some time for everyone. Here's my already established and apparently highly agreed with opinion.
In the possibly futile hope of helping you understand why some people might disagree with you and feel that this is a question with more than one possible answer, please review this short video. It strikes me as a reasonable depiction of what a "magical slumber" effect might look like.
Even in that short clip the effect the sleep spell has differs markedly from character to character - some release whatever they're holding, some don't. Some slump to the ground, some stay standing.
Let's try an example. A bard casts a sleep spell on a fighter guarding the town gates. The fighter fails his save. The GM describes the result:
A: "He crashes to the ground in a loud clatter, sound asleep. His poleaxe goes flying off the edge of the drawbridge."
B: "He leans on his poleaxe, snoring loudly. He is sound asleep".
Based on how Sleep is currently written, I think both results are reasonable rulings.
When a creature is affected by a sleep effect, do they fall prone, drop held items or suffer any mechanical effects other than being helpless and unaware of what is happening around them?
Does the answer to the above hold regardless of the source of the sleep effect unless stated otherwise (would the Slumber Hex and Pseudodragon Poison behave the same, for example).
ask your GM
... Again? Seriously? *sighs* I'll save some time for everyone. Here's my already established and apparently highly agreed with opinion.In the possibly futile hope of helping you understand why some people might disagree with you and feel that this is a question with more than one possible answer, please review this short video. It strikes me as a reasonable depiction of what a "magical slumber" effect might look like.
Even in that short clip the effect the sleep spell has differs markedly from character to character - some release whatever they're holding, some don't. Some slump to the ground, some stay standing.
Let's try an example. A bard casts a sleep spell on a fighter guarding the town gates. The fighter fails his save. The GM describes the result:
A: "He crashes to the ground in a loud clatter, sound asleep. His poleaxe goes flying off the edge of the drawbridge."
B: "He leans on his poleaxe, snoring loudly. He is sound asleep".
Based on how Sleep is currently written, I think both results are reasonable rulings.
A is far more interesting. Would be even better if he fell off the bridge too. :D
We basically use the spell at my table as it seems to be intended to be used (it puts people to sleep), we just don't disarm them and knock them over too. It's only 1st level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
We basically use the spell at my table as it seems to be intended to be used (it puts people to sleep), we just don't disarm them and knock them over too. It's only 1st level.
This is a very arrogant assertion.
Remember, printed Paizo scenarios disagree with your interpretation. Not to mention the fact that the spell is a copy paste of a spell in a different system that was based off a very similar spell in an older system (which has it's own heritage). Do you seriously think you can assert anything about the "intentions" of the spell. Or should you consider the idea that the whole thing is ambiguous and that there isn't a right answer, because sleep effects are hilariously badly explained in the rules - they don't make you go prone, or drop things, or stop you from being aware of what is around you, or even stop you from doing things. They just apply the helpless condition (which itself does not preclude the above). Which ones are supposed to happen, which ones aren't? Who knows. I doubt the designers even knew when they copied the text across. And that doesn't necessarily matter because the PDT has a history of deviating from the 3.5 interpretation of a piece of text despite the text itself not changing.
So please stop acting as if your interpretation is the correct one and others aren't following the rules. If you are applying ANY effect other than gaining the helpless condition then you aren't either...unless you accept that sleep effects implicitly need an element of common sense interpretation when handling them due to the lack of hard rules text, and that what is common sense varies from person to person (and hence you can expect different interpretations, most of them equally valid, depending on who you ask).
Just for the record, the Creative Director of Paizo thinks it is obvious that you fall prone when under the effect of a sleep spell.
From the linked thread:
So...
We had a situation where we had a dryad cast a sleep spell on our barbarian who was at the time raged. An argument started that Sleep is different than unconscious because when a barbarian falls unconscious they lose their rage.
Question: When a barbarian gets put to sleep by a spell or poison, will they lose their rage? Please cite precedent or anything else.
...
Being asleep is the same as being unconscious. A barbarian would lose his rage if he fell asleep unless he had some way to maintain his rage while unconscious.
This is in the same common sense category that you fall prone when you fall asleep or go unconscious. We don't actually SAY in the rules that you fall prone, because it should be obvious. Same goes for sleeping and being unconscious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just for the record, the Creative Director of Paizo thinks it is obvious that you fall prone when under the effect of a sleep spell.
Just to point out, James Jacobs has said repeatedly that he is not a rules guy and anything he says should be taken as how he would rule it. Just need to make this very clear, he's very adamant that nobody cite him for rulings (except for Golarion, he's all over that).
I point this out because you're citing a post from 2010, around the time he needed to make very clear that his opinions were his own and not official responses from Paizo.
I am well aware of that. I'm not claiming it settles the issue. I'm not even sure that I agree with J.J. As I said, I'm just citing it for the record.
And I know from a recent exchange that alexd1976 takes such statements very seriously despite their officially unofficial status.
I've been thinking about this a bit more. Even in the real world, sleeping doesn't necessarily mean being prone. I had an ex who would "sleepwalk." Her brain didn't always shut off the ability to move her body. Sometimes she would walk around, open doors, pick things, or even have conversations while sound asleep. Sometimes, though, she would get out of bed and just stand still next to it for a while before getting back in.
Why should a GM necessarily assume that magical slumber works the way "typical" slumber does. Maybe guards do just stand at their posts holding their halberds while asleep. Or maybe the effects would vary from person to person. People prone to sleepwalking might stand, while other fell prone. Additionally, we know of animals that can sleep standing up. Horses are one example. So would centaurs fall prone under a sleep effect? It also strikes me that some variety of response might be a fun way to add just a little flavor to repetitive use of sleep effects for characters with hexes.
Because it doesn't have them allowing random actions like moving around or picking things up.
If anything the fact that it's magic slumber means for once your girlfriend would have gotten a decent sleep.
Helpless means you don't get to act.
Sorry, I may not have stated things well. I wasn't suggesting that sleeping characters might walk around. The rules are pretty clear on that. Within the game, I was only addressing the possibility that characters might not always fall prone, and considering a "real-world" reason why that might be so.
Ah. Well yes that's the whole point to the thread.
For what it's worth I disagree. Sleep is sleeping. I get that witch slumber is very powerful, however. And wanting limitations in it is a good thing. Sleep it's self already has one in built in HD limits, of course.
That's the way I've always played it. You go to sleep and you fall down. It's a pretty straightforward approach and it works just fine for me. This thread just got me thinking about other options that a GM might take that are still within the stated rules.
...
We basically use the spell at my table as it seems to be intended to be used (it puts people to sleep), we just don't disarm them and knock them over too. It's only 1st level.This is a very arrogant assertion.
Remember, printed Paizo scenarios disagree with your interpretation. Not to mention the fact that the spell is a copy paste of a spell in a different system that was based off a very similar spell in an older system (which has it's own heritage). Do you seriously think you can assert anything about the "intentions" of the spell. Or should you consider the idea that the whole thing is ambiguous and that there isn't a right answer, because sleep effects are hilariously badly explained in the rules - they don't make you go prone, or drop things, or stop you from being aware of what is around you, or even stop you from doing things. They just apply the helpless condition (which itself does not preclude the above). Which ones are supposed to happen, which ones aren't? Who knows. I doubt the designers even knew when they copied the text across. And that doesn't necessarily matter because the PDT has a history of deviating from the 3.5 interpretation of a piece of text despite the text itself not changing.
So please stop acting as if your interpretation is the correct one and others aren't following the rules. If you are applying ANY effect other than gaining the helpless condition then you aren't either...unless you accept that sleep effects implicitly need an element of common sense interpretation when handling them due to the lack of hard rules text, and that what is common sense varies from person to person (and hence you can expect different interpretations, most of them equally valid, depending on who you ask).
So by agreeing with everyone who opposes my point of view (Using the Sleep spell as a sleep effect), I'm being arrogant?
Wow.
Even when I try to agree with people, it isn't good enough.
I'm not sure you are trying to prove here.
Read the spell without reading the title.
Look at the rules it uses, apply all the rules it lists as they are written.
This spell should not be called Sleep.
Not really sure why you feel it necessary to attack me so aggressively on this, I mean, seriously, actually READ the spell.
It doesn't make you unconscious, it makes you helpless.
It's been around for a long time, so saying that it is copied and pasted is... a defence... for something?
I'm not sure who (or what) you are defending, or if you are attempting to defend someone...
My whole point since the start of all this was to bring attention to the fact that this spell doesn't list Disarm and Prone as effects that it causes.
It easily could.
It does not.
I'm sorry that my pointing this out has caused some kind of cognitive dissonance in some people, but you can't really argue against this. It's all right (not there) in the spell.
Just for the record, the Creative Director of Paizo thinks it is obvious that you fall prone when under the effect of a sleep spell.
Just to point out, James Jacobs has said repeatedly that he is not a rules guy and anything he says should be taken as how he would rule it. Just need to make this very clear, he's very adamant that nobody cite him for rulings (except for Golarion, he's all over that).
I point this out because you're citing a post from 2010, around the time he needed to make very clear that his opinions were his own and not official responses from Paizo.
I am well aware of that. I'm not claiming it settles the issue. I'm not even sure that I agree with J.J. As I said, I'm just citing it for the record.
And I know from a recent exchange that alexd1976 takes such statements very seriously despite their officially unofficial status.
Yup, I will take the opinion of one of the people working at Paizo more seriously than your opinion, I think that is logical.
Putting opinion aside, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the only issue I'm trying to champion here is that some people attribute extra properties to the spell that it simply doesn't have.
Yelling at the top of your lungs that falling asleep makes you fall over won't convince me.
When it comes to spells, I use what the creators wrote.
1-Does Sleep make you fall asleep? sort of, it makes you helpless... and puts you in an undefined 'magical slumber'.
2-Does Sleep make you Prone? Doesn't say so.
3-Does Sleep make you Disarmed? Doesn't say so.
4-Could this have been easily changed? Yup, change 'Helpless' to 'Unconscious'.
"but that's crazy! Every single person everywhere forever has always layed down and dropped everything every time they went to sleep!"
really?
Even if that was the case, which it isn't... Magic.
Magic does what magic does.
I've said it before, and will say it again, if you guys want to add unpublished effects to your spells, I can't stop you.
But I will feel sorry for your players.
Ah. Well yes that's the whole point to the thread.
For what it's worth I disagree. Sleep is sleeping. I get that witch slumber is very powerful, however. And wanting limitations in it is a good thing. Sleep it's self already has one in built in HD limits, of course.
Indeed.
Don't grant them any more power than they are entitled to.
It really is powerful enough as it is.
As I keep saying, people keep adding properties to it, which just magnifies the existing martial/caster disparity... I don't want it to get worse, but that's just me.
Don't worry I'm not upset at you and I get that you've thought a lot about it.
Earlier it was pointed out (and quoted) you put a lot of weight in developers words and some examples were listed as it should be treated as unconciousness. How do you feel about that? Does having them go back to what you originally thought make you rethink it again?
At our table we treat people affected by Sleep (and the Slumber Hex) as sleeping on their feet, still grasping weapons, BUT unaware of their surroundings (our interpretation of 'magical slumber', as the rules don't talk about what that means).
If I saw a developers quote/FAQ/errata addressing this, I would absolutely consider changing my opinion.
Errata carries more weight than FAQ, and FAQ carries more weight than opinion.
I'm not trying to be a jerk about the whole thing, but the spell really doesn't do what so many people think it does.
As far as I can tell, with a 'strict reading' it just renders you helpless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*facepalms*
Congratulations on contributing exactly nothing to the discussion.
*facepalms*Congratulations on contributing exactly nothing to the discussion.
What discussion? There are exactly three positions to take on this issue.
1) Sleep equals prone and disarmed.
2) Sleep does not equal prone and disarmed.
3) 1 and 2 have equal merit for different reasons.
Regardless of your stance on all of this, continuing to argue over it will do nothing more than bring the wrath of Liz down on the thread.
I have FAQ'd, and by doing so have made as much of an impression as can be made on this "discussion".
*facepalms*Congratulations on contributing exactly nothing to the discussion.What discussion? There are exactly three positions to take on this issue.
1) Sleep equals prone and disarmed.
2) Sleep does not equal prone and disarmed.
3) 1 and 2 have equal merit for different reasons.Regardless of your stance on all of this, continuing to argue over it will do nothing more than bring the wrath of Liz down on the thread.
I have FAQ'd, and by doing so have made as much of an impression as can be made on this "discussion".
There we go, that actually means something.
I keep speaking up on this in the hopes that people will realize that using Sleep as a disarming and prone-making tool is outside the written text of the rules.
No mention of intent. Just rules.
*facepalms*Congratulations on contributing exactly nothing to the discussion.What discussion? There are exactly three positions to take on this issue.
1) Sleep equals prone and disarmed.
2) Sleep does not equal prone and disarmed.
3) 1 and 2 have equal merit for different reasons.Regardless of your stance on all of this, continuing to argue over it will do nothing more than bring the wrath of Liz down on the thread.
I have FAQ'd, and by doing so have made as much of an impression as can be made on this "discussion".
There we go, that actually means something.
I keep speaking up on this in the hopes that people will realize that using Sleep as a disarming and prone-making tool is outside the written text of the rules.
No mention of intent. Just rules.
The problem is that everyone knows what your view is; for that matter everyone has abundantly stated how they feel about the subject.
The round and around that's happening isn't driving towards a solid answer, rather it feels more like two dogs worrying over scrap; and I worry in turn that this back and forth bickering will soon begin to involve more personal remarks, which will quickly be followed by the thread's demise.
Indeed.
I'm gonna just hide this thread from myself, as all my players feel as I do about the topic, and non of us play PFS, so it's a non-issue.
Farewell!
This is a little off topic....
Why, do you think, the dead condition doesnt spell out that you can no longer take any actions?
Funny thing that.
The dying condition actually says your unconscious. If your dead, your nolonger dying, therefore nolonger unconscious.
Common Sense says that you are dead and well .... can't do anything because your dead.
Reading the dead condition doesnt establish what happens when someone is dead, It just tells how someone becomes dead. Therefore game on as normal.
I in no way support this train of thought.
|
This is a little off topic....
Why, do you think, the dead condition doesnt spell out that you can no longer take any actions?
Funny thing that.
The dying condition actually says your unconscious. If your dead, your nolonger dying, therefore nolonger unconscious.
Common Sense says that you are dead and well .... can't do anything because your dead.
Reading the dead condition doesnt establish what happens when someone is dead, It just tells how someone becomes dead. Therefore game on as normal.
I in no way support this train of thought.
I'm thinking that, sinse you supposedly dont have a consciousness when you have the dead condition, they felt the unconscious condition didn't apply anymore.
Just guessing mind you.
The dying condition actually says your unconscious. If your dead, your nolonger dying, therefore nolonger unconscious.
Actually, the dead condition never says you are no longer dying. As long as you have less than 0 hit points and have not stabilized, then you are dying. And if you are dead, you have less than 0 hit points and have not stabilized.
The dying condition actually says your unconscious. If your dead, your nolonger dying, therefore nolonger unconscious.Actually, the dead condition never says you are no longer dying. As long as you have less than 0 hit points and have not stabilized, then you are dying. And if you are dead, you have less than 0 hit points and have not stabilized.
I can be mistaken, but I think the dying condition says you loose the dying condition and gain the dead condition.
Dead: The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
Dying: A dying creature is unconscious and near death. Creatures that have negative hit points and have not stabilized are dying. A dying creature can take no actions. On the character's next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points (but not dead), and on all subsequent turns, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. A character that is stable does not need to make this check. A natural 20 on this check is an automatic success. If the character fails this check, he loses 1 hit point. If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score, it dies.
The only difference is that a dead character can't roll a check to stabilize. Actually, if the dead condition removed the dying condition then it wouldn't need to say "but not dead", as you'd never get to that point anyway.
In that case, a dead character can still be stabilized with magical healing or the Heal skill. Once they're stable, they can start making Constitution checks to become conscious, and once they're conscious they can take actions again.
No. Because, "Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing".
Smelling salts actually would make you conscious for 6 seconds until you auto fail your stabilization check. But you'd still be dead and couldn't benefit from healing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Smelling salts actually would make you conscious for 6 seconds until you auto fail your stabilization check. But you'd still be dead and couldn't benefit from healing.
So you can wake somebody up and ask a quick question? Sounds like Pathfinder characters are only mostly dead.
Smelling salts actually would make you conscious for 6 seconds until you auto fail your stabilization check. But you'd still be dead and couldn't benefit from healing.So you can wake somebody up and ask a quick question? Sounds like Pathfinder characters are only mostly dead.
True Love
Sleeping in Armor: A character who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. He takes a –2 penalty on Str and Dex and can't charge or run. Sleeping in light armor does not cause fatigue.
So if you fail your check against a sleep spell... you are fatigued the next day. How rude.
Necroing to note this new mesmerist trick from Blood of the Beast:
Break Stupor: The mesmerist
can trigger this trick whenever the subject is under an effect such as the fascinated condition or magical slumber as per the sleep spell that would be ended by the subject taking damage or by an obvious threat. The trick sends a momentary phantom threat and sensation of pain, ending the effect. This ability works fast enough to prevent a sleeping creature from falling prone or dropping what it is holding, if the mesmerist uses it immediately. The mesmerist can also trigger the trick if the subject becomes confused as per confusion, but if he does so, the subject attacks the mesmerist on its next turn, as if the
mesmerist attacked the subject.
Well, this is evidence, not a ruling. Sometimes (especially in the player companion line) Paizo prints stuff that doesn't actually work with the well established rules. Other times they print stuff that seems (or here, explicitly) to support a particular ambiguous rules interpretation, but that doesn't mean the developer of the product was aware of the ambiguity or meant to rule on it. In any case, I don't think developers of individual player companions are generally (ever?) on the PDT that issues actual FAQs and writes the main line core rules. So this isn't worth as much as you think.
But it's interesting, sure.
Wow. What do you know: Sleep is actually like sleeping now. You end up helpless, prone, and disarmed. Yeah, it's just a first level spell, but:
There is a 4HD limit: a level 1 + level 4 target just means the level 1 may sleep; a level 2 + level 3 target just means the level 2 may sleep.
Each opponent gets a Will save.
A standard action will awaken the target (so that level 4 or level 3 target can awaken that level 1 or level 2 victim).
Sleep does look pretty powerful now though when up against just 1 single level 4 opponent, or against 40 bookworms (1/10 HD).
Moral of the story: do not travel alone when you have 4 HD or less, unless you are an Elf or Half-Elf (and hope your GM does not put your level 1 party of 4 characters up against that Sorcerer with Sleep cast in back to back rounds).
|
Wow. What do you know: Sleep is actually like sleeping now. You end up helpless, prone, and disarmed. Yeah, it's just a first level spell, but:
There is a 4HD limit: a level 1 + level 4 target just means the level 1 may sleep; a level 2 + level 3 target just means the level 2 may sleep.
Each opponent gets a Will save.
A standard action will awaken the target (so that level 4 or level 3 target can awaken that level 1 or level 2 victim).Sleep does look pretty powerful now though when up against just 1 single level 4 opponent, or against 40 bookworms (1/10 HD).
Moral of the story: do not travel alone when you have 4 HD or less, unless you are an Elf or Half-Elf (and hope your GM does not put your level 1 party of 4 characters up against that Sorcerer with Sleep cast in back to back rounds).
With a probable DC of 15 first level characters have a 25 to 55% chance of saving and the casting time is 1 round, relatively easy to disrupt if the spell targets have any kind of ranged weapon.
Eh, it's not worse than colour spray, which can incapacitate you for 1 1/2 mins at first level (assuming highest possible rolls) and can't be fixed by slapping.
A witch with her slumber hex says: "Hi"