Night Hag... Give Me a Break...

[Aloïsius]

I would rule it this way : there is no natural save for this power, so you must give one to the affected character, through a heal check or a cleric power.

Hum, I like it.

 

[WalterKovacs]

There are rules for waking people from unconciousness [not just sleeping], however those rules assume the person is at 0 or less hit points, as the reason they are unconcious. That requires healing or a short rest [Bit more difficult to do than waking a sleeping person with hit points remaining].

 

[Benimoto]

I just ran into this power this week in my own gaming session. I tend to agree that it's a relic of some previous iteration in development because as it stands now, there's not even a definition of "no save" anywhere I can find. Powers that last more than a single round are supposed to have durations. "No save" does not do anything to tell you how long the power should last.

I mean, you can say that it's supposed to last as long as a "save ends" power, but the victim automatically fails the save, but that doesn't seem satisfactory to me.

I'm guessing that it's a mistake, like the Oni Night Haunter, that they failed to catch on their first batch of errata.

 

[Henry]

To me, the most logical answer is to say the power should be errata'ed to "save ends", because of the two points made by Kordeth. Further, a sleep effect that could be negated by ANY PC (other than the slept character) taking a free action at any time is so useless that it wouldn't make sense to even include it.

 

[Runestar]

I agree that making it "save ends" seems the most fair. This way, sleep isn't so readily nullified (such as by simply shouting in his ear), but isn't tantamount to a death sentence either.

BTW, are there any other abilities in the MM which inflict a status effect without a save? While possibly overpowering, I am still divided if this was just a printing oversight or intentional (in that the designers felt that a no-save sleep effect was somehow balanced?).

 

[Syrsuro]

BTW, are there any other abilities in the MM which inflict a status effect without a save? While possibly overpowering, I am still divided if this was just a printing oversight or intentional (in that the designers felt that a no-save sleep effect was somehow balanced?).

Yes.

Petrification effects are typically (no save).
Being swallowed whole is a (no save) restrained condition.
Efreets have an attack that negates fire resistance (no save) until the end of the encounter.
Mind Flayers can Dominate (no save) when they create a thrall.

However, there are only two instances of unconscious (no save) - The Night Hag and the Oni - and of those, one has already been changed in errata to (save ends).

I think it is highly likely that the Night Hag is likewise in error and should read (save ends). But it is not absolutely clear.

Carl

 

[amysrevenge]

I'm curious why a DM out to take advantage of this "no save" power would assume it ends after the encounter. Wouldn't it be just as likely to linger for all time, until a target dies of thirst or something? Maybe I missed a clause that all effects of an encounter end after the encounter is over (I still haven't DMed 4th yet - first go will be next weekend).

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm curious why a DM out to take advantage of this "no save" power would assume it ends after the encounter. Wouldn't it be just as likely to linger for all time, until a target dies of thirst or something? Maybe I missed a clause that all effects of an encounter end after the encounter is over (I still haven't DMed 4th yet - first go will be next weekend).

Powers have a cap of duration of five minutes/one encounter unless otherwise stated. That includes (no save) and (save ends) powers explicitly.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

That CustServ ruling on Sleep sounds like yet another thing I'd ignore from them; I haven't seen any justification for why they'd make that ruling, and I'd bet money you could talk to them at a different time and get a different answer from someone else.

 

[Runestar]

That CustServ ruling on Sleep sounds like yet another thing I'd ignore from them; I haven't seen any justification for why they'd make that ruling, and I'd bet money you could talk to them at a different time and get a different answer from someone else.

Which one? The sleep spell actually induces unconsciousness (similar to being put under anesthetic), so it makes sense to me that it should not follow the guidelines for the sleep condition. It would be kinda useless for it to put a kobold to sleep after 2 failed saves, only to have an adjacent kobold wake it up as a free action...