D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Sleep = full round action!

[Nail]

It allowed the killing of a pair of orcs (but even that wasn't guaranteed like the old days, since they got a save now), but it would be using, what, 50% of the 1st level wizards available resources?

And for the most part, the other spell would be mage armor, meaning that the wizard just spent his entire load for the day.

Again, my contention is that sleep was out of whack, but that further limiting the HD it effects, and changing the casting time to a full round action was not the way to go. That moves the spell from a "10" to a "2" on the utility scale, and it pushes more wizards to memorize magic missile.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Was it a "must have" at low level? Well, considering I'm been running D&D off and on for over 15 years I've seen the spell cast less than a dozen time (over half being NPC attempts to take out one particular bard in one patricular campaign), I'm not so sure.

I've noticed that several things that aren't dealing damage directly tend to be ignored by some players. I often see charakters that could really rock but they don't cause they don't use the possibilities they have. Or DM's complaining about creatures that are too weak while not using certain abilities those monsters have.

Sure, he is dangerous only on low levels (and they are over fast), but then he's really nice.

Yes, it meant Mr 1st level Magic User could take out one encounter - using up 100% of his resources for the day doing so.

That's exaggerating. I'm sure that almost all spellcasters get a bonus spell at first level, because their key ability modifier is at least +1 (I'm pretty sure there aren't more than a handful of 1st-level wizards with Int 11 around). And while spellcasting is their main resource, they can do other things, like shooting a light crossbow.

It could have been scaled to make it effective at high levels while keeping control of its power.

I think that 1st-level spells - especially attack spells - shouldn't be very effective at higher levels.

To top it off they didn't nerf Magic Missile

Well, that's not the fault of the sleep spell. MM was always very powerful for a 1st-level spell.

(another way of "ending" a combat at 1st level - by killing the creature!),

Yes. Your Point? While it is an auto-hit (this could be changed maybe: give MM a ranged touch attack), it won't always kill the creature. And it's still less damage than the party fighter will deal (if he's using a greatsword, he usually will have a minimal damage of 5 - the maximum of MM - and maximal 15, with an average of 10. And that's with Str 14/15. Many fighters start with more).

and they broke their own inane naming conventions for spells with Deep Slumber.

While they could have named Deep Slumber differently, the naming convention is actually quite good: It's a great help organizing everything and it makes sense. If the spell an improved version of another, why shouldn't the name reflect that? (and there are far worse ways to name your spell: There are RPG systems that have really silly rhymes as names. Do you want the spell be named something like "pitti witti mell, sleep you well"?)

I'd lift the fixed HD cap,

I hope I misunderstand you. The way I read your version of the spell could put a 20th-level fighter to sleep.

put it at one creature per level. If DMs are really so scared of it I have a simple solution - use more sleep-resistant enemies: constructs, plants, oozes, outsiders/elementals, undead, hell, just use a band of 1st level elf commoners!

Really bad idea. Now we have to tailor our encounters to 1st-levels pells as well? No way. It's really bad form to use this sort of "balancing". I can understand the use of COUPE to counter sneak attack or crits, but these are some fairly common things and integral to the game. But one single 1st-level spell? I don't want to check several spell books and spell lists to look for things I have to "balance" for they are to strong if I allow them all the time (I know what I speak of: I saw several times what sneak attack can do if the DM is doing nothing at all to stip it). I do want to spend some of the preparation time thinking of story and such stuff.

 

[Nail]

I've noticed that several things that aren't dealing damage directly tend to be ignored by some players....

...and DMs. An NPC wizard with the sleep spell can be nasty.

I think that 1st-level spells - especially attack spells - shouldn't be very effective at higher levels.

I agree that they shouldn't be the deciding factor, but that doesn't mean they should be useless.

Compare 1st level spells to, say, 3rd level ones. Which scale better with level? Why should there be a difference in their "scalability"? (Not power. It's clear 3rd level spells should be more powerful at any caster level.)

Compare sleep to charm person. Which is more scalable? Which is more useless at higher levels (above 6th)? Which is more over-powered at 1st level, even with the 3.5e revision?

Sleep is poorly designed.....and it's been made worse (even silly) by 3.5e.

While they could have named Deep Slumber differently, the naming convention is actually quite good....

Uhm....what, exactly are you saying? That Deep Slumber is named according to the naming convensions of 3.5e? It's not, you know. I assume this is just a mis-type. No worries; I mis-type all the time....check my sig.

Now we have to tailor our encounters to 1st-levels pells as well? No way. ..(snip).... I don't want to check several spell books and spell lists to look for things I have to "balance" for they are to strong if I allow them all the time ....

Uhm......huh? You've lost me here.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Originally posted by KaeYoss
I've noticed that several things that aren't dealing damage directly tend to be ignored by some players.

If this is the case (and I think it is) - why is it that developers go so crazy nerfing anything that doesn't do direct damage? All you are doing is covering up flaws in you game mechanics at best - at worst you are restricting any alternative play style except direct damage. This isn't a criticism of just the sleep spell but of many damn poor choices made in D&D system design (by and large the d20 Modern ruleset is a bit better constructed).

That's exaggerating. I'm sure that almost all spellcasters get a bonus spell at first level,

My comment referred to the "broken" pre-3e version of sleep - pre-3e 1st level MUs only had one first level spell per day, and access to scrolls was limited (since you couldn't make any magic items until several levels later).

I think that 1st-level spells - especially attack spells - shouldn't be very effective at higher levels.

In reality they will never beat out higher level spells (Magic Missile, again, being the exception to the rule), but they should not be useless. Sleep should remain useful at high levels - it could remain a great non-violent area of effect encounter neutralizer - a "mook" sweeper if you will, often how similar powers are used in other media (literature, movies, etc).

Well, that's not the fault of the sleep spell. MM was always very powerful for a 1st-level spell.

It is the definition of a broken spell. Instant hit, the force nature of it means it bypasses all DR and incorporeality. Long range of effect. The damage is low but guaranteed. Only SR or a shield spell protect against it.

I hope I misunderstand you. The way I read your version of the spell could put a 20th-level fighter to sleep.

I would keep the "effects the lowest HD creatures first" restriction. Meaning if Mr Fighter 20 were the only one in the room, and failed his DC 11+ability modifier saving throw and his SR (if any) then yes, he would fall asleep. I can't see why this is a problem at all.

Really bad idea. Now we have to tailor our encounters to 1st-levels pells as well? No way.

Better a bad DM has to use different monsters as their crutch against a spell (or simply house rule it) then nerfing a perfectly usable spell that presents no problems whatsoever to a halfway competant DM. It was never that powerful a spell IMO. A minor nerfing would have been unnecessary but tolerable but extending its casting time, AND fixing the spell effects is simply too much.

- Ma'at

 

[Metallian]

PC: "Fine. I coup de grace the guard by choking him."

DM: "Since you don't have IUS, it's subdual only damage unless you take a -4."

PC: "ARGH"

He could always suffocate the guard...but it will probably take a few minutes...

The Metallian

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

WRT Scaling; there are quite a few first level spells that still scale well in 3.5

Magic Missile, Shocking Grasp (improved in 3.5), Burning Hands, Ray of Enfeeblement (improved in 3.5), Enlarge Person (improved in 3.5), Protection From Evil, True Strike.

There doesn't seem to be any concerted attempt to keep first level spells from scaling or retaining their utility.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

...and DMs. An NPC wizard with the sleep spell can be nasty.

Yes, of course. DM's make usual mistakes. Plus, they often don't want to be to nasty (of course, there are a exceptions - some of these post regularly here )

Compare 1st level spells to, say, 3rd level ones. Which scale better with level? Why should there be a difference in their "scalability"? (Not power. It's clear 3rd level spells should be more powerful at any caster level.)

I have no problem if 1st-level spells don't scale well. Spells of 2nd and 3rd level also have limits to their scalability (fireball and 10d6 max and so on). It's part of the power scale

Uhm....what, exactly are you saying? That Deep Slumber is named according to the naming convensions of 3.5e? It's not, you know. I assume this is just a mis-type. No worries; I mis-type all the time....check my sig.

No. I meant that Deep Slumber should be named according to the naming conventions, e.g. name it Greater Sleep.

I then said that I like those conventions.

At least I meant it that way

Uhm......huh? You've lost me here.

I didn't like the idea to remove the cap totally and "balance" the spell by using more enemies that are immune to sleep. If we had to tailor our campaign to single 1st-level spells to create a balance, we would probably need an expensive and complex bit of software to do that. Fairly general stuff like energy types, sneak attack and crits are OK. Single spells aren't (there are over 500 spells in the core rules alone)

My comment referred to the "broken" pre-3e version of sleep - pre-3e 1st level MUs only had one first level spell per day, and access to scrolls was limited (since you couldn't make any magic items until several levels later).
[/B]

Ah. OK. My bad. It's just that 3e sleep could have done the same (when the enemies fail their saves, that is)

In reality they will never beat out higher level spells (Magic Missile, again, being the exception to the rule), but they should not be useless. Sleep should remain useful at high levels - it could remain a great non-violent area of effect encounter neutralizer - a "mook" sweeper if you will, often how similar powers are used in other media (literature, movies, etc).

Well, sleep is a something like a mook sweeper at higher levels - affecting 4 1hd-mooks. For the simple shopkeep - who can be as much as an Expert 4 - it's enough. And think of the possibilities Quicken Spell offers you with that spell.

It is the definition of a broken spell. Instant hit, the force nature of it means it bypasses all DR and incorporeality. Long range of effect. The damage is low but guaranteed. Only SR or a shield spell protect against it.

You forgot resistance to energy. It could use a little tone-down, but I think it's something I can live with - after all, there are other spells with almost-guaranteed damage (the "ref half" spells for example. You need evasion or good protection from that element to avoid that damage. SR almost always works, of course)

I would keep the "effects the lowest HD creatures first" restriction. Meaning if Mr Fighter 20 were the only one in the room, and failed his DC 11+ability modifier saving throw and his SR (if any) then yes, he would fall asleep. I can't see why this is a problem at all.

Because this is about as bad as the old hold person, maybe even worse: If you are a wiz 20, and a party of 4 level 20 characters, all will have to make that save or fall asleep. That save DC can be quite high even if it's only a 1st-level spell. And then they're as good as dead, for you can CdG them at your leasure.

When do you fight more than a handful of characters (and I mean strong characters), anyway? You'll almost always affect the high-level guys.

Better a bad DM has to use different monsters as their crutch against a spell (or simply house rule it) then nerfing a perfectly usable spell that presents no problems whatsoever to a halfway competant DM. It was never that powerful a spell IMO. A minor nerfing would have been unnecessary but tolerable but extending its casting time, AND fixing the spell effects is simply too much.

Let me get that straight: What DMs did you advice to use monsters to nerve the spell: Those who use the 3.0 version or those who use your version?

If it's those who use your version: This version would be broken, not "a perfectly usable spell that present no problems whatsoever", no matter how competent that DM is. Heck, I'd get quicken spell and load my 5th-level slots with that spell (or get a lesser rod of quicken. Or two). This way I'd have one additional attempt to get the enemy per round for several rounds. Face it: this is a save-or-die spell. Even if you don't actually die, you're out of the fight, for long enough for an enemy to slit your throat. For exactly that reason they have changed the hold spells.

 

[MadScientist]

I don't think the old (3E) version of sleep was broken at all. I recently had an encounter where the PC's were attacked by a group of 4 goblins, 2 hobgoblins and a Bugbear. Two sleep spells were thrown at the group of goblinoids and I think the net effect was that two of them lost one action, before being woken up by their comrades.

The save, combined with the ability to reawaken sleeping foes really puts a lid on the spells power. Sure you can CDG sleeping foes but thats a full round action, but you better be within 5ft of the one of the enemies that succumbed to the spell (unless you sleep the entire group). You can move and attack at decent bonus but if you don't kill them they wake up..... compared to color spray and magic missile I seriously don't see the problem. At 1st level it is pretty powerful (likely to take out 50-75% of a CR1 encounter) but it's power fades really quickly and as other have pointed out lots of creatures are immune.

I also don't like this trend of fixing formerly random variables so that more spells can't be empowered.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

You forgot resistance to energy.

I may be mistaken but all energy resistances are of the fire/sonic/cold/acid variety. I've never seen a Force Resistance 5 on a creature, I'm not even sure it would exist given the metaphysics (which are broken) of the D&D magic system.

It could use a little tone-down, but I think it's something I can live with - after all, there are other spells with almost-guaranteed damage (the "ref half" spells for example. You need evasion or good protection from that element to avoid that damage.

Both of which are common, since there are a number of classes, prestige classes, magic items and (in 3rd party product granted) feats which grant Evasion. Energy protection was restricted a little bit in 3.5 (the change in Endure Elements) but even it is fairly common at the 5/10 even 15 point level.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Because this is about as bad as the old hold person, maybe even worse: If you are a wiz 20, and a party of 4 level 20 characters, all will have to make that save or fall asleep. That save DC can be quite high even if it's only a 1st-level spell. And then they're as good as dead, for you can CdG them at your leasure.

That wizard would have to have rolled 80 on his 4d6+1/level to get all that party of characters. Then we get into the matter of the rediculously low save, the expected magic items of a party of that level, their tactics versus magic users, etc.

I mean come on - if you're 20th level and a DC of 11 frightens you there is something very wrong. At worst that save is 21+ability mod (heightened to level 9, focus and greater focus). At that point the wizard could only effect two of the characters at most (and to do that they need to roll 20 on 4d6 - doable but rare). If there is even one elf in the party (or one dwarf given their saving throw boost to resist spells), let alone a wizard or any character class with a good Will save, the spell will still only affect one person.

When do you fight more than a handful of characters (and I mean strong characters), anyway? You'll almost always affect the high-level guys.

Only if those high-level characters leave themselves wide open to a single level 1 spell. If they are that fragile I'd be afraid to see them whine about the level 20 caster using something truly powerful (like a power word, or Meteor Swarm).

Let me get that straight: What DMs did you advice to use monsters to nerve the spell: Those who use the 3.0 version or those who use your version?

Those who found the 3.0 version SO onerous that they NEEDED sleep nerfed in 3.5 - be they fans fo the system who wrote in, or (as I'm starting to suspect) the developers of 3.5 themselves.