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

[Larrin]

Aside from the customer service response, do you have a reference for this assumption? A page number, or even something in the Compendium? (I ask because I don't know, not to be argumentative.)

The main reason Sleep spell is seen as different from 'sleep 263' is because the crunch part of the spell NEVER uses the word sleep to describe what happens to the target. The victim is unconscious after the first failed save. He isn't asleep, he's unconscious, those are the words used. By the way things are written, you don't look at sleep rules to figure out what happens to the monster, you look at the unconscious condition. The spell is named Sleep, but that means NOTHING as far as how it works is concerned. It could be named "Knockout gas" or "Bobs fall-down Spell", the name doesn't matter.

The only other hope that 'sleep 263' applies is that the spell has the "Sleep" keyword, but if you read the keyword section, does it in anyway imply that "people falling unconscious due to this spell refer to page 263"?? I honestly don't know because i don't have the books at hand, but i doubt it. Keywords mostly are for things like "saves +5 vs sleep" or "+1 to attacks with sleep powers".

Bottom line, If you read the spell with no preconceptions of what it should do, it gives NO indication that it puts a character to sleep. It makes them unconscious as per the condition in the conditions table. The name and keyword of course might give that impression, but there isn't any rule to back that assumption up.


Thats the argument anyway, and honestly i can't fault the logic.

 

[useridunavailable]

I third this interpretation.

While I'd be perfectly content with this ruling, my DM seems inclined to rule that Wave of Sleep lasts until the end of the encounter (no save), which I see as scarcely less powerful than it stands as written when combined with Dream Haunting (i.e., auto-death, potentially to more than one or even all PCs, with no means of opposing the inevitable outcome).

Perhaps when I show him the responses here, he'll be more willing to see reason, but it has still really hurt our game that there has been no official errata for this power to date.

 

[Nebulous]

The main problem is that our DM, although he does agree that something is terribly wrong with the wording of Wave of Sleep, is so complacent in his glee over discovering such a wicked and nasty trick to pull on the PCs that he's reluctant to make a compromise that reflects what I (and apparently many of you) see as even close to the actual RAI. In such a case, official errata is really a requirement for any modicum of fun to continue to exist in our group. I really can't blame the DM - we tend to powergame against him quite a bit, and he's merely trying to respond in kind, which in most cases we all see as both fun and fair. He saw the discovery as very clever, and I tend to agree, but he seems incapable of making an unbiased ruling on the issue.

Wait, your DM is using this unclear power to deliberately screw your characters? And you as players likewise use ambiguous rules to gleefully screw the DM in return? And this hag power is actually getting so blown out of proportion that there is no "modicum of fun" able to exist in your group?

In any case, i think if it just said "save ends" the matter is pretty much fixed. It's certainly not enough ruin a gaming group over i don't think.

 

[Rechan]

(no save) is clearly a relic of an older iteration of the game, like the drow warrior having (X2) instead of the language of a secondary attack.

Check out the Oni night haunter; it also has (no save) on one of its powers, which was errata'd to (save ends). They almost certainly just didn't catch same the error on the night hag.

In short, like nearly every other duration-based power in the game, wave of sleep should be (save ends).

I be fourthin' this here post.

 

[useridunavailable]

The main reason Sleep spell is seen as different from 'sleep 263' is because the crunch part of the spell NEVER uses the word sleep to describe what happens to the target. The victim is unconscious after the first failed save. He isn't asleep, he's unconscious, those are the words used. By the way things are written, you don't look at sleep rules to figure out what happens to the monster, you look at the unconscious condition. The spell is named Sleep, but that means NOTHING as far as how it works is concerned. It could be named "Knockout gas" or "Bobs fall-down Spell", the name doesn't matter.

The only other hope that 'sleep 263' applies is that the spell has the "Sleep" keyword, but if you read the keyword section, does it in anyway imply that "people falling unconscious due to this spell refer to page 263"?? I honestly don't know because i don't have the books at hand, but i doubt it. Keywords mostly are for things like "saves +5 vs sleep" or "+1 to attacks with sleep powers".

Bottom line, If you read the spell with no preconceptions of what it should do, it gives NO indication that it puts a character to sleep. It makes them unconscious as per the condition in the conditions table. The name and keyword of course might give that impression, but there isn't any rule to back that assumption up.


Thats the argument anyway, and honestly i can't fault the logic.

Well, at least you give the argument that page 263 applies a leg to stand on - the power does include the "Sleep" keyword. For a moment, I thought you had saved me with that observation. That was before I read the definition of the sleep keyword on page 55, which states:

Sleep: Powers that cause sleep or unconsciousness.

The explanation of the "Sleep" keyword states that it can indicate either sleep or unconsciousness, which even more clearly delineates the two, thereby only further damaging the case for the application of page 263... *sigh*

 

[useridunavailable]

Wait, your DM is using this unclear power to deliberately screw your characters? And you as players likewise use ambiguous rules to gleefully screw the DM in return? And this hag power is actually getting so blown out of proportion that there is no "modicum of fun" able to exist in your group?

In any case, i think if it just said "save ends" the matter is pretty much fixed. It's certainly not enough ruin a gaming group over i don't think.

Well, no, I suppose I was exaggerating the issue. Our group has moved on, but the issue is still unresolved, and remains a major point of contention. As written, the power is obviously broken. It requires some type of correction to involve any semblance of fairness. Because this broken power in particular was the DM's own discovery, he has been less inclined to make a reasonable ruling on it than he would be if the tables were turned and it were a broken PC power. That's why it really pretty much requires an irrefutible (i.e., "official") ruling to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

The point is that saying, "I would do it this way or that way," doesn't really definitively solve anything in my case, although it may help me to persuade the DM that he's being unreasonable.

Edit: The real problem we're having is that the guy read it beforehand and had actually planned to use it as written. When I called foul, he at least acknowledged that his intentions were nothing short of cheating and proceeded to make minimal concessions. Hopefully, Wizards of the Coast will acknowledge the cesspool of conjecture that has become the Sleep spell and its peers at some point in the near future. The existing rules on the subject are obviously and pervasively not sufficient.

 

[WalterKovacs]

pg. 295, on the subject of creatures 'knocked' unconcious at 0 hp:

They regain conciousness when either they receive healing or after a short rest.

So, we have ways to wake a character up from sleep. There are also ways to wake a character up that has been "knocked unconcious" [this is different from dying AND unconcious and later stabilized].

Also, from the night hag's tactics, there is apparently some way of interfering with the night hag attacking someone who is unconcious since it is the stated purpose of her allies. [That is using flavor, but if nothing else, there is apparently something that allies could do to wake someone from the nightmare].

Note: Oni Night Haunter has the same ability to render people unconcious without a save [after they fail the first save]

 

[useridunavailable]

Note: Oni Night Haunter has the same ability to render people unconcious without a save [after they fail the first save]

This power, as has been noted above, has been errata'ed to say "save ends". The Night Hag's power has not.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Rules stuff

You're right, I can see why it's problematic. The mention of "unconscious (no save)" seems to be the biggest problem. If I understand you correctly, if the power said "asleep (no save)," you would not have the same issue, and page 263 would be more appropriate.

Unless there's something in the unconscious condition (which I'm guessing you already looked up), you may have simply found a poorly thought out monster. It does happen. Not having used the monster myself, I'm not sure I can give you any practical insight. My initial feeling is either a) rework the monster or b) fix the power, both house rules, which isn't what you want.

 

[useridunavailable]

You're right, I can see why it's problematic. The mention of "unconscious (no save)" seems to be the biggest problem. If I understand you correctly, if the power said "asleep (no save)," you would not have the same issue, and page 263 would be more appropriate.

Unless there's something in the unconscious condition (which I'm guessing you already looked up), you may have simply found a poorly thought out monster. It does happen. Not having used the monster myself, I'm not sure I can give you any practical insight. My initial feeling is either a) rework the monster or b) fix the power, both house rules, which isn't what you want.

At any rate, thanks to you and everyone else for your responses. Like I said, a prevailing opinion certainly can't hurt the situation, although a hidden clause in the rulebooks or somesuch to completely close the case would be preferable. I still intend to play with this group and this DM, because on the whole the game has been extremely enjoyable, and I've been gaming with these guys for well over 10 years. We just can't all seem to get on the same page on this one, a fact for which I mostly blame Wizards of the Coast and their constant stream of mostly wonderful yet at the same time severely flawed products.

Edit: P.S. - Yes, you understand the problem perfectly. The prevailing (and even semi-official) opinion is that "unconscious" is not the same as "asleep," the latter of which is the only condition to which the rules on page 263 explicitly apply. According to this ruling, "unconscious (no save)" is effectively the same as "dead (save irrelevant)".