Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5326903" data-attributes="member: 18280">Let's not shift those goalposts!Sleep as an autowin was supposed to automatically win an encounter unless the creature was specifically immune to the spell (such as undead or elves), and very specifically was supposed to autowin against anything a 1st-level (or low-level) magic-user was likely to encounter.  This belief is the result of a shallow reading/understanding of the spell and/or the rules.The mitigating factors ("However, just because there's no saving throw to the spell, it doesn't mean that the scenario is an auto win. Because if there's more monsters than the spell can handle, those monsters might be able to wake up their sleeping friends.") are what prevent the spell from being an autowin.If sleep cannot autowin against the scenario, one must wonder exactly how it can be classified as an "autowin".  It is, instead, a big advantage over a single encounter (unless, as in my Moathouse examination, the GM really does hand out Rings of Automatically Casting Sleep At the Beginning of Each Encounter -- and, if she does, it is no fault of the rules that she does!), and provides the possibility of a situational win, if and only if it is used wisely.If you look at the Moathouse encounters, you can probably see some cases where sleep would make a real difference to the PCs, and other cases where it might not.  The magic-user who uses sleep in the later cases, and therefore doesn't have it for the former, will be a short-lived magic-user.  IME, anyway.No matter how you slice it, though, not allowing a save is not sufficient to make a spell an autowin.  I mean, CAGI can be used to gain a big advantage, can't it?  There is no save.  Is it an autowin?RC</blockquote>

Verification