Sleep, Circle of Death, and related spells.

[Bad Paper]

voted A

I have seen (and fallen prey to, dammit) a circle of death run in the style of A. I think I've only seen sleep cast once in a game, ever. From what I recall, it didn't hit the limit.

Style A makes more sense particularly when all creatures have different HD.

 

[BryonD]

Style A makes more sense particularly when all creatures have different HD.

How is that?

If you start from the front then you have packets of magic hitting on orc and then waiting for a result before deciding to move on to the next orc or not. (all as part of an "instant" effect)
If you check all orcs at once then you get this oddball scenario where on orc in the back fails a save but has no idea if it should sleep or not until it finds out what the guys ahead of him did. Either way, Style A strikes me a decidedly nonsensical.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you check all orcs at once then you get this oddball scenario where on orc in the back fails a save but has no idea if it should sleep or not until it finds out what the guys ahead of him did. Either way, Style A strikes me a decidedly nonsensical.

Lots of things will seem nonsensical if you persist in rationalizing them from the POV of "reality" instead of simply applying them as game mechanics.

You've got bigger problems than this if your litmus test for nonsensical rules is how much sense they make from the point of view of the creatures in the game.


Roll saves for all creatures in the area of effect (just as you would for fireball or any other unlimited AoE spell). Then segregate the subset of failures. Among the subset of failures, creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. Up to the limit of HD limited AoE spells.

 

[BryonD]

Lots of things will seem nonsensical if you persist in rationalizing them from the POV of "reality" instead of simply applying them as game mechanics.

You've got bigger problems than this if your litmus test for nonsensical rules is how much sense they make from the point of view of the creatures in the game.


Roll saves for all creatures in the area of effect (just as you would for fireball or any other unlimited AoE spell). Then segregate the subset of failures. Among the subset of failures, creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. Up to the limit of HD limited AoE spells.

I had a detailed post and the f'in board ate it.

You get into crazy situations all the time with magic. Duh. Sometimes you just live with it.

I just don't see this as one that is hard to model. Sleep has a maximum AoE, in this case it simply may not move further than 10 feet from the caster. Beyond that it runs out of potency. So any creature beyond that is safe. However, it also has a maximum amount of power available. One unit of power is absorbed by each HD of the first creature it finds. Whatever power is left moves to the next nearest creature, which also absorbs one unit per HD. This continues until the AoE is used up or the 4 units of power are used up. Once this is resolved any creature except the last one (which might also be the first one) must save or avoid sleep. The last one determines if the amount of power was equal to its HD or not and only saves if it was.

Creatures within 10 feet of the caster but further away than the last creature above are unaffected because the spell ran out of power before it ever got to them.

Once you accept the idea of magical sleep, there is no nonsense is this model.

 

[BryonD]

Roll saves for all creatures in the area of effect (just as you would for fireball or any other unlimited AoE spell). Then segregate the subset of failures. Among the subset of failures, creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell’s point of origin are affected first. Up to the limit of HD limited AoE spells.

See, that has the Shrodinger's cat thing going. You have creatures that are affected and fail their save, and yet they don't know if they fall asleep or not because they need to find out which other creatures did or did not make their save.

Note that in the example in the PH it makes no reference to whether or not the rat, kobold, and first gnoll made their saves. We are back to the ambiguity of the word "affected", but as described in the text it reads to me that the Ogre is simply ignored for resolution purposes. He is simply a bystander. The spell went at him, but never got there.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

See, that has the Shrodinger's cat thing going. You have creatures that are affected and fail their save, and yet they don't know if they fall asleep or not because they need to find out which other creatures did or did not make their save.

Creatures don't "know" anything. They're pieces in a game. Just apply the rules and (God help me for saying this...) don't think too hard about fantasy.

This entire thread came up in relation to studying Turn Undead, which has used the Shrodinger's Cat mechanic since 1e without significant controversy.

The turning check takes the place of the saving throw-- a sufficiently high Turn check = failed save for any undead within range.

And then you roll the turning damage.

So the undead 60 feet away "don't know" if they are actually turned or not until after the turning damage is applied to the closest undead.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I just don't see this as one that is hard to model.

I think the fundamental difference between your approach and mine is that you have, as a goal, a verisimilitude model; and I have, as a goal, a "limited AoE" model.

Ah, Simulationist, my old nemesis. We meet again!

 

[GlassJaw]

I just don't see this as one that is hard to model. Sleep has a maximum AoE, in this case it simply may not move further than 10 feet from the caster. Beyond that it runs out of potency. So any creature beyond that is safe. However, it also has a maximum amount of power available. One unit of power is absorbed by each HD of the first creature it finds. Whatever power is left moves to the next nearest creature, which also absorbs one unit per HD. This continues until the AoE is used up or the 4 units of power are used up. Once this is resolved any creature except the last one (which might also be the first one) must save or avoid sleep. The last one determines if the amount of power was equal to its HD or not and only saves if it was.

Creatures within 10 feet of the caster but further away than the last creature above are unaffected because the spell ran out of power before it ever got to them.

Once you accept the idea of magical sleep, there is no nonsense is this model.

I like Bryon's "fluff first" approach, and I think there is definitely a place for it in game design. Sometimes you have to start with what "makes sense", regardless of fantasy or not.

In this case, I agree that the magic power is "used up" once it hits a creature. The "power" forces the creature to make a save, i.e. it is "affected" by the spell. The spell doesn't know if the creature made its save and then chooses to move on to the next creature.

 

[BryonD]

So the undead 60 feet away "don't know" if they are actually turned or not until after the turning damage is applied to the closest undead.

But that again is not a Scrodinger's Cat.
The cleric throws out some turn energy. But just because a particular undead is within range of the cleric does not mean it is waiting to see if it is turned. If there are more undead in the way than the cleric threw out enough energy to impact, then the effect never reaches that undead.

Again, the range or area of effect is just an upper limit. It might go that far, but if creatures along the way absorb it all, then it does not make it all the way.

The one 60 feet away not knowing is no different than its lack of knowing the round before when the cleric cast spiritual weapon on the necromancer on the other side of the room. The effect either touches the undead or it does not.
When casting spiritual weapon on a necromancer a turn undead effect does not touch the undead and there is nothing to know or not know. When using turn undead with a big enough buffer of other undead in the way, then a turn undead effect again does not touch the undead in question (even though it may be within potential range), so again, there is nothing to know or not know. As far as that undead is concerned, both rounds were exactly the same, the cleric did nothing to the 60 foot away undead.

Yes, the the turn undead had the potential to reach the undead. But it did not, so there is nothing to question.

Lets say you are a fighter and you have a magic charm that gives you 25 temporary HP whenever you are affected by poison. Now, a giant spider tries to bite you. The DM picks up the d20. At this second you gain 25 temp HP right? That poisonous bite is headed your way!!!! Of course not. The DM rolls and, lets assumes, misses. So the charm does not trigger. A poison attack was thrown your direction and it was completely capable of impacting you. But it did not.

The cleric's insufficient total HD turn has the same impact on the 60 ft away undead as the poison in the errant spider fang had on the fighter. Nothing. It may as well not exist.

You are resolving effect before you establish the existence of a cause. If you make certain the cause exists forst, then the problem goes away.

Again, in the PHB sleep example, do you think the Ogre rolled a save? I do not.

 

[BryonD]

I think the fundamental difference between your approach and mine is that you have, as a goal, a verisimilitude model; and I have, as a goal, a "limited AoE" model.

The combat system should be based on the world design.
The world design should not be based on the combat system.