Steal Spell

[ericpat]

In a recent game, the party had been wounded and when healing was doled out, the Spellthief was snubbed. After the game was over the player wondered aloud to me if she would have been able to steal a Cure Light Wounds spell from the Archivist while he was sleeping during her turn on watch -- without him knowing anything.

The Archivist didn't have any cures left at that point so it definitely wouldn't have gotten her what she wanted, but it seems that she'd be able to steal a spell without having to cause damage since the Archivist was unconscious and arguably "willing" for non-harmful effects.

Steal Spell (Su): A spellthief can siphon spell energy away from his target and use it himself. A spellthief who hits an opponent with a successful sneak attack can choose to forgo dealing 1d6 points of sneak attack damage and instead steal a spell, or the potential to cast a specific known spell, from his target. If the target is willing, a spellthief can steal a spell with a touch as a standard action.

As a follow-up. If the Archivist did have a spell stolen would he be unable to fill that slot in the morning due to that slot being "used" within the last eight hours?

 

[akbearfoot]

Slippery slope there.....thieves stealing from party members.

Even if the archivist is allied with the spellthief, he is almost certainly not 'willing' to have his spells stolen from his mind. So the only way the spellthief could take a spell from him would be to stab him and take advantage of SA. Theres no way you could say that having a spell taken away form you is considered 'harmless'. The normal progression would go something like this.....Thief touches the archivist and tries to leach a spell, the archivist makes his saving throw, and as per saving throw rules KNOWs he was just forced to make a save....he wakes up looking at the thief standing over him and says 'What did you just do'!


Compare it to an invisible spellthief trying to touch an enemy mage to take a spell...The mage has no idea hes about to get tagged, but still gets a save...Being unconscious doesent mean you dont get to make saving throws.

 

[ericpat]

Slippery slope there.....thieves stealing from party members.

Even if the archivist is allied with the spellthief, he is almost certainly not 'willing' to have his spells stolen from his mind. So the only way the spellthief could take a spell from him would be to stab him and take advantage of SA. Theres no way you could say that having a spell taken away form you is considered 'harmless'. The normal progression would go something like this.....Thief touches the archivist and tries to leach a spell, the archivist makes his saving throw, and as per saving throw rules KNOWs he was just forced to make a save....he wakes up looking at the thief standing over him and says 'What did you just do'!

Compare it to an invisible spellthief trying to touch an enemy mage to take a spell...The mage has no idea hes about to get tagged, but still gets a save...Being unconscious doesent mean you dont get to make saving throws.

While I'm not trying to encourage intra-party conflict, I also don't want to tell players how to play. The Archivist was less than subtle when doling out healing to specifically snub the Spellthief. He almost certainly would've healed her if he'd had more spells available, but he made it obvious that she was not a priority.

A character is only aware of succeeding at a saving throw, they are not if they fail (unless it's obvious, e.g. Fireball) -- a character that fails vs charm doesn't know they're charmed.

Additionally, Steal Spell doesn't have a saving throw associated with it. If the Spellthief hits and is eligible for SA damage, the spell is stolen.

A hypothetical situation I can envision:

The Archivist is unconscious and bleeding to death, the Spellthief steals a cure spell and heals him. Should that work? I'd think so.

 

[Deset Gled]

Per the SRD, Magic Overviewsection: "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

However, sleeping is not the same as unconsious. Both conditions make the character helpless, but they are distinctly different conditions.

So if the Archivist is unconscious and bleeding to death, then the Spellthief can steal the cure spell. But if the Archivist is just sleeping, he can't.

 

[WarShrike]

Well, how about waking the Archivist for his watch by punching him (subdual damage), and SA for a sleeping target. Then replace the SA as per the Spellthiefs ability. Archivist still wakes up because of the blow, but just because the player knows he made a save doesnt mean the character does.

WarShrike

***Edit: Oh, and since the punch was an attack (of sorts), there is no saving throw.***

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, sleeping is not the same as unconsious. Both conditions make the character helpless, but they are distinctly different conditions.

Would you say that the sleeping character is conscious?

Let's say we have 8 kobolds in a group. I cast Sleep; the four closest to the point of origin are affected, and fail their saves, and fall asleep. Now my buddy casts Sleep, centred on the same point. Does the spell affect the 4 sleeping kobolds, or the other four (who are still within the area, but not yet asleep)?

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing

Right. Ancient Orc proverb.

However, sleeping is not the same as unconsious.

Wait, what?

There are reasons you become unconscious aside from going to sleep, but the state is identical -- as is "passed out", which implies another route to achieve that same state.

Cheers, -- N

 

[ericpat]

However, sleeping is not the same as unconscious. Both conditions make the character helpless, but they are distinctly different conditions.

I've checked the SRD, and unconscious is in the conditions, while sleeping isn't.

Sleeping is a state that can cause one to become helpless, and it is listed in the helpless condition's description as is paralyzed, held, bound and unconscious. Some of which are conditions and some of which aren't.

Outside of the d20 context, if someone were to ask me if sleeping and unconscious meant the same thing, I'd say have to say no. However, if they were to ask if someone was unconscious while they were sleeping I'd say that yes they were.

To be fair to both players I think that if the Spellthief wants to steal a spell from the Archivist, I'll allow a chance for him to notice the touch and awaken. I'd not exactly sure what mechanic I should use, and would love suggestions.

How do folks feel about my second question:

If a spell was successfully stolen from the Archivist while he was sleeping, would that spell-slot have been "used" in the past 8 hours and therefore be ineligible to be filled with a new spell in the morning?

 

[Deset Gled]

Would you say that the sleeping character is conscious?

I would say that a sleeping character is neither conscious nor unconscious.

One rules point that I can show to back this up is one that ericpat pointed out. "A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy." This makes a distinction between being sleeping an unconscious. This exact quote comes from the Abilities and Conditions section of the SRD, but is repeated in a number of places.

The second rule that I can quote is the definition of unconscious, which is defined as "Knocked out and helpless." Personally, I would not consider sleeping the be the same thing as "knocked out."

A third rule that supports sleeping being different than unconscious is that a sleeping character can make listen checks at a -10 penalty, and can wake up if they make their check. Obviously, a character that is knocked out (from, say, excesssive nonlethal damage) cannot simply make a listen check and wake up.

As for the Sleep spell example, I'll admit that the fact that Sleep doesn't work on unconscious targets is an implication that goes against the implications I've shown above. At the same time, though, it makes sense to me that a wizard might want to cast Sleep on an already (mundanely) sleeping target to ensure that the target is in a very deep sleep. Note that "normal noise" cannot awaken a Sleeping character, but the listen DC of people talking at normal volume (what I would consider "normal noise") is DC 0, and can wake up an average person about half the time.

In actual game play, I would rule as a DM that sleeping is not the same as unconscious, but wouldn't really have a problem as a player if a DM ruled they were the same. I would, however, insist that the sleeping character gets some sort of check to stop a spell. A listen check to know that someone is creeping on you is explicitly allowed by the rules. Getting a will save at a penalty for being less-than-conscious would also be reasonable. I also think that a DM would be justified in modifying the rolls based on character type and situation; a sneeky rogue napping in the middle of a scouting mission probably sleeps much lighter than a fighter who has returned home from a long battle (wearing heavy armor, swinging a two-handed axe, and marching all day). I'm pretty sure that my real-life listen penalty for awakening due to noise should be much more than just -10.

 

[s-dub]

Sleeping Characters and Listen Checks

I believe that the RAW says that sleeping characters get listen checks (albeit at a penalty). That seemed to be different than a character that is rendered unconscious because of damage (although not explicitly stated).

Sorry, didn't realize that this was in the previous post.

Another thought is that Wisdom represents being aware of one's surroundings. If a creature is rendered senseless by damage, this could be represented by their wisdom score temporarily changing to 0. Mechanically, this negates any bonus to will saves from a high wis scores and imposese a -5 penalty to will saves.