5E Sleep: Balanced?

[Malachei]

Sleep seems to be pretty powerful in 5E. Particularly the option of scaling up through use of higher level spell slots against enemy spellcasters.

5d8 base and 2d8 every two spell levels should be above an enemy wizard's or sorcerer's total hit points even when unharmed, unless there is a very high con score.

There might be other good (or better) options, but unless an enemy spellcaster carries protection against enchantment, Sleep seems to be a cheaper Power Word Kill.

What do you think?

(I know this has been noted in another thread aiming at listing powerful spells, but I did not want to derail that one.)

[hymer]

If
1: You are facing a lone spellcaster of your own level
2: You spend your highest level spell slot to cast sleep on them
3: They are not elves, half-elves, undead or generally immune to charm or sleep
Then you have around 50% chance of success at level 9 - higher before, lower after. This assumes the enemy is going for +2 con modifier, which I think is reasonable.

Too many ifs for my taste. You will rarely face a lone spellcaster at all, and if you do, they are likely to be some sort of boss battle and be higher level than you. If they are not alone, an ally of theirs need only take an action, and the target of your sleep is back in the game, albeit probably prone. If you go first, an enemy ally goes second, and the spellcaster goes third, they won't even lose a round on it.

[Glarnog]

I know people are big fans of the one and done spells, but you can always soften your targets up first before throwing sleep at them.

[Shining Wrath]

All a spellcaster needs to be protected from Sleep is a few minions each with one fewer hit point than the caster - or to be safe, perhaps 10 fewer HP. If, for example, the caster has a bunch of cats in his laboratory, and each cat has 3 HP, and there's always 4 cats within 20' of the enemy caster because there's just that many cats - the first 12 HP (approximately 3D8) of your sleep spell will take out cats.

The sleep spell makes no distinction between combatants and non-combatants. In a forest setting the DM could easily rule you hit squirrels, rabbits, butterflies, and mice prior to getting to the enemy forces. And while that would be rather annoying, it IS RAW.

A spell that can be nerfed by kittens is not OP.

[Ferrin33]

It's also great when you don't want to kill people.

[hymer]

It's also great when you don't want to kill people.

Send in the fighter with the huge sword or axe and have them whack away. Taking people alive is already very easy. Sleep gives a(nother) ranged option, but since waking up from it happens a lot, it's hardly perfect.

[Daishain]

It's also great when you don't want to kill people.
Any time you cause damage and drop someone you can choose to knock them out instead of killing them. I'm not sure how this is supposed to work with, for instance, arrows, but it does make capturing someone a hell of a lot easier.

[hymer]

Any time you cause damage and drop someone you can choose to knock them out instead of killing them. I'm not sure how this is supposed to work with, for instance, arrows, but it does make capturing someone a hell of a lot easier.

Nah, you need to deal damage with a melee weapon to keep people alive when you drop them.

[hachface]

The sleep spell makes no distinction between combatants and non-combatants. In a forest setting the DM could easily rule you hit squirrels, rabbits, butterflies, and mice prior to getting to the enemy forces. And while that would be rather annoying, it IS RAW.

A DM who ruled this way would face a justified table mutiny.

[MadGrady]

A DM who ruled this way would face a justified table mutiny.

Yeah, that's just really mean DM

......Or is he a genius :smallbiggrin:

[Slipperychicken]

A DM who ruled this way would face a justified table mutiny.

If the fauna were behaving reasonably (why is a rabbit standing 15 feet away from a battle and not running away?) and are clearly represented on the table prior to casting, that's fair. I'd only consider mutiny if the DM declared something like 22 cats hiding in the grass next to our enemies. But if there just happens to be a live rat chilling in a room, where it would be appropriate for a rat to be, that's more reasonable.


Yeah, that's just really mean DM

......Or is he a genius :smallbiggrin:

Or just some schmuck who read this thread and hates how the wizard keeps casting Sleep on his goblin mobs.

[MadGrady]

Or just some schmuck who read this thread and hates how the wizard keeps casting Sleep on his goblin mobs.

Hell hath no fury like a DM scorned

[Shining Wrath]

A DM who ruled this way would face a justified table mutiny.

Please note I did say it would be rather annoying, i.e., something likely to make people upset. I wouldn't do it myself unless I had it in my notes that this particular (probably druid) NPC surrounded themselves with critters for just that purpose. You don't want to just pull a stunt like that because the wizard just one-spelled your encounter.

If players can make 6 step flow charts to argue that by RAW a bard can cast cone of cold emanating both from himself and his summoned steed, then the DM can argue that by RAW the forest animals soak up HP of the Sleep spell. Which is to say, rules abuse can work against you, player, so think twice before you do it.

The story about the mage with a laboratory full of cats is more like something I would do. Crazy Cat Lady wizard could be played for laughs, and of course a swarm of kittens is a horrible way to die as raspy little kitten tongues tear at your flesh. :smallbiggrin:

More commonly, a familiar, or a Beastmaster Ranger's animal companion, or the conjured friends of a druid, would serve to soak up a few HP of Sleep. And that might well be the difference between a one-shot encounter and a more interesting one.

[Inevitability]

A spell that can be nerfed by kittens is not OP.

Those words of wisdom deserve to be sigged. Could I please do so?

[Daishain]

Nah, you need to deal damage with a melee weapon to keep people alive when you drop them.
And that makes 3 major misinterpretations over the past few days.

That's it, no more referencing the PhB when I don't have time to properly check it.

[hachface]

Or just some schmuck who read this thread and hates how the wizard keeps casting Sleep on his goblin mobs.

If you know your wizard is going to sleep your goblin mob, just add a second goblin mob. Now sleep is no longer an encounter ender all by itself, but it -- or some similarly powerful control spell -- is still essential to victory.

[Shining Wrath]

Those words of wisdom deserve to be sigged. Could I please do so?

But of course.


If you know your wizard is going to sleep your goblin mob, just add a second goblin mob. Now sleep is no longer an encounter ender all by itself, but it -- or some similarly powerful control spell -- is still essential to victory.

The difference between "Wizard contributes to victory" and "Wizard does it solo" is a pretty key one.

Having your goblins spread out also nerfs sleep. I do not know why more DMs don't use alcoves in the same wall as the door - it's a simple thing. PC's enter, see some goblins, move to engage them, and then a couple of goblins who were waiting out of casual view in alcoves behind them engage the party from behind, i.e., where the wizard hangs out. Even one goblin approaching from behind can be very upsetting to a Wizard who wants to cast a concentration-duration spell.

[squashmaster]

a dm who ruled this way would face a justified table mutiny.

but verisimilitudendudenmilivertudenude

[Malachei]

Seems in 5E I can't have my mid-level wizard walk around without kittens, lest he be taken out by sleep.

(Or I have to be an elf, half-elf or undead, or acquire mind blank, which is 8th level)

I'm not making a case for nerfing, I'm just questioning whether the spell might be unbalanced.
Cases of a spell being unbalanced:

1. There are typical, common scenarios, in which the spell equals "I win the fight" (i.e. single enemy)
2. A player will often use the spell, compared to other options / spells at the same level
3. The DM would have to make plans to circumvent the "win-button" (adjust encounters by adding, e.g., kittens)


If
1: You are facing a lone spellcaster of your own level
2: You spend your highest level spell slot to cast sleep on them
3: They are not elves, half-elves, undead or generally immune to charm or sleep
Then you have around 50% chance of success at level 9 - higher before, lower after. This assumes the enemy is going for +2 con modifier, which I think is reasonable.

Too many ifs for my taste. You will rarely face a lone spellcaster at all, and if you do, they are likely to be some sort of boss battle and be higher level than you. If they are not alone, an ally of theirs need only take an action, and the target of your sleep is back in the game, albeit probably prone. If you go first, an enemy ally goes second, and the spellcaster goes third, they won't even lose a round on it.

1. Yes, that was the scenario I was thinking about.
2. Not necessarily so, but even if you use the highest spell slot, it might still be a good choice for an instant option to end the fight.
3. Granted, there are many times when you don't know this in advance and then just don't use the spell. Sometimes, however, you can know in advance (recurring enemy, spying, information gathering, etc.)

An example scenario would be two wizards of equal level in a duel.

Assuming +2 Con, your average sleep roll is higher than the average hit points until level 15, at which point the spell becomes less interesting, because the enemy is close to getting mind blank. So on an average roll, you take out your enemy with no save.

Assuming your enemy is of higher level, things change, but not so much: At first level, you can take out the average 3rd level wizard with an average roll. At third, you still take out the average 5th level wizard. Even later, you can take out a wizard one level above yourself with an average roll, or higher, with an above-average roll.

What tactics is a better choice in this scenario? Will forcing a save provide better chances of winning?
Polymorph and charm person force Wisdom saving throws, so you stand a good chance against an enemy wizard, because your Intelligence will be higher than his Wisdom and proficiency bonus will almost always be the same.

Of course, if your enemy has less than +2 Con or is wounded, things change in your favor.

[hymer]

An example scenario would be two wizards of equal level in a duel.

I guess we play very different games, so we should keep that in mind. In my years, this scenario has literally never happened, whether as player or DM. I once came close (sorcerer vs. sorcerer duel), but they were not the exact same level, and the other PCs intervened, so it never really played out.


Assuming +2 Con, your average sleep roll is higher than the average hit points until level 15, at which point the spell becomes less interesting, because the enemy is close to getting mind blank. So on an average roll, you take out your enemy with no save.

At level 9, you have 6 (max hits at level 1) + 8d6 + 18 hp, with the option of taking 4 instead of rolling for hp. That means 6+32+18=56 hp. A Fifth level Sleep spell is 13d8 for an average of 58.5. That's pretty close to 50%. At level 10 the Sleep spell is the same while the caster's hp has gone up to 62. At level 8 you have 50hp and the Sleep spell averages at 49.5.
Level 9 is the last point where the chance of success is greater than 50%.


What tactics is a better choice in this scenario? Will forcing a save provide better chances of winning?
Polymorph and charm person force Wisdom saving throws, so you stand a good chance against an enemy wizard, because your Intelligence will be higher than his Wisdom and proficiency bonus will almost always be the same.

Modify Memory is another intriguing option to get your target to concede the fight, but would depend on the specific case. If you're not fighting in a duel, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere could be a high-chance save to isolate a wizard for 1-10 rounds of the fight.


Of course, if your enemy has less than +2 Con or is wounded, things change in your favor.

True, but hitting them over the head until they die would be equally easier in that case. :smallsmile:

[Leolo]

In a duell of 2 wizards, i think we also can assume the usage of counterspell, further reducing the chance of success.

[MrUberGr]

I find it weird that sleep has no saving throw. Yet, it can hit allies, so you gotta be extra carefull when using it on a BBEG.

And, in occasions it can be really powerfull. We were in a dungeon and got into an encounter with 7 bat-like thingys. Killed one, injured the next, and then all were put to sleep. Everyone was like "what happened" and specially the DM.

And being a bard, I just...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY

[hachface]

Sleep's hit point budget scales very poorly with level. Cast with a first-level slot (affecting 5d8 hit points worth of creatures), it will affect an average of 20 hit points worth of creatures, to a maximum of 40. (It is very unlikely that you will roll maximum HP budget at level 1, and maximum effect only becomes less likely the more dice you add; the more dice you add to a roll, the stronger the tendency toward an average roll becomes.)

Here are some CR 1 creatures, with their average hit points:

Half-ogre: 30
Fire snake: 22
Scarecrow: 36
Specter: 22
Thri-kreen: 33
Yuan-ti pureblood: 40

So as you can see, sleep ranges from either unlikely to very unlikely to end a solo encounter against a creature of equal CR. It is strictly for controlling mobs of creatures with CRs of less than 1.

At higher levels, it is even less effective. When cast at level 2 or higher, it adds 2d8 to its hit point budget for every spell slot higher than 1. Using a level 2 slot, it immediately falls behind the HP curve. Most monsters are size Medium or larger, and they have d8 hit dice, and most of them also get a sizable Constitution bonus to their hit points. This means that the additional HP provided by preparing a higher-level sleep has not caught up with the increase in monster hit points.

Since Constitution bonuses to HP are cumulative over levels, the divergence between sleep's potential HP budget and the HP of appropriate CR creatures continues to widen. Using a 9th-level slot, sleep will effect 21d8 HP worth of creatures, for an average of 84. (The maximum would be 168, but when you're rolling 21 dice you're not going to get anywhere near the max.)

Full casters will get 9th-level spell slots at experience level 17. Here are a few CR 17 monsters, with their average maximum HP:
Dragon turtle: 341
Adult blue dracolich: 225
Adult red dragon: 256
Adult gold dragon: 256
Androsphinx: 199

So in conclusion, it's extremely unlikely that sleep will end solo encounters with a level 1 slot and actually impossible for it to do so with a level 9 slot.

[hachface]

And on the subject of sleep being overpowered against enemy spellcasters:

The NPC archmage in the Monster Manual is CR 12. It has a maximum HP of 99.

PCs who face against the archmage will have 6th-level spell slots. That means an HP budget of 15d8. With an average roll of 60, sleep is extremely unlikely to work.

[Finieous]

PCs who face against the archmage will have 6th-level spell slots. That means an HP budget of 15d8. With an average roll of 60, sleep is extremely unlikely to work.

Gotta beat him down a little first, since it works on current hit points. Probably fine, but it's still something the archmage has to be cognizant of and certainly may affect his "morale check" as the battle develops.

[hachface]

Gotta beat him down a little first, since it works on current hit points. Probably fine, but it's still something the archmage has to be cognizant of and certainly may affect his "morale check" as the battle develops.

But you can't look at sleep in isolation to determine whether it's balanced; elements are balanced in the context of a system. The piece of context getting ignored is the other abilities available to a high-level spellcaster. There are more effective uses of a 12th-level character's single 6th-level spell slot than ramping up a 1st-level spell that has poor scaling.Disintegrate would be a very tempting option, since even on a successful save it can easily reduce the archmage's HP by half.

[hymer]

Disintegrate would be a very tempting option, since even on a successful save it can easily reduce the archmage's HP by half.

That's save for nothing, though, isn't it? But it does target dex, so the archmage (I don't have my MM yet) probably has something like 25% chance to save.

[Finieous]

But you can't look at sleep in isolation to determine whether it's balanced; elements are balanced in the context of a system. The piece of context getting ignored is the other abilities available to a high-level spellcaster. There are more effective uses of a 12th-level character's single 6th-level spell slot than ramping up a 1st-level spell that has poor scaling.Disintegrate would be a very tempting option, since even on a successful save it can easily reduce the archmage's HP by half.

I agree that it has to be looked at in context. I don't really agree that disintegrate is better against a lone archmage: if he saves, the spell does nothing. The high-level sleep spell basically eliminates his last ~60 hit points with no save.

[Easy_Lee]

So if I'm reading this thread properly, carrying around a bag of crickets makes me immune to the sleep spell?

[Lokiare]

I wonder what the effect would be if sleep were cast by a Wizard the turn after the sorcerer casts fireball on the same group of enemies? Would that make it a near automatic success at just about any level?

[hachface]

That's save for nothing, though, isn't it? But it does target dex, so the archmage (I don't have my MM yet) probably has something like 25% chance to save.

Save for half. And the damage is huge.

Edit: Whelp I guess I misread that; it's save for nothing. Still, though.

[Finieous]

Save for half. And the damage is huge.

Save for nothing.

[DireSickFish]

Yeah the new Save or die mechanic used on stuff like disintegrate is now save or take a butt-load of damage and probably die.

[hachface]

Huh, I just noticed the Monster Manual archmage has mindblank and is assumed to have it cast before combat.

But even ignoring that, I really don't think that sleep is OP. It's a great spell for sure, and a no-brainer at level 1, but it doesn't have staying power.

[Finieous]

Yeah the new Save or die mechanic used on stuff like disintegrate is now save or take a butt-load of damage and probably die.

:smallbiggrin:

Instead of "save or die" we get "save and mostly die."

[hachface]

So if I'm reading this thread properly, carrying around a bag of crickets makes me immune to the sleep spell?

Nah. Crickets don't have hit points. They are scenery.

[pwykersotz]

Nah. Crickets don't have hit points. They are scenery.

That's why you bathe in OFF and carry a bag of Stirges instead.

[Easy_Lee]

I wonder what the effect would be if sleep were cast by a Wizard the turn after the sorcerer casts fireball on the same group of enemies? Would that make it a near automatic success at just about any level?

Only if the wizard casting fireball instead would have resulted in a near-automatic kill-the-rest-of-the-baddies. Even then, you have to deal with saves.

[Slipperychicken]

So if I'm reading this thread properly, carrying around a bag of crickets makes me immune to the sleep spell?

The bag may or may not disrupt line of effect. I'm not sure.

[Lokiare]

Only if the wizard casting fireball instead would have resulted in a near-automatic kill-the-rest-of-the-baddies. Even then, you have to deal with saves.

Nah, just enough damage to lower the threshold down to the average.

If we have 10 creatures with 50 hp and fireball takes out 36 of those hp each creature is left with 14 hp which means you can get a handful without even upping the spell slot used.

[Arzanyos]

Wait, wouldn't that only get one of them? OR are you casting sleep from a higher than level 1 slot?

[Lokiare]

Wait, wouldn't that only get one of them? OR are you casting sleep from a higher than level 1 slot?

You are correct it would only get one of them. So if its cast out of a higher level slot it would work. Although if you go past a 3rd level slot your just better off following up with another fireball...

Its overpowered up to about level character level 4 and then it becomes overpowered in some situations.

[Shining Wrath]

You have to carry a bag of creatures with HP. Such as foul, cruel, bad-tempered bunny rabbits of DOOM. Rabbits trained to attack when released would count as combatants under any reading of the rules, and would soak up Sleep spells like nobody's business, even if they were still in the bag.

[Slipperychicken]

You have to carry a bag of creatures with HP. Such as foul, cruel, bad-tempered bunny rabbits of DOOM. Rabbits trained to attack when released would count as combatants under any reading of the rules, and would soak up Sleep spells like nobody's business, even if they were still in the bag.

And don't forget to keep your familiar out to soak up some Sleep hp.

[eastmabl]

Sleep's hit point budget scales very poorly with level. Cast with a first-level slot (affecting 5d8 hit points worth of creatures), it will affect an average of 20 hit points worth of creatures, to a maximum of 40. (It is very unlikely that you will roll maximum HP budget at level 1, and maximum effect only becomes less likely the more dice you add; the more dice you add to a roll, the stronger the tendency toward an average roll becomes.)

Here are some CR 1 creatures, with their average hit points:

Half-ogre: 30
Fire snake: 22
Scarecrow: 36
Specter: 22
Thri-kreen: 33
Yuan-ti pureblood: 40

So as you can see, sleep ranges from either unlikely to very unlikely to end a solo encounter against a creature of equal CR. It is strictly for controlling mobs of creatures with CRs of less than 1.

At higher levels, it is even less effective. When cast at level 2 or higher, it adds 2d8 to its hit point budget for every spell slot higher than 1. Using a level 2 slot, it immediately falls behind the HP curve. Most monsters are size Medium or larger, and they have d8 hit dice, and most of them also get a sizable Constitution bonus to their hit points. This means that the additional HP provided by preparing a higher-level sleep has not caught up with the increase in monster hit points.

Since Constitution bonuses to HP are cumulative over levels, the divergence between sleep's potential HP budget and the HP of appropriate CR creatures continues to widen. Using a 9th-level slot, sleep will effect 21d8 HP worth of creatures, for an average of 84. (The maximum would be 168, but when you're rolling 21 dice you're not going to get anywhere near the max.)

Full casters will get 9th-level spell slots at experience level 17. Here are a few CR 17 monsters, with their average maximum HP:
Dragon turtle: 341
Adult blue dracolich: 225
Adult red dragon: 256
Adult gold dragon: 256
Androsphinx: 199

So in conclusion, it's extremely unlikely that sleep will end solo encounters with a level 1 slot and actually impossible for it to do so with a level 9 slot.

Average roll on a d8 is 4.5, not 4, making the average number on HP that 1st level sleep affects 22.5.

That all being said, for the many reasons already stated, Sleep is a teamwork spell. If your win button spell requires your pals to help you press the button, I don't think that to be so bad.

[Malachei]

So in conclusion,

So in conclusion, your analysis has little to do with the scenario pointed out above.

I am not saying that sleep is overpowered for battling high hit point enemies.

But I think as a no-save attack, it may be overpowered against single, low-hit point enemies.

Whether I look at is as a DM or a player: If a lone 10th level wizard has to think about defensive tactics such as carrying a bag of creatures with HP, I think it is reasonable that a scaled 1st spell might be overpowered in these situations.

[Lonely Tylenol]

So in conclusion, your analysis has little to do with the scenario pointed out above.

I am not saying that sleep is overpowered for battling high hit point enemies.

But I think as a no-save attack, it may be overpowered against single, low-hit point enemies.

Whether I look at is as a DM or a player: If a lone 10th level wizard has to think about defensive tactics such as carrying a bag of creatures with HP, I think it is reasonable that a scaled 1st spell might be overpowered in these situations.

Well, a lone 9th-level Mage has a Challenge Rating of 6, but I'm going by the non-player characters in Appendix B. Since there is literally no indicator that class level = CR for creating PC enemies, this is the only safe assumption we can make about the RAW of encounter design as regards single humanoid wizards. That means that sleep, if cast at the highest level spell slot the PC spellcaster has available to them (in this case, third level), would conceivably have a roughly 50% chance of being put to sleep... Operating within a bell curve, of course, which literally any creature (like, say, the Mage's lone cat/imp/pseudodragon familiar, which the sidebar directly underneath the Mage's stat block suggests as a credible variant) would significantly throw in favor of the Mage. In which case, the Mage has a significantly larger chance of ignoring the sleep spell and responding with a suggestion, or perhaps a cone of cold.

Of course, this is also a significant outlier as regards the hit points of your average at-CR creature, considering the CR 6 Mage NPC has only 3 more hit points than a CR 1 Dire Wolf, and 72 hit points less than the CR 5 Gladiator NPC (which you should have the same spell level of sleep available to you for). Even the CR 2 Bandit Captain has 65 hit points.

If you are going into this expecting the 3.5 axiom of "NPC CR = HD-1, or 1/2 for 1 HD NPCs; PC CR = HD" to support your thesis, then you are clearly sorely mistaken. WotC is obviously making a departure from those days. If you are facing a lone spellcaster, and that spellcaster is expected to be a significant challenge for an entire party of four, then that spellcaster is, by the books, much higher level than your party. If that spellcaster is not much higher level than your party, then by encounter balancing rules, it should also be a cake walk for your party to defeat--in which case, the Wizard using their highest-level spell to sleep it is not outside the realm of reasonable.

[Daehron]

I suspect players will be equipping these on their next excursion against the fey.


http://i.imgur.com/cpHi2BS.jpg

I mean who did not see that coming?

[TheOOB]

If you look at sleep as a damage dealing spell, it's fine. It deals more damage than a normal 1st level spell would, and allows no save/attack roll, but it also does nothing if it doesn't "kill" the target, and targets "killed" by it can be woken up. I'd say that's pretty balanced.

[thereaper]

At most levels, it's a No-Save-Just-Die for any enemy not immune to it that has eaten a round or two of attacks from the party. So, yes, it's overpowered. If it only worked on the Maximum HP, rather than current HP, then it would be fine. Sadly, it does not.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

At most levels, it's a No-Save-Just-Die for any enemy not immune to it that has eaten a round or two of attacks from the party. So, yes, it's overpowered. If it only worked on the Maximum HP, rather than current HP, then it would be fine. Sadly, it does not.

Except they don't die. if it doesn't end the encounter when cast, it's a temporary control spell.

[Cambrian]

At most levels, it's a No-Save-Just-Die for any enemy not immune to it that has eaten a round or two of attacks from the party. So, yes, it's overpowered. If it only worked on the Maximum HP, rather than current HP, then it would be fine. Sadly, it does not.So its a like a situationally limited damage spell that does good damage? How is that different than fireball?

[thereaper]

It's not a damage spell. It's a No-Save-Just-Die that requires a tiny amount of setup first and doesn't work on every enemy type. That still makes it overpowered.

Unless, of course, the target is carrying around a bag of thirty spiders or something (at which point it becomes useless). But that's so silly it just proves that the spell is broken and doesn't belong in the game in its current form.

[TheOOB]

It's not a damage spell. It's a No-Save-Just-Die that requires a tiny amount of setup first and doesn't work on every enemy type. That still makes it overpowered.

Unless, of course, the target is carrying around a bag of thirty spiders or something (at which point it becomes useless). But that's so silly it just proves that the spell is broken and doesn't belong in the game in its current form.

It's mechanically a damage spell. It's a spell that you roll a random number and if it's equal to or greater than their hp, they are removed from the fight. It's just like any other ability that deals damage, except that it doesn't call for a save/attack roll(which is good), but it does nothing if it doesn't overcome the foes hp(bad), and another foe can end the effect with an action(bad).

Saying sleep is overpowered because if my HP is low enough you can take me out of the fight with a single spell is kind of a silly argument, there are tons of spells that do that, and most are more nasty than sleep when they work.

[thereaper]

If it either ends the encounter or does nothing, it's broken. This is the fundamental problem with SoL spells in the first place. They are unbalanced by their very nature.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Are we even trying to compare the average HP thresholds of the sleep spell at differing levels against the average HP thresholds of an encounter typical for that level?

Like... A sleep spell will, on a favorable roll, ice a single Gnoll, which has hit points equal to the average of a 1st-level sleep spell. But a single Gnoll is also CR 1/2, and is the equivalent of an "easy" encounter for an adventuring party of four; you are expected to get rid of it with few resources expended, if any, and using one of the Wizard's two daily spells to get rid of the Gnoll seems like a fair trade. A Gnoll hunting along with 1d4+1 Hyenas is considered just above a "Normal" encounter, XP-wise, for that same 1st-level party of four, and the sleep spell will get rid of most or all of the Hyenas (based on now many there are, and whether the roll is favorable, which, given its place on the bell curve, it should be). Two Gnolls, or a Gnoll riding a Worg, are considered a "Hard" encounter, and the sleep spell will, 50% of the time, disable a Gnoll--and the other 50% of the time, it will do nothing, meaning a Wizard spent one of his precious few daily resources on a gamble at making a hard encounter easier, and failed.

Against a Half-Ogre, a CR 1 creature, you will have to get one solid hit on the Half-Ogre in order to make it a roughly even gamble, and two solid hits (about half its health) in order to make it a likely success.

Against a lone Dire Wolf or Giant Hyena, both CR 1 creatures, you would need to reduce the creatures to half hit points (which would take 2-3 successful hits which deal good damage) in order for you to even put these creatures well within the normal curve. 50% HP would give you between 55 and 60% on a Dire Wolf, and about a 45% chance on a Dire Hyena. If you want to ensure a success on sleep, you should probably reduce each creature to roughly 1/3 of their total hit points--which, for the party of 4 with a Wizard, involves fighting it down the hard way, while simultaneously keeping one of the Wizard's few spells on reserve for the finishing blow.

All of these seem like reasonable break points for the sleep spell at level 1, especially since the only purpose of this spell is to end an encounter slightly faster than normal, or clear rubble with a little less bloodshed. It serves no purpose to open with the spell, as your typical direct damage spell would. In effect, the trade-off for using sleep over a direct-damage spell is that sleep does more "damage" worth of effects, but is only useful at the end of a creature's "hit points", whereas a direct damage spell deals less damage, but is useful for bringing a creature down at literally any point in the encounter.

Let's scale up to third level.

For four third-level party members, a lone Giant Scorpion (52 HP), Yuan-Ti Malison (66 HP), Winter Wolf (75 HP), or Green Hag (82 HP) are all considered "Normal" difficulty encounters. Sleep will, on average, incapacitate 31.5 hit points' worth of creatures with a 2nd-level spell. This means that, in order to secure a likely success on an augmented Sleep, you will want to reduce these creatures' hit points to between one-half (Giant Scorpion) and one-third (Green Hag).

Third-level is also the level at which you can reasonably begin facing Orc tribes. Two Orcs, each with either two Wolves (hunting companions) or one Worg (mount), will likely have to deal with two Wolves falling asleep, or perhaps three if each Orc has two Wolves. If both are riding Worgs, it is possible that one or even both Orcs can just be knocked out outright, which leaves you fighting the Worgs.

It's also the level at which you might be allowed to cut through swaths of easy mobs. Eight Goblins is considered a "Normal" encounter for four third-level adventurers, and right off the bat, a Sleep spell might conceivably null half of them. This is probably the safest application of the spell, since you're guaranteed to get something--the only question is, "how much?". Granted, Goblins die in basically one hit from most attacks and spells, so the only thing you're doing is evening up the action economy. (Again, the optimal use for this spell at basically every level beyond first: cull the numbers of the weak.)

At fifth level, sleep will average out to 40.5 "damage" if you expend a third-level slot for it.

For four fifth-level adventurers, a lone Troll (84 HP with Regeneration 10), Red Slaad (93 HP), or Hill Giant (105 HP) is just shy of what's considered a formidable opponent, and a Drider (123 HP), Mammoth (126 HP), or Young White Dragon (133 HP) is what's considered just barely above a formidable opponent. As with the CR 3 creatures, you'll want to get these creatures to between a third (in the case of the CR 5 creatures) and a quarter (in the case of the CR 6 creatures) in order for sleep to be on the favorable end of its bell curve (note that this doesn't even mean the spell is a guaranteed encounter ender--in either of these cases, it'll be about 60% likely to end the encounter).

For monster pairs, the formula is simple at this level--two CR 3 creatures is a "Normal" encounter. If you had a pair of any of the creatures listed for level 3, you would need to reduce them to about half hit points in order to ensure sleep on one of them if cast as a third-level spell, or defer to the above section on CR 3 creatures if you cast it as a second-level spell.

If you are facing a group of Gnolls (1d3+2) being led by a Gnoll Pack Lord (an encounter bordering on the "Easy" side of Normal), sleep raised to third level will null one, maybe two Gnolls (but most likely only one). If you are fighting a horde of Goblins (1d4+9) led by a Goblin Boss, you are likely to get rid of roughly half of the Goblins (bell curve lands between 5 and 6 Goblins) with a third-level sleep spell, leaving you with just over half the mooks left accompanying the Goblin Boss (but this application compares unfavorably to a fireball of the same level, assuming the Goblins are grouped favorably enough for you to mass-target with sleep to begin with).

And so on and so forth.

I keep hearing a lot of people saying that this is a "No-Save-Just-Die", encounter-obsoleting spell... But I don't think any of these people are comparing what the spell does against the encounters it's supposed to do it against. The spell is situationally useful, yes, and it does what it is supposed to do--end an encounter slightly quicker than an equal-level spell, when applied at the end of an encounter--but it is not the broken mess that it's being made out to be.

[thereaper]

If an encounter with a single monster is effectively over after the first round, because the next round the Wizard is going to cast Sleep and the monster no longer has enough hit points to resist it, then Sleep is broken. End of story.

Attacks require attack rolls. Charms allow saving throws. Sleep doesn't care about those things. Once you wear the monster down by a reasonable amount, Sleep ends the fight with no way for the monster to prevent it. One way or another, that is not balanced (at least not at the levels where sleep is effective, which is the issue here).

Let me put it this way: if you were a lone PC, and a group of monsters employed it against you, would it feel fair to you that once they've gotten you down to a third of your HP, there is literally nothing you can do, because they have a spell available which makes the last third of your health completely irrelevant?

[Dark Tira]

If an encounter with a single monster is effectively over after the first round, because the next round the Wizard is going to cast Sleep and the monster no longer has enough hit points to resist it, then Sleep is broken. End of story.

Attacks require attack rolls. Charms allow saving throws. Sleep doesn't care about those things. Once you wear the monster down by a reasonable amount, Sleep ends the fight with no way for the monster to prevent it. One way or another, that is not balanced (at least not at the levels where sleep is effective, which is the issue here).

Let me put it this way: if you were a lone PC, and a group of monsters employed it against you, would it feel fair to you that once they've gotten you down to a third of your HP, there is literally nothing you can do, because they have a spell available which makes the last third of your health completely irrelevant?

I would feel it's totally fair because if it was real damage I'd be dying.

[thereaper]

If it was real damage they might miss, or you might make your saving throw, or it wouldn't take you out because it wouldn't do as much "damage" as Sleep. And make no mistake, those monsters aren't just going to leave you in peace after putting you to sleep.

[Dark Tira]

If it was real damage they might miss, or you might make your saving throw, or it wouldn't take you out because it wouldn't do as much "damage" as Sleep. And make no mistake, those monsters aren't just going to leave you in peace after putting you to sleep.

Your point being? If I'm at 1/3rd hp, alone, and against multiple monsters who have spellcasting it's a pretty moot point if they sleep me or just beat the hell out of me. In an actual game sleep is usually pretty much a waste against PCs and for PCs it really only has a niche until fireball becomes available. Sleep is a situationally strong low level spell but it's hardly unbalanced.

[Galen]

So if I'm reading this thread properly, carrying around a bag of crickets makes me immune to the sleep spell?

I find it easy to just have my character grow a colony of bacteria on their body.

[Lonely Tylenol]

If an encounter with a single monster is effectively over after the first round, because the next round the Wizard is going to cast Sleep and the monster no longer has enough hit points to resist it, then Sleep is broken. End of story.

If the encounter with a single monster is effectively over after the first round, because after one round the party did 2/3 of the monster's total hit points as damage in the very first round and the Wizard is going to cast sleep to incapacitate it, I'm sorry, but the encounter was over in the second round anyway, because if the party can reliably deal 2/3 of an encounter's total hit points as damage in the first round, it can probably also do so in the second. Now, by the end of the second round, the creature is either dead or unconscious--depending on the whims of the character who deals the felling blow--except that the Wizard could have used literally any spell other than sleep to achieve the same ends.


Attacks require attack rolls. Charms allow saving throws. Sleep doesn't care about those things. Once you wear the monster down by a reasonable amount, Sleep ends the fight with no way for the monster to prevent it. One way or another, that is not balanced (at least not at the levels where sleep is effective, which is the issue here).

Two things:

First: at almost every level, "a reasonable amount" is "one or two PC's attack actions from death", meaning that all sleep reasonably does is end the encounter one characters' turn early.

Look at it from this perspective:

You are a 5th-level Wizard, fighting alongside a 5th-level Fighter, 5th-level Rogue, and 5th-level Cleric, against a Hill Giant (CR 5). Your sleep spell has about a 50% chance to end the encounter at 40 hit points, and an equal chance to fizzle. If you want a somewhat reliable (~70% or more) hit point threshold, you'll probably want to cast it when the creature is at 25-30 hit points (assuming you somehow know its exact current hit point total).

At 30 hit points:
Roy Greenhilt, the Human Great Weapon Fighter (STR 18, Battlemaster) uses Distracting Strike against the Hill Giant with his great sword, dealing 2d6+1d8+4 (average 15.5 before calculating for rerolls on 1&2) damage. For their second attack, he deals a regular strike worth 2d6+4 (average 11 before rerolls) damage. If he sees the giant is on the ropes and feel like outright ending the encounter now, he can use his Action Surge to attack a third time, dealing 2d6+4 (average 11 before rerolls) more damage on a hit.

Haley Starshine, the Human Rogue (DEX 18, Thief) deals, on a successful hit with her longbow, 1d8+4+3d6 damage (average 19.5), and has advantage on the attacks.

Durkon Thundershield, the Hill Dwarf Cleric of Thor (WIS 18) had already cast Call Lightning, so he continues targeting the Hill Dwarf with it for 3d10 damage (average 16.5) at no additional spell cost to him.

Any two of these characters could bring the Hill Giant to 0 hit points without expending any daily resources (or, in Durkon's case, the same third-level spell he already cast, or casts now if he didn't); or, one person using "short rest" abilities if Roy decides to end the encounter with cinematic flair. And each of these characters is doing so in a way that proffers an equal or greater degree of success than sleep (every attack has at least 70% chance to hit; every save has at least 70% chance to fail).

Second: sleep does have a defense mechanism: hit points. Hit points are a defense mechanism. If you cast sleep while the creature has too many hit points, it simply fails, because the creature's "defense" against the spell is too great. If you cast it while the creature is bloodied, but still fully active and fighting, the spell may still fail, because the creature's "defense" against the spell is too great, and you failed the contest of "damage" vs. hit points, in much the same way as you might have if you cast an actual damage spell (only with no chance of partial success). If you cast the spell against a creature who is significantly weakened and clearly on the ropes, the spell will likely succeed, but may still fail if your "damage" roll is low, just as a save-or-suck might normally fail if the saving throw is high. This is functionally no different than the power word spells, except that the hit point threshold for sleep is variable.


Let me put it this way: if you were a lone PC, and a group of monsters employed it against you, would it feel fair to you that once they've gotten you down to a third of your HP, there is literally nothing you can do, because they have a spell available which makes the last third of your health completely irrelevant?

Yes, because if I'm a lone PC, surrounded by a group of monsters (read: more than one), I am close enough to death that sleep is likely to affect me, and it isn't even my turn yet, then I am already defeated. The only difference is that, by casting sleep on me, they've decided to either take me alive or kill me in my sleep--both of which are more humane than the gruesome death I was already staring down.

[thereaper]

You proved with your own math on the last page that at early levels Sleep can negate half of a solo enemy's hit points. That is broken. Sure, it doesn't scale well, but that doesn't help when you're at level 1.

[Lonely Tylenol]

You proved with your own math on the last page that at early levels Sleep can negate half of a solo enemy's hit points. That is broken. Sure, it doesn't scale well, but that doesn't help when you're at level 1.

What I proved is that, at level 1, if you want to have a target at reliable hit point totals to be put to sleep, they need to be at most two hits from death.

Example:

If you want a roughly 50% chance of putting someone to sleep, you want them to be at 22 hit points. This is not reliable; in fact, a 50% chance of failure is a greater likelihood that an enemy will fail an equivalent save against, say, Tasha's hideous laughter. So we want to surpass a 70% threshold, which happens at, let's say, 18 hit points.

An enemy at 18 hit points will die in two hits if struck once by any two of:
A Dueling Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin with 16 STR with a longsword (1d8+5, average 9.5);
A Rogue with 16 DEX and a rapier or longbow (1d8+1d6+3, average 11);
A greatsword-wielding Barbarian with 16 STR in rage (2d6+5, average 12) or out of rage (2d6+3, average 10);
A Druid or Tempest-domain Cleric who casts thunderwave (2d8 electricity, average 9, Dexterity for half);
A Sorcerer or Wizard who casts burning hands (3d6 fire, average 10.5, Dexterity for half) or magic missile (3d4+3 force, average 10.5, no save or roll) or ray of sickness (2d8 poison, average 9, plus the poisoned condition)
A Great Old One Warlock who casts dissonant whispers (3d6 psychic, average 10.5, Wisdom for half).

There are a multitude of ways that a party can spend equivalent resources to finish the same encounter in two actions, where sleep would cost one. This is actually true at basically every spell level you could cast sleep at vs. an encounter of the CR it would be when you first receive that spell level: there is a "sweet spot" in hit point values where sleep has a total hit point value, against a single target, that would allow it to end an encounter in two actions' worth of hit points. Above that "sweet spot", sleep fails a disproportionate percentage of the time, because of the harsh nature of probability curves, and below that "sweet spot", sleep works to end an encounter, but so does an equivalent action by literally any other member of the party, save perhaps those who haven't hit their stride or are purposefully avoiding damage-dealing capabilities.

Against multitudes of weaker monsters, sleep is strictly superior to all single-target damage spells at early levels (of which there are like three or four first-level, and a few second-level which might compete with it), and strictly inferior to all multi-target spells at all other levels (a fireball, for example, has no upper limit to the amount of hit points it can burn away).

The "sweet spot" is really all there is to it, and that's what makes the spell situationally useful. In an encounter in which you are already winning, it helps you win slightly faster, slightly more cleanly. It isn't the spell you hold onto for when you need to turn the tide of a losing battle, because it won't do that.

[Kornaki]

I don't see how sleep's hit point roll doesn't allow the creature a defense, whereas the saving throw on something like charm perosn does. In both cases you roll dice, and if the dice break the right way the encounter is dramatically changed. Just because it's not called a saving throw doesn't change the base mechanic.

[Galen]

A very good analysis by Lonely Tylenol, I just want to add one more thing. At most levels, the Wizard will only have *one* spell slot of the highest level he could cast. If you want to spend your single most valuable daily resource to win a fight in 1-2 rounds that would have otherwise be won in 2-3 rounds, that doesn't really strike me as overpowered.

[Shining Wrath]

Setting aside bags of kittens and familiars - Sleep against a solo monster is similar to Power Word: Kill. PW:K is 9th level.

But Sleep is obviously inferior to PW:K in several ways, and superior in one.

It is superior in that it is an AoE.

It is inferior in that it affects many fewer hit points, even cast at 9th level it is 13d8=~58.5 HP; in that the number of hit points is generated randomly and therefore is not reliable; and that the target can be awakened if it has allies.

There are creatures immune to either or both spells.

As has been demonstrated with actual math above, Sleep allows a Wizard to trade a somewhat scarce resource, a spell slot, to win a level-appropriate fight somewhat faster.

Compare also Magic Missile, which will do ~7.5 points of damage at first level with no save. It's perhaps 1/3 the HP of Sleep, but it has the nice feature that even if the target has more HP left, those remaining HP are reduced - no chance of fizzle.

[Geoff]

Classically, Sleep was awesome at very low level, and virtually useless thereafter. It's not as virtually useless at higher levels in 5e. It's a way for a caster to capture an enemy that's been beaten down part of the way, for instance - "non-lethal damage" not otherwise being an option with spells or ranged attacks.

But, it's almost silly to ask if a single spell is 'broken' or not, there are a lot of spells, what a caster can do with his choice of them is necessarily a lot more than what he can do with any one of them. Situationally, some spell is going to be the 'best,' and you can't go pounding down every nail that sticks up a little more than the next one.

The only potential problem with (proof of) a broken spell would be a caster consistently casting nothing but that spell. If a caster can't cast the same spell over and over, it even becomes a moot point.

[TheOOB]

People keep saying that it has no roll before inflicting it's status, it does, it has an hp roll. Either it rolls high enough, and suceeds, inflicting a nasty status effect, or it rolls low and does nothing, wasting a slot.

[thereaper]

What I proved is that, at level 1, if you want to have a target at reliable hit point totals to be put to sleep, they need to be at most two hits from death.

Example:

If you want a roughly 50% chance of putting someone to sleep, you want them to be at 22 hit points. This is not reliable; in fact, a 50% chance of failure is a greater likelihood that an enemy will fail an equivalent save against, say, Tasha's hideous laughter. So we want to surpass a 70% threshold, which happens at, let's say, 18 hit points.

An enemy at 18 hit points will die in two hits if struck once by any two of:
A Dueling Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin with 16 STR with a longsword (1d8+5, average 9.5);
A Rogue with 16 DEX and a rapier or longbow (1d8+1d6+3, average 11);
A greatsword-wielding Barbarian with 16 STR in rage (2d6+5, average 12) or out of rage (2d6+3, average 10);
A Druid or Tempest-domain Cleric who casts thunderwave (2d8 electricity, average 9, Dexterity for half);
A Sorcerer or Wizard who casts burning hands (3d6 fire, average 10.5, Dexterity for half) or magic missile (3d4+3 force, average 10.5, no save or roll) or ray of sickness (2d8 poison, average 9, plus the poisoned condition)
A Great Old One Warlock who casts dissonant whispers (3d6 psychic, average 10.5, Wisdom for half).

There are a multitude of ways that a party can spend equivalent resources to finish the same encounter in two actions, where sleep would cost one. This is actually true at basically every spell level you could cast sleep at vs. an encounter of the CR it would be when you first receive that spell level: there is a "sweet spot" in hit point values where sleep has a total hit point value, against a single target, that would allow it to end an encounter in two actions' worth of hit points. Above that "sweet spot", sleep fails a disproportionate percentage of the time, because of the harsh nature of probability curves, and below that "sweet spot", sleep works to end an encounter, but so does an equivalent action by literally any other member of the party, save perhaps those who haven't hit their stride or are purposefully avoiding damage-dealing capabilities.

Against multitudes of weaker monsters, sleep is strictly superior to all single-target damage spells at early levels (of which there are like three or four first-level, and a few second-level which might compete with it), and strictly inferior to all multi-target spells at all other levels (a fireball, for example, has no upper limit to the amount of hit points it can burn away).

The "sweet spot" is really all there is to it, and that's what makes the spell situationally useful. In an encounter in which you are already winning, it helps you win slightly faster, slightly more cleanly. It isn't the spell you hold onto for when you need to turn the tide of a losing battle, because it won't do that.

Very well, then. I concede.

[Malachei]

Well, (...)
If you are facing a lone spellcaster, and that spellcaster is expected to be a significant challenge for an entire party of four, then that spellcaster is, by the books, much higher level than your party. If that spellcaster is not much higher level than your party, then by encounter balancing rules, it should also be a cake walk for your party to defeat--in which case, the Wizard using their highest-level spell to sleep it is not outside the realm of reasonable.

Good points. I did not have an opportunity to read the DMG yet, and I'm not sure what level of wizard would pose a balanced threat against the classic party of four. However, if the spellcaster is supposed to be a lot higher, as you suggest, the encounter's lethality will be significantly higher, with the enemy spellcaster being able to target weak saves, have a higher proficiency bonus and have more damage potential than the party spellcasters have HP (e.g. 5th level wizard throws an 8d6 fireball, which will kill a 4th level party wizard on a failed save and a 2nd level party wizard even on a successful save).
In any case, sleep is still an outstanding choice at low to mid levels against spellcasters. If, as a spellcaster, you are supposed to have a kitten (or a group of minions) around to protect yourself from sleep, you're situationally optimizing against a single spell.

However, the scenario I pointed out was when a single spellcaster is facing another single spellcaster. This might not be the standard "party faces classic enouncter", but it will happen in a lot of games. It is also something that both players and DM need to be prepared for. If, for most of my spellcaster career, I can throw a no-save attack against a wizard of equal level, mage duels are pretty straightforward (and more about winning initiative than ever).

I completely agree that the removal of coup de grace makes it a control spell, but that still makes it an encounter win. I'm also not saying that sleep is "broken" and needs to be removed/nerfed, just that I find it unbalanced, in the sense that a spell becomes a no-brainer choice, becoming a situational win-button. In first, this was hold person, in 3.0, it was (the original) haste, in 3.5, polymorph (albeit with higher potential for abuse).

[hymer]

I completely agree that the removal of coup de grace makes it a control spell, but that still makes it an encounter win. I'm also not saying that sleep is "broken" and needs to be removed/nerfed, just that I find it unbalanced, in the sense that a spell becomes a no-brainer choice, becoming a situational win-button. In first, this was hold person, in 3.0, it was (the original) haste, in 3.5, polymorph (albeit with higher potential for abuse).

For all we disagree on just how useful Sleep is for the scenario you mention, I can't help thinking that even if Sleep is the perfect spell for this, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Knock is perfect for opening a the manacles you're caught in. Magic Missile is perfect for killing three pixies. Freedom of Movement is perfect for fighting a Roper.
Spells are often tools which deal with specific circumstances quite well. I don't really see what's wrong with that. I guess we could chalk it up to how often the situation comes up. As mentioned, I've literally not seen it, and only come really close once; you seem to have a lot of mage duels.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Good points. I did not have an opportunity to read the DMG yet, and I'm not sure what level of wizard would pose a balanced threat against the classic party of four. However, if the spellcaster is supposed to be a lot higher, as you suggest, the encounter's lethality will be significantly higher, with the enemy spellcaster being able to target weak saves, have a higher proficiency bonus and have more damage potential than the party spellcasters have HP (e.g. 5th level wizard throws an 8d6 fireball, which will kill a 4th level party wizard on a failed save and a 2nd level party wizard even on a successful save).

I can't tell you for sure how PC classes are supposed to fare against other PCs, encounter level-wise. I can, however, tell you that the NPC spellcasters featured in Appendix B, which include the Acolyte (Challenge 1/4, 1st-level spellcaster with 2 HD), the Archmage (Challenge 12, 18th-level spellcaster with 18 HD), the Cult Fanatic (Challenge 2, 4th-level spellcaster with 6 HD), the Druid (Challenge 2, 4th-level spellcaster with 5 HD), the Mage (Challenge 6, 9th-level spellcaster with 9 HD), and the Priest (Challenge 2, 5th-level spellcaster with 5 HD) suggest a ratio of 1/2 and 2/3 as regards challenge level and spellcasting ability, with extra Hit Dice thrown in to people who aren't meant to represent full casters (Cult Fanatic, for example, is basically Cultist + 4 levels of spellcasting). Typically speaking, these people are not meant to be, individually speaking, considered to be challenging foes to creatures with equivalent hit dice to them; otherwise, you wouldn't consider the Archmage a fair challenge until you, yourself, had a team of adventurers who had 9th-level spells at their disposal. And honestly, I think that's basically correct from a balance standpoint: if you want to, as a group, fight a single person who challenges you, that one person should be significantly stronger. Reverse-engineering that a bit, if you want to, as a group, fight a single person as strong as one individual person in the group, it turns into a stomp.

I don't know how this will affect enemies with PC class levels, but right now, nobody does, because nobody really has a DM sitting before them. :smallwink:


However, the scenario I pointed out was when a single spellcaster is facing another single spellcaster. This might not be the standard "party faces classic enouncter", but it will happen in a lot of games. It is also something that both players and DM need to be prepared for. If, for most of my spellcaster career, I can throw a no-save attack against a wizard of equal level, mage duels are pretty straightforward (and more about winning initiative than ever).

It is definitely a valuable spell in the arsenal of anyone who wants to play Wizard's Chess. I want to see if I can crunch some numbers on it:

Assuming the wizard in question has 14 CON (which scales up to 16 at level 12 and 18 at level 16, treating CON as the second ability score to max after INT), and takes the average value given (4+CON) at each level:
Level 1: 8 HP vs. 5d8 = 99.94% chance of success
Level 3: 20 HP vs. 7d8 = 97.71% chance of success
Level 5: 32 HP vs. 9d8 = 92.62% chance of success
Level 7: 44 HP vs. 11d8 = 78.26% chance of success
Level 9: 56 HP vs. 13d8 = 68.41% chance of success
Level 11: 68 HP vs. 15d8 = 50% chance of success
Level 13: 93 HP vs. 17d8 = 4.52% chance of success
Level 15: 107 HP vs. 19d8 = 1.75% chance of success
Level 17: 138 HP vs. 21d8 = 0.00% chance of success (technically still a chance of success, but it's less than 1 in 10,000)

The spell actually stays competitive against an equal-leveled Wizard whose caster level = total HD up until mid-level, at which point it starts falling off hard due to its scaling (the CON boosts merely expedited that). This is, of course, assuming no spells like false life, immunity to sleep, familiars, summoned monsters, or other defenses are in play.

[NNescio]

Nah, you need to deal damage with a melee weapon to keep people alive when you drop them.

Actually, it's a melee attack, not a melee weapon. So, melee spell attacks (like Shocking Grasp, which is fitting) qualify, but thrown daggers don't (because they are ranged weapon attacks, despite being performed by a melee weapon).

[Malifice]

If
1: You are facing a lone spellcaster of your own level
2: You spend your highest level spell slot to cast sleep on them
3: They are not elves, half-elves, undead or generally immune to charm or sleep
Then you have around 50% chance of success at level 9 - higher before, lower after. This assumes the enemy is going for +2 con modifier, which I think is reasonable.

Too many ifs for my taste. You will rarely face a lone spellcaster at all, and if you do, they are likely to be some sort of boss battle and be higher level than you. If they are not alone, an ally of theirs need only take an action, and the target of your sleep is back in the game, albeit probably prone. If you go first, an enemy ally goes second, and the spellcaster goes third, they won't even lose a round on it.

A lone spellcaster doesnt have d6HD.

A CR6 Mage has 40hp and d8HD. A CR12 Archmage has 99HP (18D8+18). In fact all medium sized creatures have D8HD.

Aside from PC's and the odd NPC that the DM wants to create with the PC creation rules. Why he'd bother, I dont know seeing as you can pretty quickly and easily extrapolate from the NPC's as presented.

[Pex]

I find the spell almost useless. When it works the bad guys were almost done anyhow. It's a glorified finishing move. If you try it in the beginning of combat, maybe you'll get one opponent. I'll contrast with Burning Hands. Even if upon casting the spell no one in the area effect drops, the spell still contributed to hit point attrition making it easier to drop them in a following round. With Sleep, if you roll low you've done nothing to further along defeating the opponents. Counterpoint that's not much of a difference between a save or negate spell, but in the long run I think it's easier for an opponent to fail his save than for you to roll high enough for Sleep to work.

I'm not seeing the appeal.

[Knaight]

Aside from PC's and the odd NPC that the DM wants to create with the PC creation rules. Why he'd bother, I dont know seeing as you can pretty quickly and easily extrapolate from the NPC's as presented.
The big reason is that some people are really, really into PC-NPC symmetry and don't particularly value not having to spend several minutes per NPC (on a good day, more like a half hour if the NPC is complicated). GMing styles from 3.x persisting, basically.

[CoggieRagabash]

Just ran a level 2-5 adventure. My sorcerer and a bard in the party both had Sleep, and it proved incredibly valuable early on, but that probably had to do with the nature of encounters in our campaign. The early encounters were heavy on bunches of goblins, and Sleep would put about three of the little things down easily to let the party focus on the bigger threats. Even against (suitably weakened) larger threats it similarly would let us turn our attention around to something else soon, leaving the sleepy foe for later when we'd killed its friends and lined up attacks suitably.

My last hurrah with it was taking out an enemy sorcerer that was fixing to land a second fireball on the party that hadn't managed to disperse properly from the first one, and even that was a gamble that required sussing out how many hp I thought it would have left after the couple of attacks it had suffered and then dropping my last third level spell slot on it. Given the cost (one of two max level spell slots) and the risk (if I guessed wrong about how much hp the caster had or suffered a bad roll on 'damage' the slot's lost and I wasted an action), I think it was a fair exchange.

So at least as a normal player's experience goes, I would say it was balanced. Early on even a single first level spell slot is expensive, so being able to take a few goblins out for later with the potential risk of them being shaken awake is a fair effect (and assumes that you have an encounter where it's worth putting some of its dangers to sleep while dealing with the rest). Against stronger threats later on, it takes a lot more calculation and care to get results.

[Malifice]

The big reason is that some people are really, really into PC-NPC symmetry and don't particularly value not having to spend several minutes per NPC (on a good day, more like a half hour if the NPC is complicated). GMing styles from 3.x persisting, basically.

I initially liked the ability in 3E to just add levels onto monsters to make them NPC's, and have that PC/ NPC transparency.

Then I DM'd 3E and it drove me mental. Hours statting up NPC's and Monsters that get killed off inside of 5 minutes a pop.

Ive been running an Age of Worms campaign and just adapting on the fly. I am never looking back. Kullen the Half Orc and his gang? A Thug (with half orc resilience and fists instead of a mace - same damage), a Veteran, A Spy and an Acoloyte (with wizard spells swapped in). Balabar Smenk = Assassin. Allustan = Archmage. Lady Cyrantha = Priest (in full plate). Auric is a Gladiator (with a greatsword). And so forth.

There is zero difference as far as the PC's can tell. It also keeps them guesing on the abilities of the NPCs.

Creatures adapted on the fly have been the animated Cauldron (Animated carpet with AC 18), Kurtlemak the Kobold Rogue was just a Spy with pack tactics added in (the campaign is set in Golarion, and was kicked off with D0 Falcons Hollow, converted on the fly for 5E). The PC's were none the wiser.

Instead of 5 hours prep for 3 encouters that last 15 minutes each, I do 15 minutes prep for 5 hours worth of encounters, and can make the rest up on the fly as I go along.

Its liberating.

[Shaofoo]

I find the spell almost useless. When it works the bad guys were almost done anyhow. It's a glorified finishing move. If you try it in the beginning of combat, maybe you'll get one opponent. I'll contrast with Burning Hands. Even if upon casting the spell no one in the area effect drops, the spell still contributed to hit point attrition making it easier to drop them in a following round. With Sleep, if you roll low you've done nothing to further along defeating the opponents. Counterpoint that's not much of a difference between a save or negate spell, but in the long run I think it's easier for an opponent to fail his save than for you to roll high enough for Sleep to work.

I'm not seeing the appeal.

You can say that it is part bias to past editions and part bias due to confirmation bias. People tend to only count the situations where sleep works well and ignore all others where sleep isn't so effective.

I can see the use of Sleep in some situations, even some out of combat situations where not wanting to cause any harm is preferable but it isn't broken since not only is a lot of common enemies immune but the fact that you should be facing more than one (usually several at least) enemy means that you can't control who is really asleep

[Dimolyth]

So in conclusion, your analysis has little to do with the scenario pointed out above.

I am not saying that sleep is overpowered for battling high hit point enemies.

But I think as a no-save attack, it may be overpowered against single, low-hit point enemies.

Whether I look at is as a DM or a player: If a lone 10th level wizard has to think about defensive tactics such as carrying a bag of creatures with HP, I think it is reasonable that a scaled 1st spell might be overpowered in these situations.

Using the highest level full caster slot is "a win buttom" against low-hp solo enemy. No matter what exactly spell you will use.
But... low-hp solo enemy is like 95% caster. There are a lot of caster ways to ignore such spells. Conjure X. Counterspell. Self-healing. Invisiobility (you don`t know were he is, try to hit it with your "area" effect). All these spells are great against a lot of scenarios of using your "high level slot", not just sleep.

Then again, it is debatable if you can rend asleep a mage NPC from monster manual. I, personnally, always doupt, because I`m somewhat bad at rolling dices. I do like "Banishement" much more - because... what enemy mage would have a good Cha save?

[Mara]

So you can't auto kill a sleeping foe. At best you auto crit them.

Thus I don't see the problem. Allies could just rouse them awake. In solo encounters you could make them prone and get one crit in.

[Malifice]

So you can't auto kill a sleeping foe. At best you auto crit them.

Thus I don't see the problem. Allies could just rouse them awake. In solo encounters you could make them prone and get one crit in.

Yeah. Solo encounters are pretty rare, and when they do happen, the creature needs a round or two of softening up anyways generally.

[Citan]

Woah guys, nice!!!
"Sleep, the spell returning from the dead" XD.

Actually, it's a melee attack, not a melee weapon. So, melee spell attacks (like Shocking Grasp, which is fitting) qualify, but thrown daggers don't (because they are ranged weapon attacks, despite being performed by a melee weapon).

True by RAW although it may be somewhat strange with some spells. :)
Also, I find it a bit stupid that people can't put down with ranged attacks without killing them. Sure, with normal arrows it's totally unrealistic.

But if a player comes to me, telling he crafted special arrows to knock out people instead of killing them, I see no reason not to allow it... :)

(Something like arrow with rounded woodpiece, dealing bludgeoning instead of piercing...I remember seeing the thing in an old jungle-setting comics but can't remember the name)

[JAL_1138]

Woah guys, nice!!!
"Sleep, the spell returning from the dead" XD.


True by RAW although it may be somewhat strange with some spells. :)
Also, I find it a bit stupid that people can't put down with ranged attacks without killing them. Sure, with normal arrows it's totally unrealistic.

But if a player comes to me, telling he crafted special arrows to knock out people instead of killing them, I see no reason not to allow it... :)

(Something like arrow with rounded woodpiece, dealing bludgeoning instead of piercing...I remember seeing the thing in an old jungle-setting comics but can't remember the name)

Or Green Arrow's boxing-glove arrow.

[Vogonjeltz]

I find it easy to just have my character grow a colony of bacteria on their body.

I'm guessing it would require bacteria to have hit points. Presumably their hit point total, being undefined, makes them ineligible.


except that the Wizard could have used literally any spell other than sleep to achieve the same ends.

Wait a tick.

From a 3rd level spell slot:

Sleep: 9d8 dice (9-72; 40.5 average) No save, no attack roll.

Fireball: 8d6 (8-48; 28 average) Dex save for half, no attack roll, scales worse than sleep
Lightning Bolt: 8d6 (8-48; 28 average) Dex save for half, no attack roll, scales worse than sleep
Vampiric Touch: 3d6 (3-18; 10.5 average) Attack roll, scales worse than sleep.
Flaming Sphere: 3d6 (3-18; 10.5 average) Dex save for half, no attack roll, scales worse than sleep
Melf's Acid Arrow: 5d4+3d4 (8-32; 20 average) attack roll (miss is 1/2 initial), scales worse than sleep
Scorching Ray: 4 2d6 rays (8d6) (8-48; 28 average) attack roll for each, scales worse than sleep.
Cloud of Daggers: 6d4 (6-24; 15 average) no save, no attack roll, scales worse than sleep.
Thunderwave: 4d8 (4-32; 18 average) Con save for half, no attack roll, scales worse than sleep
Witch Bolt: 3d12 (3-36; 19.5 average) no save, attack roll, scales worse than sleep.
Ray of Sickness: 4d8 (4-32; 18 average) no save, attack roll, scales worse than sleep
Magic Missile: 5d4+5 (10-25; 17.5 average) no save, no attack roll, scales worse than sleep
Chromatic Orb: 5d8 (5-40; 22.5 average) no save, attack roll, scales worse than sleep
Burning Hands: 5d6 (5-30; 17.5 average) Dex save for half, no attack roll, scales worse than sleep

Color Spray: 10d10 (10-100; 55 average) no save, no attack roll, scales better than sleep...but only blinds, so it won't end the fight.

Sleep is the best chance a Wizard has of ending a fight against a single target in one round up to at least the 3rd level of spells.

The only downside of Sleep is that, like Power Word Kill, it's all or nothing based purely on target hit points which the players have no way of really knowing without metagame knowledge.


It is inferior in that it affects many fewer hit points, even cast at 9th level it is 13d8=~58.5 HP; in that the number of hit points is generated randomly and therefore is not reliable; and that the target can be awakened if it has allies.

Sleep starts at 5d8 and scales by 2d8 per level, not 1d8. At 9th it's 21d8 (21-168; 94.5 average) so it's 'almost' as good as Power Word Kill on average, but it can also far exceed it.


So you can't auto kill a sleeping foe. At best you auto crit them.

Thus I don't see the problem. Allies could just rouse them awake. In solo encounters you could make them prone and get one crit in.

DM advice is that a roll is only necessary where a chance of failure exists. If in combat, yes. If out of combat there's no reason there would be a failure. Consider, a character could simply suffocate any character sleep can apply to, dropping them to 0 hit points (killing them instantly if they are an NPC). Sliding a dagger in their eye or using a sword to the heart/throat to coup de grace an npc is effectively the same thing.

Again, I'd only apply this to out of combat situations as there would be no possibility of failure.

[Shaofoo]

Sleep is the best chance a Wizard has of ending a fight against a single target in one round up to at least the 3rd level of spells.


Your observation is erroneous

Sleep does not end the encounter because the enemy is still alive after the spell is cast. You are using HP damage and Sleep calculations in an equivalent matter when with Sleep the HP before and after the spell is the same. Also Sleep only works for a minute at most so you at best have a minute reprieve to do what you need to do. Your consideration seems to put that the fight is to the death and in this case Sleep is at best a buff since you can't kill with it alone but rather have someone else do the crit instead. You don't say you killed with Bless or Haste when the fighter buffed with those spells kills enemies and you can't say that you killed with Sleep.

Also if there is any encounter where there is one enemy then I would consider it a bad encounter design, you should always have a group of enemies in battle at all times, even the super powered big bad should always have a few lackeys at the very least. Power should be spread around and not concentrated on one being, it doesn't have to be equal but one enemy shouldn't be holding all the power.

[Mara]

DM advice is that a roll is only necessary where a chance of failure exists. If in combat, yes. If out of combat there's no reason there would be a failure. Consider, a character could simply suffocate any character sleep can apply to, dropping them to 0 hit points (killing them instantly if they are an NPC). Sliding a dagger in their eye or using a sword to the heart/throat to coup de grace an npc is effectively the same thing.

Again, I'd only apply this to out of combat situations as there would be no possibility of failure.
HP is an abstraction that represents luck, fortitude, reflexes, and skill.

I say when you try to slice someone's throat and the crit wouldn't kill them, they wake up before you are finished and twist away. Or they turn at the last second and you hit something less lethal. Or you do slice their throat open and they just flex their muscles and seal the wound or they ignore the blood loss as inconsequential.

[Coidzor]

The only downside of Sleep is that, like Power Word Kill, it's all or nothing based purely on target hit points which the players have no way of really knowing without metagame knowledge.

Well there's always beating them down until they show signs of battle damage, I suppose. I seem to recall it being brought up somewhere that creatures are supposed to be visibly wounded at half hp or lower, anyway.

[Rusty Killinger]

Compare also Magic Missile, which will do ~7.5 points of damage at first level with no save. It's perhaps 1/3 the HP of Sleep, but it has the nice feature that even if the target has more HP left, those remaining HP are reduced - no chance of fizzle.

It's 10.5 or about 1/2 a sleep. But the bit about doing damage is important.

Anyway it's time somebody opened the Monster Manual and looked for some caster NPCs

Alcolyte, CR 1/4, caster level 1, 9hp: with a first level sleep you'll get 5d8 or 22.5 average HP. You can knock out 2 or maybe even 3 guys. Sleep is great at first level.

Cult Fanatic, CR 2, caster level 4, 33hp: You have almost no chance if you meet him as a solo enemy at level 2. You have less than a 50% chance at level 3 with a second level spell. At level 5 you have 9d8 or 40.5 hp and probably hit. But that's for your top level spell slot. Those are precious.

Mage, CR 6, caster level 9, 40hp: This guy is a bit squishier. You have 50% odds with your top slot at 6th. Get's better at higher level. But again, those top level slots are precious.

Archmage, CR 12, caster level 18, 99hp: At 12th you'll fail. At 13th your 7th level slot will fail. At 15th your 8th level slot will probably fail. At 17th your 9th level spell will do 21d8 or 94.5 hp. You are still under 50% to deal with a CR12 caster with your precious precious 9th level spell slot.

Conclusion: Sleep, like most hp dependent spells, scales poorly as you level. Cast something else.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well there's always beating them down until they show signs of battle damage, I suppose. I seem to recall it being brought up somewhere that creatures are supposed to be visibly wounded at half hp or lower, anyway.

I think that is correct, and if I recall correctly it's in the combat chapter, but the players still wouldn't know if the enemy was in the sweet spot or not.


HP is an abstraction that represents luck, fortitude, reflexes, and skill.

I say when you try to slice someone's throat and the crit wouldn't kill them, they wake up before you are finished and twist away. Or they turn at the last second and you hit something less lethal. Or you do slice their throat open and they just flex their muscles and seal the wound or they ignore the blood loss as inconsequential.

It does, but the guidelines for the DM are to allow a PC action to succeed unless there is a chance of failure. I'd posit that characters who are entirely helpless and having no combatants = instant death if so desired. They're sleeping, so turning away really isn't an option.


Your observation is erroneous

Sleep does not end the encounter because the enemy is still alive after the spell is cast. You are using HP damage and Sleep calculations in an equivalent matter when with Sleep the HP before and after the spell is the same. Also Sleep only works for a minute at most so you at best have a minute reprieve to do what you need to do. Your consideration seems to put that the fight is to the death and in this case Sleep is at best a buff since you can't kill with it alone but rather have someone else do the crit instead. You don't say you killed with Bless or Haste when the fighter buffed with those spells kills enemies and you can't say that you killed with Sleep.

Also if there is any encounter where there is one enemy then I would consider it a bad encounter design, you should always have a group of enemies in battle at all times, even the super powered big bad should always have a few lackeys at the very least. Power should be spread around and not concentrated on one being, it doesn't have to be equal but one enemy shouldn't be holding all the power.

Suffocation in the game only takes seconds. I did provide that sleep is an all or nothing gambit, but it's also more likely to put a single enemy down in one casting than any damage spell.

How you kill them after they are asleep is pretty free form. If you want, tie them up with ropes taking an action, then do it.

[Coidzor]

I think that is correct, and if I recall correctly it's in the combat chapter, but the players still wouldn't know if the enemy was in the sweet spot or not.

They'd have a ballpark of the target's HP total and they'd know that it was at or below half of its HP max, at least.

[PoeticDwarf]

Sleep seems to be pretty powerful in 5E. Particularly the option of scaling up through use of higher level spell slots against enemy spellcasters.

5d8 base and 2d8 every two spell levels should be above an enemy wizard's or sorcerer's total hit points even when unharmed, unless there is a very high con score.

There might be other good (or better) options, but unless an enemy spellcaster carries protection against enchantment, Sleep seems to be a cheaper Power Word Kill.

What do you think?

(I know this has been noted in another thread aiming at listing powerful spells, but I did not want to derail that one.)

Low level it is very strong, bringing easily enemies down. If you are level 5+ (this example level 7/8) it is way weaker. Even with your highest spell slot you can just get 11d8 hit points and that is less than most monsters on this CR, also you don't know HP of enemies and you don't often fight a wizard or a sorcerer...

[Shaofoo]

Suffocation in the game only takes seconds. I did provide that sleep is an all or nothing gambit, but it's also more likely to put a single enemy down in one casting than any damage spell.

How you kill them after they are asleep is pretty free form. If you want, tie them up with ropes taking an action, then do it.

You don't suffocate with Sleep, there is no way to suffocate with Sleep so you can't say that because Sleep doesn't provide you with those means. If you want to say you carry a pillow and start smothering the target then you should say that not that somehow you can deprive a target of air with the Sleep spell. So no Sleep cannot put down a target better than any single damage spell because you are considering multiple actions to the damage spells one, it is erroneous that you can somehow give Sleep many more actions to use while you give damage spells only one. If we are to take everything equally the target of Sleep is asleep and that's that, what happens later is outside the scope of this consideration, if you wish you should do a round by round analysis of the things that you could do.

Also depending on the reading you don't need an action to hold your breath so the DM can rule that he could be holding his breath in there as you smother him with a pillow.

[Vogonjeltz]

You don't suffocate with Sleep, there is no way to suffocate with Sleep so you can't say that because Sleep doesn't provide you with those means. If you want to say you carry a pillow and start smothering the target then you should say that not that somehow you can deprive a target of air with the Sleep spell. So no Sleep cannot put down a target better than any single damage spell because you are considering multiple actions to the damage spells one, it is erroneous that you can somehow give Sleep many more actions to use while you give damage spells only one. If we are to take everything equally the target of Sleep is asleep and that's that, what happens later is outside the scope of this consideration, if you wish you should do a round by round analysis of the things that you could do.

Also depending on the reading you don't need an action to hold your breath so the DM can rule that he could be holding his breath in there as you smother him with a pillow.

I said use suffocation with sleep. Try responding to my argument please.

[Shaofoo]

I said use suffocation with sleep. Try responding to my argument please.

I already did if you kept on reading, you are giving Sleep the benefit of being able to continue to finish off the enemy while other spells only have one round to show their stuff. This isn't a proper way to actually measure each spell. Sleep should only have one round like the rest of the spells and Sleep just knocks them unconscious, it can't end the fight.

Besides the creature could just as easy hold his breath, holding your breath isn't an action and there is nothing in the Holding Breath section or the Incapacitate and Unconscious sections that could prevent an unconscious person from holding his breath since it requires no action and is done automatically as soon as you deprive the person of air. So the only way you can choke a Sleeping person is if the person in question has a Con score of 9 or less where he will die. A Con score of 10-11 has one round to act and get out after waking up while anything more they have plenty of time to devise a way to get off.

And if you are going to say "But an Unconscious person doesn't know how to hold his breath" (which is outside of RAW and the only thing that matters in these discussions) then I would say "Well I say that since you are probably moving the person around that should count as "using an action to shake the creature awake" since there is no mention of intent just that the creature is shaken around, or you say that I ragdoll the person around but as long as he doesn't take damage and my intent isn't to wake him up then he doesn't do so?

[Knaight]

I already did if you kept on reading, you are giving Sleep the benefit of being able to continue to finish off the enemy while other spells only have one round to show their stuff. This isn't a proper way to actually measure each spell. Sleep should only have one round like the rest of the spells and Sleep just knocks them unconscious, it can't end the fight.

This is ridiculous. You're specifically using a criteria that completely disregards any effect the spell has on any round other than the first, then using that to say that a spell which is cast completely for effects in later rounds is useless.

[Shaofoo]

This is ridiculous. You're specifically using a criteria that completely disregards any effect the spell has on any round other than the first, then using that to say that a spell which is cast completely for effects in later rounds is useless.


Yes because every other spell is measured by the one round only metric and Sleep gets the benefit of future turns to actually be able to kill using an action that is not covered at all by the rules (smothering and choking is 100% DM fiat, you are at the mercy of the DM how and what happens, you can't even guarantee that the person will choke to death in the duration that Sleep lasts by the rules). If Sleep can have future round to putz around and choke someone for a few rounds then every other spell can have the added benefit of throwing cantrips at the enemy and see if sustained DPR is much more effective than choking someone to death.

If the point is to disable and incapacitate the enemy then Sleep is the best but the encounter with this singular person is to the death so only the death of the enemy can bring about the end of the counter or so I believe that is how the test went. Sleep is kinda bad at killing people, the best way to use Sleep is to target a group and let the sleeping enemies lie while you deal with the others who are awake.

[NNescio]

Suffocation in the game only takes seconds. I did provide that sleep is an all or nothing gambit, but it's also more likely to put a single enemy down in one casting than any damage spell.

Minutes actually, unless the creature has a negative Con Mod.

Suffocation takes Max(30 seconds, [1 + Con mod]*minute) + Max(1 round, [Con mod]*rounds), with a minimum of 36 seconds (at any negative modifier). With a neutral modifier (+0) it'll take 66 seconds.

I mean, sure, you might ask the DM to adjudicate that the creature can't hold its breath while unconscious, but by RAW it can still do so (because it doesn't take a move or action). I mean, sure, it's a sensible ruling to make, but by that same standards any DM would rule that any vigorous movement like trussing it up in ropes(or attempt to suffocate a creature, despite it technically not dealing any damage) would wake up the creature anyway. Live by the RAW, die by the RAW. Live by the RAI, die by the RAI.

Which is good anyway, as quite a few number of creatures have effects which work similarly to Sleep (usually Con save or fall Unconscious, and can't wake up by RAW until a it either takes damage or another creature takes an action to wake it).

[Coidzor]

Now if you could somehow have multiple creatures attack at the same time to take advantage of the auto-crit from Sleep, that'd be pretty much an auto-kill if everyone in the party was doing it together.

[kaoskonfety]

So if I'm reading this thread properly, carrying around a bag of crickets makes me immune to the sleep spell?

Why yes, yes it does (more or less). As would any encounter in most wilderness areas and many cities (bugs per square metre is quite high most places). Most places on earth you'd lose a few HP of effect from spiders alone.

Always have a few war dogs, a wagon load of chickens and a few cats about as well.

More seriously since the spell does not have any targeting aside from "this area" this is a reasonable way to take some teeth out of the spell if the DM feels the need. I have NEVER felt such a need - EVER. but you know, its there. If you need it.

I do like the crazy cat wizard idea though...

[Vogonjeltz]

I mean, sure, you might ask the DM to adjudicate that the creature can't hold its breath while unconscious, but by RAW it can still do so (because it doesn't take a move or action).

It's activity, ergo it's an action. Unconcious characters can't do anything at all (action or reaction), so they just suffocate in 6 rounds (36 seconds). Plenty of time to kill a single creature out of combat.

[Kane0]

I remember a mini-campaign where the BBEG was a chain devil in a flooded dungeon, we hit him with a sleep spell after some lucky hits from the ranger and he ended up drowning.

Good times.

Edit: I also vote sleep isn't OP. Its great for what it does, but loses its luster when you start getting better spells or when fighting the wrong enemies.

[Shaofoo]

It's activity, ergo it's an action. Unconcious characters can't do anything at all (action or reaction), so they just suffocate in 6 rounds (36 seconds). Plenty of time to kill a single creature out of combat.

Sorry your train of thought is erroneous.

Not all activities require actions just because all actions are activities.

An activity that would require an action would say that it requires an action. In the hold breath part of the rules it never makes mention that the act of holding a breath requires an action or a bonus action or a reaction and it doesn't make mention that you are unable to hold your breath if you are incapacitated or unconscious. By RAW an unconscious creature can still hold his breath.

BTW you still haven't mentioned how you plan on actually choking a creature to death and there is the little problem that choking is 100% DM fiat since it isn't codified in the rules, he could easily rule that while trying to smother the creature you awaken him from his slumber since your action would constitute as shaking.

[Mellack]

Wouldn't breathing be a similar example as the flip side to holding your breath? You can breath when paralyzed or unconscious, even though you cannot take actions or reactions. Holding your breath when underwater is instinctual, not requiring a decision (most babies do it.) I would think people would do it automatically if asleep and they start to suffocate. I would also likely rule such an action was similar to taking damage and wake them up.

[Vogonjeltz]

Wouldn't breathing be a similar example as the flip side to holding your breath? You can breath when paralyzed or unconscious, even though you cannot take actions or reactions. Holding your breath when underwater is instinctual, not requiring a decision (most babies do it.) I would think people would do it automatically if asleep and they start to suffocate. I would also likely rule such an action was similar to taking damage and wake them up.

No, because holding ones breath requires conscious action whereas breathing is autonomic. That's why people drown when they go unconscious, instead of simply holding their breath indefinitely and receiving brain damage from oxygen deprivation.

The suffocation rules specifically drop the character to 0 hit points (which would be damage, but now they are incapable of waking on their own).

[Shaofoo]

No, because holding ones breath requires conscious action whereas breathing is autonomic. That's why people drown when they go unconscious, instead of simply holding their breath indefinitely and receiving brain damage from oxygen deprivation.


You do realize you are in a D&D forum and we are talking about D&D rules here. Until you can quote the rules that says that holding your breath requires consciousness or any form of action then you are wrong and the rules do not specify that holding your breath is prevented by unconsciousness (note that going unconscious does prevent you from moving, talking and noticing your surroundings but it doesn't say that you can't hold your breath and I would assume that even if you aren't aware of your surroundings your body is aware when there is no air).

Also the way you have presented your argument is a bit erroneous, you are saying that because a person is unconscious then he can drown? So you are saying that if the person is conscious then he can't drown? At this point I think we should just stick to the rules and not bring real life because that ends rarely well. Feel free to rule whatever in your games but the rules will not have your back.


The suffocation rules specifically drop the character to 0 hit points (which would be damage, but now they are incapable of waking on their own).

And still no question as to HOW you plan on suffocating the person in question. I mean it is all good fun in theory but I would really like to see some practical use. Cause this whole exercise is moot when the DM can easily rule that pillow smothering is enough to snap the enemy awake or choking a neck causes damage and thus is free from the Sleep spell, you are at the DM's mercy.

[Vogonjeltz]

You do realize you are in a D&D forum and we are talking about D&D rules here. Until you can quote the rules that says that holding your breath requires consciousness or any form of action then you are wrong and the rules do not specify that holding your breath is prevented by unconsciousness (note that going unconscious does prevent you from moving, talking and noticing your surroundings but it doesn't say that you can't hold your breath and I would assume that even if you aren't aware of your surroundings your body is aware when there is no air).

Also the way you have presented your argument is a bit erroneous, you are saying that because a person is unconscious then he can drown? So you are saying that if the person is conscious then he can't drown? At this point I think we should just stick to the rules and not bring real life because that ends rarely well. Feel free to rule whatever in your games but the rules will not have your back.



And still no question as to HOW you plan on suffocating the person in question. I mean it is all good fun in theory but I would really like to see some practical use. Cause this whole exercise is moot when the DM can easily rule that pillow smothering is enough to snap the enemy awake or choking a neck causes damage and thus is free from the Sleep spell, you are at the DM's mercy.

Open your copy of the PHB to page 292, unconscious creatures are unaware of their surroundings. Therefore they can not choose to hold their breath, which constitutes activity. Now turn to page 190 which lists interacting with objects around you: which of those activities are you claiming is possible while unconscious.

The inability to act covers far more than just "action" and "reaction". Holding breath isn't reflexive and would require action (not an action, but the verb) on the part of the NPC. The NPC can not act nor would they be aware of the need to, courtesy of being unconscious.

Suffocation by the rules is simple: cover their mouth with your hand. Waking the character requires damage or using an action to slap or shake the character awake.

Suffocation is none of those things, and your proposition is insensible.

[Mith]

Would the idea of a dice check to see if the person being suffocated wakes because of lack of oxygen be out of the question?

[Shaofoo]

Open your copy of the PHB to page 292, unconscious creatures are unaware of their surroundings. Therefore they can not choose to hold their breath, which constitutes activity.

Sorry I already explained it why you are wrong because being unaware of their surroundings is not losing all neurological functions. Also activity is not defined in any way shape or form in the rules, you are trying to add to the rules that which does not apply. I am talking about the D&D rules not Mythbusters. Please keep that in mind when you are discussing this.


Now turn to page 190 which lists interacting with objects around you: which of those activities are you claiming is possible while unconscious.

Well none because those are done in conjunction with an action as in you need to do an action to do so. Point out to me that you need to have an action to be able to hold your breath in conjunction and then you'd have a point. This was never about actions, this is about breathing.


The inability to act covers far more than just "action" and "reaction". Holding breath isn't reflexive and would require action (not an action, but the verb) on the part of the NPC. The NPC can not act nor would they be aware of the need to, courtesy of being unconscious.

Sorry but unless the unconscious rules say so holding your breath is not prevented. You could always quote real life and in your games you might rule it as such but by RAW you can hold your breath while unconscious, you might not like it but this isn't about you.



Suffocation by the rules is simple: cover their mouth with your hand. Waking the character requires damage or using an action to slap or shake the character awake.

Suffocation is none of those things, and your proposition is insensible.

You do realize that humanoids also have noses that they use to breathe through as well so just covering their mouth does nothing at all.

Also you can apply your hands to his face but now point to me in the rules where does it say that when you do that you will deprive them of air. When you point that out then you can say that you can suffocate by the rules because as it stands you are doing an improvised action and up to the DM to decide, of course when you are both DM and player then it will definitely work.

Also if you were trying to pass real life all this time the body would definitely feel that there is some air deprivation going on and would definitely struggle at the least. Since you can use an action to wake someone up from Sleep and since any damage wakes it up no matter how minor I would assume that the victim in question isn't sedated, he is as if he was normally asleep not someone who is unable to feel at all. And considering that sleep apnea is a thing and they constantly wake up because they can't breathe I would assume that if you are choking someone the body will feel that there is no air and thus force itself awake, since the spell makes no effort to keep someone asleep through stimuli then the spell will be broken.

But then again I am applying real life in a fantasy world just to make my point. And yet you are using the rules of sleep and ignoring the action rules while I am using the action rules and ignoring the sleep rules (while adding DM imtervention)

[Kane0]

Would the idea of a dice check to see if the person being suffocated wakes because of lack of oxygen be out of the question?

We used death saves for our drowning chain demon situation.

[Malifice]

Until you can quote the rules that says that holding your breath requires consciousness or any form of action then you are wrong

Oh good lord. The rules are not a physics engine.

You cant hold your breath while unconscious. That said, breathing in a mouthfull of water would probably wake you up.

Kind of like when you fall asleep in the bath.

[Forum Explorer]

Oh good lord. The rules are not a physics engine.

You cant hold your breath while unconscious. That said, breathing in a mouthfull of water would probably wake you up.

Kind of like when you fall asleep in the bath.

That's how I'd rule it. Suffocating would count as an action to wake someone up, since lightly slapping or shaking them does.

Or to put it another way, I know people who can sleep through being shaken or (lightly) slapped. I've yet to meet someone who doesn't wake up when I plug their nose/mouth.

[Malifice]

That's how I'd rule it. Suffocating would count as an action to wake someone up, since lightly slapping or shaking them does.

Or to put it another way, I know people who can sleep through being shaken or (lightly) slapped. I've yet to meet someone who doesn't wake up when I plug their nose/mouth.

A quick google search shows most people who fall asleep in the bath tend to wake up (coughing water). Children are the ones who drown as they cant save themselves by pulling themselves out, and are more likely to panic (sucking in water).

I'd just play it by ear, with the most likely outcome being the monsters wake up (unless I felt like a different result).

[Shaofoo]

Oh good lord. The rules are not a physics engine.

You cant hold your breath while unconscious. That said, breathing in a mouthfull of water would probably wake you up.

Kind of like when you fall asleep in the bath.

Well you better hope that you are ready to say that for the other side because then they will quote you that the only way you can wake up is with damage or if an action is used to wake you up on purpose (So you could shake someone to make them drop the items on them but that won't wake them up because you didn't intend for the person to wake up, because physics understands intention.)

Also I am more than willing to make the rules into a physics engine if it means balance, I would rather have consistent balance than trying to make the game world mimic the real one.

[Malifice]

Well you better hope that you are ready to say that for the other side because then they will quote you that the only way you can wake up is with damage or if an action is used to wake you up on purpose (So you could shake someone to make them drop the items on them but that won't wake them up because you didn't intend for the person to wake up, because physics understands intention.)

Also I am more than willing to make the rules into a physics engine if it means balance, I would rather have consistent balance than trying to make the game world mimic the real one.

Huh? Nah if a sleeping enemy fell face first into water I would probably have then wake up.

Just apply common sense and put the rule book away man. It's the 5e way.

Rulings not rules.

[Shaofoo]

Huh? Nah if a sleeping enemy fell face first into water I would probably have then wake up.

Just apply common sense and put the rule book away man. It's the 5e way.

Rulings not rules.

Like I said, I hope you are ready to argue the other side. Because the other side will take the Sleep spell literally just like I took the rules literally. Also would you wake up a person if you cover the nose and mouth? (I know you will say yes but I just want you to say it so the interested party can see it directly)

[Asmotherion]

This might partially be true, but keep in mind that:

A) Most sorcerers are dragon sorcerers, as Chaos Magic does not allow optimisation. That means, if they take the average option, they get 5+con mod hp per level.

B) Con is the second stat a spellcaster focuses on, after his primary spellcasting ability, both for higher survivability, and because it saves their concentration slot, something golden for a spellcaster.

C) A great majority of spellcasters are elves, half elves and other things that are immune to magical sleep.

D) The maximum, cast at 9th level is 21d8. This averages 84 hp, and the maximum is 168. Chances are you will be getting a result between 74-94. This is not a lot, and, due to the reasons stated above, is not worth your presious 9th level spell slot. Unless you are a multiclass caster, and you have a 9th level slot, but no 9th level spells... even in that case, there are still better options.

E) Wile not an AOE, I find Eyebite a far better option to put people to sleep. It is a curse, belonging to the Necromancy school, so imunity to charm effects is negated. Elves are still immune to it, but it's still better.

F) That said, you might still find it usefull against hord attacks, since hords are usually designed to be a fairly lower level than you.

PS:


Well you better hope that you are ready to say that for the other side because then they will quote you that the only way you can wake up is with damage or if an action is used to wake you up on purpose (So you could shake someone to make them drop the items on them but that won't wake them up because you didn't intend for the person to wake up, because physics understands intention.)

Also I am more than willing to make the rules into a physics engine if it means balance, I would rather have consistent balance than trying to make the game world mimic the real one.

Then 5e is probably not for you. 5e is designed to get freedom for options, not hardcore rules. You might find 3.x/pathfinder more to your liking, as there, there are rules governing everything and it's usual to use the litenal interpretation of a book for rulebending.

For example, in 3.5, a Demilich is imune to all physical dammage except if dealt from a vorpal sword. This is interpreted as "even if a planet-size meteor was to crush the demilich, the demilich would take no dammage, since the meteor is not a vorpal sword. The differance is that, in 5e, the DM would decide that the magnitude of the event is too big to be mitigated.

[Shaofoo]

Then 5e is probably not for you. 5e is designed to get freedom for options, not hardcore rules. You might find 3.x/pathfinder more to your liking, as there, there are rules governing everything and it's usual to use the litenal interpretation of a book for rulebending.

For example, in 3.5, a Demilich is imune to all physical dammage except if dealt from a vorpal sword. This is interpreted as "even if a planet-size meteor was to crush the demilich, the demilich would take no dammage, since the meteor is not a vorpal sword. The differance is that, in 5e, the DM would decide that the magnitude of the event is too big to be mitigated.

I find it funny that you are to tell me this.

Also 5e isn't for freedom for options, the book might encourage to do your own thing but the DM is the final judge to what happens. That isn't freedom of options because the DM has full control over what works and what doesn't. So the DM can easily rule that an unconscious person can hold his breath.

Also in your example a meteor could just as easily not damage the lich, just because the DM could rule it like that doesn't mean the DM won't. Also DMs in past editions could easily go over the rules and contradict them at will, the DM is still the final judge, he could've easily have ruled in 3.X and PF that the lich would die from a huge meteor on his head.

Whil I see that 5e isn't so freedom of rules because there is a DM who has final say the difference is that I would consider the DM a decent human being that would want to work with me in doing what I want, maybe somethings that I want would run counter to what he wants but then I expect there to be some compromise in the end.

Maybe you should tell the people who spew bile and have a hissy fit as soon as they mention that the DM must rule it to go play 3.X and PF, I am sure that the game is better for those who think that the DM is an adversary instead of a friend. Your advice would probably be better appreciated there instead of here.

[Malifice]

Like I said, I hope you are ready to argue the other side. Because the other side will take the Sleep spell literally just like I took the rules literally. Also would you wake up a person if you cover the nose and mouth? (I know you will say yes but I just want you to say it so the interested party can see it directly)

Yeah I would.

I'f they were dead set on choking them off the top of my head I would allow a str save to escape. DC 8 plus strength of choker plus chokers prof bonus.

Sleeping mooks can be dispatched or tied up without a roll.

Why split hairs? Handwave a ruling and move on and have fun.

Some **** wants to argue the rules incessantly to the point of disruption, they can find another table.

[NNescio]

The 3.5 Demilich isn't even immune to physical weapons (DR 15/Epic and Bludgeoning, or takes 15 less damage from weapons [or other attacks] that aren't both beyond legendary and deals bludgeoning, for 5e people. Spells generally ignore DR but the Demilich also has resistance and immunities to certain elements).

The Pathfinder variant has a bunch more bookkeeping (including the weakness to vorpal part), but isn't immune either (DR 20/--, or -20 damage to all 'physical' damage, no weakness. But there's another entry on the lich statblock that overrides this partially by giving vorpal weapons the ability to bypass this DR).

But, yeah back to the point, as I've said, live by the RAW, die by the RAW. Live by the RAi, die by the RAI. If the player insists on RAW that sleep cannot be removed by 1)Duration running out, 2)Receiving damage, 3)Another creature taking an action to wake the creature, 4) Dispels; I'm going to insist that per RAW unconscious creatures can still hold their breath.

Which is ludicrous, but illustrates the point quite well. If the player insists that it's ludicrous that the creature can still hold his breath I'm going to insist that it is equally ridiculous that the creature doesn't wake up when subjected to vigorous handling/movements and when his face hits the water. I mean, true, people who black out aren't going to wake up from the water, but they aren't going to wake up when stabbed or operated on either.

No, "It's magic" is not an excuse. Sleep isn't a coma spell.

Things like this do pop in 3.x like drown healing and the commoner railgun, but those can only happen if the player insists on RAW halfway through while conveniently forgetting RAW (and substituting physics in for the latter case) for the rest. Quite a similar case, really.

[Dalebert]

Sleeping mooks can be dispatched or tied up without a roll.

I though attacking a helpless opponent was just auto-crit but I'm going from memory. Maybe someone can verify.

I think splashing water on someone would count as a type of action you could take to wake someone up. If you throw someone into water, that's even more dramatic. You're taking an action to wake them up.

Also, have Unseen Servants wake people up and save your actions.

[NNescio]

I though attacking a helpless opponent was just auto-crit but I'm going from memory. Maybe someone can verify.

Per RAW, attacks against Paralyzed or Unconscious creatures have advantage, and are auto-crits from within 5 ft. This can be considered the 5e version of the Coup de Grace rule from 3.x.

Which means you can technically miss. Which might be a bit... ridiculous out of combat.

A DM can reasonably rule an autokill against mooks though (per the 'automatic success if there's no reasonable chance of failure' clause, paraphrased) .

A DM might be convinced to even let bosses or other high HP creatures be killed automatically this way, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so...


Also, have Unseen Servants wake people up and save your actions.

Strictly, by RAW, they can't interact with creatures. By RAI, they probably aren't intended to do that either, as that might set a precedent for Unseen Servants doing things like clamping people's mouths.

Some DMs might allow this though.

[Dalebert]

Strictly, by RAW, they can't interact with creatures.

That made me re-read the spell see what you could be referring to. It starts with "can't attack" so I assumed non attack actions would be fine but I do now see where it says "interact with an object". But it then goes on and says the servant can perform simple tasks that a human servant could do. It seems like an unusually strict interpretation. Any idea if this has been addressed in Sage Advice?

That said, dumping some water out of a wine skin (or squirting) is interacting with an object and is not an attack. :)

[Malifice]

I though attacking a helpless opponent was just auto-crit but I'm going from memory. Maybe someone can verify.

I think splashing water on someone would count as a type of action you could take to wake someone up. If you throw someone into water, that's even more dramatic. You're taking an action to wake them up.

Also, have Unseen Servants wake people up and save your actions.

It is just a crit. They're mooks and I find it boring and anticlimactic to resolve it with rolls. They're not important to the story so they die if the PCs want them dead, or tied up if the Pcs want them tied up, and we get back to the story.

Good lord. Why make them roll a bunch of attacks on sleeping Mooks after a battle? Let em kill them and move on.

[NNescio]

It is just a crit. They're mooks and I find it boring and anticlimactic to resolve it with rolls. They're not important to the story so they die if the PCs want them dead, or tied up if the Pcs want them tied up, and we get back to the story.

Good lord. Why make them roll a bunch of attacks on sleeping Mooks after a battle? Let em kill them and move on.

But, but... rolling dice is fun! Therefore rolling more dice is more fun! And FATAL is the best game ever!

(Not really. And I agree with you.)

[Dalebert]

Good lord. Why make them roll a bunch of attacks on sleeping Mooks after a battle? Let em kill them and move on.

I hear yah. When I responded, I overlooked "mooks" and what you meant by that. I was just talking about the general case of attacking a helpless character. Sure, I can see just handwaving it in some cases and just saying you slit their throat or whatevs.

[Vogonjeltz]

Would the idea of a dice check to see if the person being suffocated wakes because of lack of oxygen be out of the question?

RAW yes, RAF? Maybe.


Sorry I already explained it why you are wrong because being unaware of their surroundings is not losing all neurological functions. Also activity is not defined in any way shape or form in the rules, you are trying to add to the rules that which does not apply. I am talking about the D&D rules not Mythbusters. Please keep that in mind when you are discussing this.

I'm saying if you think that a character can do anything that's not an "action" then you're tacitly indicating they can do anything on that list while unconscious, and then I'm saying that's ridiculous and absurd.

Nobody is suggesting they lose neurological functions, which is why their breathing process isn't interrupted, but they most certainly can't choose to do anything, such as holding their breath.


Well none because those are done in conjunction with an action as in you need to do an action to do so. Point out to me that you need to have an action to be able to hold your breath in conjunction and then you'd have a point. This was never about actions, this is about breathing.

You've misread the wording, it isn't saying these are dependent on using your action, or being able to use your action, but that none of those things conflict with using your action or movement.


Sorry but unless the unconscious rules say so holding your breath is not prevented. You could always quote real life and in your games you might rule it as such but by RAW you can hold your breath while unconscious, you might not like it but this isn't about you.

You can't take any action (incapacitated). Meaning the character can do nothing and they are unaware of their surroundings, so they wouldn't even know that holding their breath needed to be done. Even if one accepted that it were possible (it's not, so moot point), to claim one would is simply metagaming at that point, inserting player or DM knowledge where the PC or NPC would no nothing of the sort.


You do realize that humanoids also have noses that they use to breathe through as well so just covering their mouth does nothing at all.

Also you can apply your hands to his face but now point to me in the rules where does it say that when you do that you will deprive them of air. When you point that out then you can say that you can suffocate by the rules because as it stands you are doing an improvised action and up to the DM to decide, of course when you are both DM and player then it will definitely work.

Also if you were trying to pass real life all this time the body would definitely feel that there is some air deprivation going on and would definitely struggle at the least. Since you can use an action to wake someone up from Sleep and since any damage wakes it up no matter how minor I would assume that the victim in question isn't sedated, he is as if he was normally asleep not someone who is unable to feel at all. And considering that sleep apnea is a thing and they constantly wake up because they can't breathe I would assume that if you are choking someone the body will feel that there is no air and thus force itself awake, since the spell makes no effort to keep someone asleep through stimuli then the spell will be broken.

But then again I am applying real life in a fantasy world just to make my point. And yet you are using the rules of sleep and ignoring the action rules while I am using the action rules and ignoring the sleep rules (while adding DM imtervention)

For this we simply refer to the basic structure of the game. In the PHB on page 6, How To Play which has the following steps: 1. The DM describes the environment; 2. The players describe what they want to do; 3. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions.

In this instance, the DM narrates that there is an enemy, the player casts sleep, assuming the creature fails the check the DM narrates how the creature goes to sleep. The player covers the creatures face, in an attempt to suffocate them. The DM narrates that, after a few moments, the creature shudders, and dies.

Again, remember, unconscious creatures are entirely unaware of their surroundings, so they would NOT know they were suffocating.


A quick google search shows most people who fall asleep in the bath tend to wake up (coughing water). Children are the ones who drown as they cant save themselves by pulling themselves out, and are more likely to panic (sucking in water).

I'd just play it by ear, with the most likely outcome being the monsters wake up (unless I felt like a different result).

A fair enough point, I'd be fine with that I suppose (either as player or DM) as long as it were made clear in advance of saying the attempt failed so the player could adjust their method. I guess tying them up first would be best. So, an extra action, I'd also start them at the minimum possible breath holding since the player could just wait till they breathed out and had essentially no remaining air.

[Malifice]

A fair enough point, I'd be fine with that I suppose (either as player or DM) as long as it were made clear in advance of saying the attempt failed so the player could adjust their method. I guess tying them up first would be best. So, an extra action, I'd also start them at the minimum possible breath holding since the player could just wait till they breathed out and had essentially no remaining air.

??

Dude, I'd just rule that 'they die' if you wanted to kill them, and then get on with the game.

Theyre nameless mooks. Who cares?

[Shaofoo]

I'm saying if you think that a character can do anything that's not an "action" then you're tacitly indicating they can do anything on that list while unconscious, and then I'm saying that's ridiculous and absurd.


Nobody is suggesting they lose neurological functions, which is why their breathing process isn't interrupted, but they most certainly can't choose to do anything, such as holding their breath.



You've misread the wording, it isn't saying these are dependent on using your action, or being able to use your action, but that none of those things conflict with using your action or movement.



You can't take any action (incapacitated). Meaning the character can do nothing and they are unaware of their surroundings, so they wouldn't even know that holding their breath needed to be done. Even if one accepted that it were possible (it's not, so moot point), to claim one would is simply metagaming at that point, inserting player or DM knowledge where the PC or NPC would no nothing of the sort.


Action is clearly defined in the rules, I don't think I can convince you at this point and don't care enough that you do.



For this we simply refer to the basic structure of the game. In the PHB on page 6, How To Play which has the following steps: 1. The DM describes the environment; 2. The players describe what they want to do; 3. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions.

In this instance, the DM narrates that there is an enemy, the player casts sleep, assuming the creature fails the check the DM narrates how the creature goes to sleep. The player covers the creatures face, in an attempt to suffocate them. The DM narrates that, after a few moments, the creature shudders, and dies.

So you are basically are DM and player and you are basically coming from the point where it will work because you want it to work because you are DM so you will make it work. Not much discussion to be had when you can will it so. But thank you for proving once and for all that Choking is 100% DM fiat. You would rule it so but others as expressed in the topic would not do so and in fact would rule that a person would wake up because you are depriving it on air (regardless on what the Sleep spell says, and the only thing you are 100% RAW on curiously enough). You don't need to be aware to know that you are choking. So you only apply RAW to when it is most convenient to you (Holding breath requires an action when it isn't specified by the rules so that bit of RAW is removed yet Sleep must be followed 100% to the letter, no alternate interpretations). Personally this isn't much of a discussion anyway as you have obvious results that you wish to see so you fix the test so that the action is all but guaranteed.

I don't think there is much to be said.

[Orion3T]

Interesting discussion...

A bit part of this discussion comes down to how the DM deals with Sleep/Unconsciousness.

Firstly, if they are just mobs then of course it's not worth arguing over and I'd let the characters kill them (or roll for crits if they prefer). Though it would depend how many there are and what method they are choosing. The rules about allowing automatic success tend to assume time is not a factor but with sleep it is. So if there are 6 sleeping enemies and 6 PCs trying to kill them off, they can easily do it and it isn't worth rolling etc.

However, if a mage is all alone in the fight and puts 6 kobolds to sleep, he really doesn't have time to suffocate them all in 1 minute no matter what your interpretation of the suffocation rule is. He probably does have time to slit their throats but he will be pushed for time in doing so to all 6 before the spell expires, especially since as a mage he's not an expert in finding weak points for melee attacks (low damage and AB). Since it might be exciting for a kobold or two to wake up before he's done, rolling for these might be fun.

However if it was a single enemy but an important one, it it would be a bit anticlimatic and also 'unrealistic', within the bounds of a high fantasy setting. They are more dangerous foes, and if they wake up even slightly before they are dead they might manage to escape or turn the tables at a moment's notice.

Personally I'd say that holding your hand/pillow/whatever over someone's mouth and face to stop them breathing does just that - prevents them from breathing. But not breathing is not the same as suffocating, so all you are doing is forcing them to hold their breath whether they wish to or not. So that's how I'd rule it. Only once their blood oxygen is getting low are they suffocating, and that's what the rules say happens after a few minutes.

However there are other ways to kill someone - for example by blocking off the major arteries to the brain which will quickly deprive the brain of oxygen, as done in a choke hold. This is a much more skilled action though, and if they are asleep they might have a chance to wake up before the hold is held.

That's my take on it anyway - it depends very much on the situation. I don't think making 6 heroes roll for critting 6 goblins to death is exciting or fun, but having 1 wizard trying to slit 6 goblins throats before they wake up might be. I don't think having a main villain be auto-killed from being asleep is particularly fun, but being asleep should certainly give a major advantage - chance to choke/crit plus maybe a surprise round or puting them last in the initiative order after they wake up.

Just my thoughts on how I would handle it, I think the rules give us enough ideas to work with without being overly prescriptive.

[Orion3T]

Oooops sorry for the necro. I did not notice how old this thread is - I thought I just found it on the forum page, but it must have come up in a search!

Oh well... my bad. :smalleek:

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not making a case for nerfing, I'm just questioning whether the spell might be unbalanced.
It isn't. How well sleep works is very situational. Don't try to address balance unless you address multiple uses/situations for its use.

Monsters have pretty decent HP in this game. When you consider the spell slots as a resource and 6-8 encounters per adventure day, your focus on this one spell misses a whole lot else that is going on. In our group's experience, it is Trivial for the slept creature's allies to shake them awake. We found this to be true against mobs of goblins. A few dropped, soaking up all the HP, and by the next round half of them were awake again.

OP? NOT!

The smart way to use sleep is as a follow up to other damage being done. That tends to get more of the enemy to end up in dream land and act as better crowd control.

[Serket]

The sleep spell makes no distinction between combatants and non-combatants. In a forest setting the DM could easily rule you hit squirrels, rabbits, butterflies, and mice prior to getting to the enemy forces. And while that would be rather annoying, it IS RAW.

"Why does the evil boss have a couple of magically-warmed cushions next to her chair, and a lot of pet cats?"
"Because she's not an Elf".

[greenstone]

but unless an enemy spellcaster carries protection against enchantment, Sleep seems to be a cheaper Power Word Kill.


Sleep is easy to defeat - surround yourself with low-HP minions. Guards, guard dogs, servants, spiders, whatever is appropriate.

Maybe have the NPC sorcerer be a crazy cat lady and be surrounded by 20 cats! Even if they only have 2 HP. that's 40 points of sleep taken care of.

You can also bypass sleep by making the bad guy an undead or construct or similar. Or simply an elf.

Being asleep is not an instant kill, however. At best, it only allows one good hit. That hit will be a critical, so it will be devastating, but isn't a guaranteed 100% kill.

The players in my game have used sleep to great effect against vermin. Rats, crows, stirges, bats - that sort of thing.

[JumboWheat01]

Maybe have the NPC sorcerer be a crazy cat lady and be surrounded by 20 cats! Even if they only have 2 HP. that's 40 points of sleep taken care of.

Now I just had the thought of using Summon Woodland Creatures to make an army of squirrels to absorb any and all sleep spells that may come my way.

[Sigreid]

It's also great when you don't want to kill people.

I don't understand these words.

[Orion3T]

Kinda funny this... I accidentally replied to the last post which was about 6 months old. Subsequent replies seem to be responding to the OP, which is about 18 months old!

I thought the discussion had moved on more towards how DMs deal with enemies once they are asleep, but I guess not.

And yeah, of course this is still my fault for not noticing the date when I was perusing this thread. :smalleek:

[Rhaegar]

I don't understand these words.

Capturing someone to interrogate (torture) someone can be quite satisfying, and can sometimes yield good information. Think of all the good ways to torture someone.

In my current campaign, my players knocked out a water cultist without killing him, to interrogate him. They tied him up and began to roast him over the fire to try to get him to speak, thinking that the water cultist would hate the fire, and not want to die by fire. He wasn't very talkative, and given that he was still at minimum HP when they were torturing him, he died pretty quickly being roasted over the fire.

[RickAllison]

Capturing someone to interrogate (torture) someone can be quite satisfying, and can sometimes yield good information. Think of all the good ways to torture someone.

In my current campaign, my players knocked out a water cultist without killing him, to interrogate him. They tied him up and began to roast him over the fire to try to get him to speak, thinking that the water cultist would hate the fire, and not want to die by fire. He wasn't very talkative, and given that he was still at minimum HP when they were torturing him, he died pretty quickly being roasted over the fire.

My favorite was courtesy of my NG rogue. A nice, slow drip of acid right onto his forehead. Of course, that guy was kind of spineless and cracked before I even got a drop on him... I was rather disappointed.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't understand these words.

"Death is not the answer to everything"
"Yes, torture also has its merits"

[AnAardvark]

I find the spell almost useless. When it works the bad guys were almost done anyhow. It's a glorified finishing move. If you try it in the beginning of combat, maybe you'll get one opponent. I'll contrast with Burning Hands. Even if upon casting the spell no one in the area effect drops, the spell still contributed to hit point attrition making it easier to drop them in a following round. With Sleep, if you roll low you've done nothing to further along defeating the opponents. Counterpoint that's not much of a difference between a save or negate spell, but in the long run I think it's easier for an opponent to fail his save than for you to roll high enough for Sleep to work.

I'm not seeing the appeal.

I've found, as a DM, that it is useful in the following circumstances:
1. If the opponents include a closely groups bunch of low-level schlubs. For example, if a groups of four hobgoblins is escorted by a dozen goblins. Fireball might still be a better choice - larger AOE, and damage will affect the hobgoblins.
2. If the enemy is on the ropes, but they are capable of a potentially dangerous attack, and the wizard is the last person (except maybe the cleric, who isn't a real damage dealer) before the monster acts. This works well against something like a dragon who is low on hit points.
3. If the enemy is on the ropes, and no one in the party is likely to be able to finish it off before it gets away. (For example, a flying creature vs. a party where the wizard is the primary ranged combatant.

I should point out that the party wizard has a wand of sleep, so there is no opportunity cost in terms of spell slots for him to cast sleep.

I also have a house rule that swarms take damage from sleep, representing creatures in the swarm who fall asleep.