5
\$\begingroup\$

The new version of sleep says:

Each creature of your choice in a 5-foot-radius Sphere centered on a point within range must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have the Incapacitated condition until the end of its next turn, at which point it must repeat the save. If the target fails the second save, the target has the Unconscious condition for the duration.

Do the creatures always have to make the second save to not fall unconscious, or only if they failed the first save?

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

23
\$\begingroup\$

“At which point” clearly refers to the point at which you are incapacitated at the end of your next turn.

I suppose the purpose of this question is to point out potential ambiguity about what the phrase “at which point” means, but I don’t think it is ambiguous at all. When the spell description says “at which point”, it obviously refers to something, a point, already mentioned in the description. That point, of course, is the point mentioned earlier in the sentence, where the description says:

have the Incapacitated condition until the end of its next turn

To leave out the part of the sentence where you have the incapacitated condition, and read it as though you always attempt the second save at the end of your next turn just isn’t how reading comprehension works. You have to read the whole sentence, the whole context, to understand the meaning. The point at which you make the second save is the point at which you are incapacitated at the end of your next turn. If you succeed the first save, you never get to that point.

\$\endgroup\$
13
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, the proposed "ambiguity" just isn't. I don't understand the claim that "[targets] must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw at which point it must repeat the save." makes any sense. Much less that it's equivalent to the sentence with the condition in it \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Commented Oct 29 at 11:08
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @NobodytheHobgoblin It isn’t about proving one thing or another, it’s just about reading. It’s only ambiguous if you don’t read the whole sentence, ignoring the part you already read when you get to “at which point”. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 29 at 11:14
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @NobodytheHobgoblin the only way to read it "ambiguously" is to come up with a new sentence. Not what it already says "must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have the Incapacitated condition until the end of its next turn, at which point it must repeat the save" means that the save is repeated if the first fails. That's it. If we walk backwards "at which point" -> what point -> "until the end of its next turn" -> how is that relevant -> "have the Incapacitated condition until...". \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Commented Oct 29 at 11:22
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ You are trying to say that one can omit reading the condition and still come up with a realistic sentence but this is not true, your choices are "must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or [omitted] until the end of its next turn, at which point it must repeat the save" or "must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or [omitted] at which point it must repeat the save" neither of which is a sentence that makes sense because you've removed a piece of the domino that builds the whole description. . \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Commented Oct 29 at 11:22
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @NobodytheHobgoblin you're overthinking this. As a native speaker, the spell description clearly indicates to me that either saving throw will halt the entire progression of the spell. You only make the second roll if you've already failed the first. "At which point" includes both "end of next turn" and Incapacitated due to previously failed saving throw. \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    Commented Oct 29 at 13:33
-2
\$\begingroup\$

You likely only repeat if you fail

Narratively if the target fails the first save, it will be Incapacitated because it is drowsy and cannot act normally any more, and then, if it fails the second save, if will fall fully asleep and be incapacitated.

Comparison with other spells: This also seems similar to the flesh to stone spell, where a target first has to make one save to avoid being Restrained, and then, if it failed that save, another series of saves to not become Petrified. There, if you make the first save, there is no risk of becoming petrified, so it seems this should work in a similar way. However, the language of flesh to stone is different, it says

A Restrained target makes another Constitution saving throw [...]

Description Text: Other than in flesh to stone, the sleep spell does not say that an Incapacitated target makes another saving throw, it only says that the target will have that condition if it fails the first save:

Each creature of your choice in a 5-foot-radius Sphere centered on a point within range must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have the Incapacitated condition until the end of its next turn

It then say that at that point, the target makes another save:

at which point it must repeat the save

There is no "the Incapacitated target then...". The question is how to read at that point.

If you read it as "at that point in time", the spell merely talks about the time at which the second save has to be made, in which case the two saves are entirely unrelated, and even if you made the first save, and still could act normally, you will have to make a second save at the end of your next turn, or become Incapacitated (i.e. fall asleep). You get put to sleep if you fail that second save, no matter what.

If you read it as "at that point of what's happening here", you are incapacitated because you failed the save, and only if that happened, now that you are reaching the end of your next turn, you have to make a second save.

It might be possible that a DM makes a different call here, but considering the narrative logic, considering it works in a similar way for other spells that impose conditions of increasing severity, and considering that all of this is in one single sentence, I believe it is much more likely that the intent is that you only make a second save if you failed the first one.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I did initially upvote this, and I can understand the ambiguities but it takes an irregular reading to actually really argue them. I think in a contract this kind of wording wouldn't hold up, but in natural reading it does. \$\endgroup\$
    – SeriousBri
    Commented Oct 29 at 12:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .