Attack a Held person after just one save?

[0-hr]

If I cast Hold Person on someone, they get a save immeadiately. Then their turn comes up and they get another save before my turn comes around and I can finally coup de gras.

Is this "two saves before the coup" supposed to be an inherent balancing factor in the spell, or just a weird byproduct o the rules.

Suppose I "ready an action to cast Hold Person if the orc starts to do anything." Then the orc starts to attack someone an gets Held (failing his save as the spell is cast). Since the spell was a redied action, the attack was interrupted and the orc does not have a full round to try a second save. Also, my init is now just before the orc, meaning I'll be able to take my next turn before him. This tactic allows me to do a coup after just one save rather than the usual two.

Is this valid according to the rules? If so, is it "good tactics" or 100% pasteurized Wisconsin cheese?

Hold Person

Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 2, Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, F/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 round/level (D); see text
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. (This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)

 

[Felon]

I'm curious about this too. After reading the spell description in-game, it was determined that the target gets a save every round on your turn, not his. But reading the spell description just now indicates otherwise.

 

[RangerWickett]

Read the spell description. The target gets a save every round on your turn, not his.

Read the spell description. The target gets a save on its turn, but only if it spends a full round action to do so. It does not make saves on the caster's turn.

I believe the original poster is in the right.

 

[Felon]

Read the spell description. The target gets a save on its turn, but only if it spends a full round action to do so. It does not make saves on the caster's turn.

Jesus Christ, Wickett. Give a guy a chance to edit his post will ya? It post wasn't even 60 seconds old when you replied. Notice there isn't even an edit timestamp.

 

[RangerWickett]

My apologies. No offense intended.

 

[Felon]

LOL, just kidding, Wick. I'm the dope who hit the "Submit" button.

 

[moritheil]

Suppose I "ready an action to cast Hold Person if the orc starts to do anything." Then the orc starts to attack someone an gets Held (failing his save as the spell is cast). Since the spell was a redied action, the attack was interrupted and the orc does not have a full round to try a second save. Also, my init is now just before the orc, meaning I'll be able to take my next turn before him. This tactic allows me to do a coup after just one save rather than the usual two.

Is this valid according to the rules? If so, is it "good tactics" or 100% pasteurized Wisconsin cheese?

Reading an action in case the orc attacks, or in case the orc moves, is legal (note: or, not both.) Your DM may object to "do anything" as being far too vague.

In any case, the benefit of hold person is not that you get to melee the orc on your next turn, but that your mercurial greatsword-wielding buddy gets to chop its head off in between your turn and the orc's next turn.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Reading an action in case the orc attacks, or in case the orc moves, is legal (note: or, not both.)

Source?

You must be specific about the action you're readying, but you can specify the 'conditions' under which you take it. In the same paragraph, it gives an example of someone taking an action 'in response to that condition'.

So if you respond to a condition, and specify conditions, it seems you can specify more that one condition to which you will respond.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

Source?

You must be specific about the action you're readying, but you can specify the 'conditions' under which you take it. In the same paragraph, it gives an example of someone taking an action 'in response to that condition'.

So if you respond to a condition, and specify conditions, it seems you can specify more that one condition to which you will respond.

-Hyp.

You may have more than one condition ("If the orc moves and attacks,") but my point is that you cannot have a branching if-then web of statements ("Okay, if he moves, I do this. If he attacks, I do something else. If he draws a different weapon, I instead do a third thing.")

Furthermore, to respond to your post directly . . . I do not parse "conditions" as "any one of these conditions;" I read it as equivalent to "You may specify as many conditions as you like; the readied response triggers when all of the conditions are met." That is, you respond to conditions, plural.

 

[Thanee]

You could ready an action to ready an action when anything out of {list of conditions} happens (and then just ready whatever action you want to take with the same trigger).

But maybe you need to specify what action you want to ready with the ready action you are readying at the time you ready the action...

Bye
Thanee