Attack a Held person after just one save?

[Thanee]

What are your talking about? He fails the save. Now, it's his turn, as you just interrupted him. He still gets his save. The fact that you are inserting yourself into the initiative order does not mean he doesn't get his turn, and on his turn, he gets a save.

The orc already is on his turn and has already used at least a portion of his action (i.e. to attack), so he cannot take the full round action required to make the save anymore.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ThirdWizard]

What are your talking about? He fails the save. Now, it's his turn, as you just interrupted him. He still gets his save. The fact that you are inserting yourself into the initiative order does not mean he doesn't get his turn, and on his turn, he gets a save.

As was pointed out previously, you do not automatically get a save on your turn. You use a Full Round Action to try and free yourself from the spell. So, you can go back and try to free yourself from the hold person just as much as an interrupted spellcaster can go back and make a withdrawl after being hit. Or, in other words, you can't at all.

 

[pawsplay]

Hm. I guess you're right. I guess that's the nice side of winning initiative.

Keep in mind that the orc can begin a rull round action on his turn, however. So if you don't kill with the CDG, he might break free and make an attack against you.

 

[Thanee]

Only if he has not started a standard (or full round) action yet.

Bye
Thanee

 

[pawsplay]

Cripes, you're right.

 

[moritheil]

I don't see why the DM should object to the condition "if the orc takes any action", or even "if any of orcs A, B and C take an action".

From a balance point of view, or from a rules point of view? There are arguments for either.

Consider that taking an action is something that is defined in mechanics, but not well-defined in-character. "If he does anything, I waste him with my crossbow" is subject to potentially hilarious misinterpretations.

 

[Starglim]

From a balance point of view, or from a rules point of view? There are arguments for either.

From a design or game-completeness point of view, I think there should be an action "I cover him with my weapon and if he makes any move I stab/shoot him." It's a familiar real-world situation, DM plot device and player desire - so it's useful on both sides of the screen.

It's subject (in the real world and gameplay) to exactly the dilemma that you mentioned: if the target attempts a possibly non-hostile action, the attacker must make an instant snap decision either to kill the guy or lose the advantage over him, introducing a great point of tension and tactical decision.

Consider that taking an action is something that is defined in mechanics, but not well-defined in-character. "If he does anything, I waste him with my crossbow" is subject to potentially hilarious misinterpretations.

I'm not sure how the consideration of in-character phrasing comes into it. Combat actions should be stated by the player and judged by the DM in understandable game-mechanic terms - it would be silly and arbitrary to run a combat according to a D&D character's speeches.

Most things that are game-relevant actions are either self-evidently recognisable as an action to other characters (such as starting to turn and run, or draw a weapon) or the Attack of Opportunity rules make it clear that characters can perceive them (such as casting a Still and Silent spell).

 

[werk]

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.

I would call it "a weird by-product of the rules" that were written to largely support party-style play. While the caster will not get a an action on the held victim, the rest of his party can.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

My apologies. No offense intended.

Comedy gold.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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.

Balance. Otherwise, it would be too much of a save-or-die spell for 3rd-level characters.

Now you have to rely on him failing two saves or you having an ally nearby to fatcup him.