Hold Person - Two Saving throws per round?!

[Thanee]

The spell is not meant to be a death sentence. It's meant to keep the target out of combat for a while. It surely does that (still), since even if the target makes the first (additional) save, one full action is lost by then.

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

Have your Wizard buddy cast Slow on multiple opponents first and then have the Cleric cast Hold on the Fighter.

If he fails both saves, it takes two rounds for him to get another save against the Hold (full round action). Plenty of time for a CDG.


Not only that, but Slow limits the affected targets to one Standard Action per round PLUS it halves their speed. That means that if the Fighter gets out of the Hold, the best attack he has (typically with a 20 Speed in armor) is a 10 foot Charge. He cannot move more than 10 feet per round. Stay away from him and he becomes at worse a single arrow shot per round opponent.

 

[frankthedm]

The spell is not meant to be a death sentence. It's meant to keep the target out of combat for a while. It surely does that (still), since even if the target makes the first (additional) save, one full action is lost by then.

It is still a death sentence, there is just now an increased chance the foe gets a stay of execution. As long as the caster delays until the initiative tick of an ally next to the intended victim, the CDG is likely to happen. In fact I think by having a chance that the victim will break out of Hold person, you make CDG’ing the victim a much higher priority, since the cleric’s side knows the victim will be out soon. Otherwise the spell is not much better than the Daze cantrip.

Now if Wotc wanted the spell not to be a death sentence they could have changed Hold person to an incomplete paralysis, something like the victim is treated as Grappled and Pinned for the spells duration, no new saves.

If wotc felt a one rounder per level “sit out” was unfair / unfun, they dropped the ball because they missed another spell that does the same thing and circumvents paralysis immunity, Tasha’s Hideous laughter. One save, leaves victim prone and non acting one round a level.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

It is still a death sentence, there is just now an increased chance the foe gets a stay of execution.

For every major enemy the players do this too, just do it right back to them with an NPC. Pretty soon you'll settle into a Mutally Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario and people will forget about this particular tactic.

Our game rarely sees insta-kill spells being used simply b/c players know I'll throw it right back at them and they're the ones that will have to game their way back up a level. To me, it's just another dead NPC.

I reserve insta-kill spells for the odd BBEG or someone who isn't meant to be trifled with. I'd much rather have a fun game than have PCs being killed all the time (or, for that matter, BBEGs being nuked in the first round of combat). But hey, that's just me.

 

[Thanee]

It is still a death sentence, ... In fact I think by having a chance that the victim will break out of Hold person, you make CDG’ing the victim a much higher priority ...

Yeah, there is certainly some truth in this.

If wotc felt a one rounder per level “sit out” was unfair / unfun, they dropped the ball because they missed another spell that does the same thing and circumvents paralysis immunity, Tasha’s Hideous laughter. One save, leaves victim prone and non acting one round a level.

The big difference is the helpless condition, I think that's why they made Hold Person into a save a round.

Bye
Thanee

 

[frankthedm]

For every major enemy the players do this too, just do it right back to them with an NPC. Pretty soon you'll settle into a Mutally Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario and people will forget about this particular tactic.

Our game rarely sees insta-kill spells being used simply b/c players know I'll throw it right back at them and they're the ones that will have to game their way back up a level. To me, it's just another dead NPC.

I strongly dislike MAD type discouragement. If the tactic works, BOTH sides should be using it. If certain tactics are so brutally efficient by the game rules they inspire "Gentlemen’s agreements" not to use them, I think there is a problem with the ruleset that needs some houseruling.

 

[frankthedm]

The big difference is the helpless condition, I think that's why they made Hold Person into a save a round.

True the victim is not helpless. But being unable to act and prone while folks beat on you is bad news. Tasha's hideous laughter is now far far better on its own at removing foes from combat than hold person is. And even with DC-4, targeting non humaniods is still worth a shot. [this assumes a human caster].

 

[Dracorat]

Well, hold person makes you helpless which gives you worse penalties than being prone does. Hell, it even reduces your effective dex to 0 and makes you a total sneak attack target.

 

[frankthedm]

Well, hold person makes you helpless which gives you worse penalties than being prone does. Hell, it even reduces your effective dex to 0 and makes you a total sneak attack target.

yes, but what I was saying, was that WOTC still wants the spell to be a death sentence. The way it plays out, the spell is now almost worthless to those who intended to 'fight fair" and just treat the held viction as a defeated combatent.

With the way 3.5 runs the spell, when the victim fails the save, Ed Boon's voice echoes out of the sky...

FINISH HIM!​

And the cleric's side has a round, maybe two to perform a Fatality[cdg] on the victim before he snaps out of it.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Perhaps Hold Person should have been a stun effect that lasts 1 round/level (no additional saves except the 1st attempt).