Simple Hold Person Question

[scrubkai]

I have a simple question on the "Hold Person" spell...

Per the SRD the under save for that spell it says:
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text.

Then the text says:
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.)

Just to be sure I'm reading this right, that if I cast this spell on my target, they get a will save to see if the spell affects them. If they fail that they are held and then every round they may take a full round action to make another save to end the spell.

Is this correct?

Someone I was playing with was trying to argue that they do not get the initial Will save, they just get to make a will save after every full round action to see if the spell ends.

Anyone know which one of us is correct?

 

[calypso15]

The Saving Throw entry indicates that there are two saves: Will Negates, and a special one which is described in the body.

The Will Negates means that if the target succeeds on their initial save, the spell has no effect. It fizzles.

The special one allows them a chance to break the hold each round.

Calypso

 

[KarinsDad]

He gets an immediate save, just like any other Saving Throw spell.

He then gets another save on his next turn which means that he actually gets TWO saving throws before he loses his next action.

Hence, Hold Person is fairly weak. It also has a relatively low DC.

The only real advantage is if your opponent misses his first save and then gets Sneak Attacked or something before his next action comes up. Granted, a character could miss 2 or more Will saves in a row, but the fact that he gets two of them before his next action means that it will often not even remove a single action from an opponent.

 

[calypso15]

He gets an immediate save, just like any other Saving Throw spell.

He then gets another save on his next turn which means that he actually gets TWO saving throws before he loses his next action.

Hence, Hold Person is fairly weak. It also has a relatively low DC.

The only real advantage is if your opponent misses his first save and then gets Sneak Attacked or something before his next action comes up. Granted, a character could miss 2 or more Will saves in a row, but the fact that he gets two of them before his next action means that it will often not even remove a single action from an opponent.

That's not correct. To make a Will Save to break the affect once it's in place requires a full round. So, if you fail your initial save you're guaranteed to lose at least 1 round.

Calypso

 

[scrubkai]

That's not correct. To make a Will Save to break the affect once it's in place requires a full round. So, if you fail your initial save you're guaranteed to lose at least 1 round.

Calypso

Thanks Calypso. That's what I thought but I wanted to make sure.

It comes down to for every save you fail you lose one round.

And KarinsDad that's exactly what I was using hold person for. We were talking about casting Hold Person on a rogue so that my arcane trickster could sneak attack him and get rid of him before he could alert the rest of his group.

Thanks.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's not correct. To make a Will Save to break the affect once it's in place requires a full round. So, if you fail your initial save you're guaranteed to lose at least 1 round.

Yup.

Hate when I read things quickly and read free action instead of full round action.

Gotta stop reading the posts here before my morning caffeine.


Actually, what is interesting is that our PC Clerics often took the 3E version of Hold Person and almost never take the 3.5 version. They watered it down that much.

The other interesting thing is that you provoke Attacks of Opportunity when casting a spell or moving, but do NOT provoke AoOs when you are totally helpless.

What is up with that?

You lower your guard if you are able to act, but do NOT lower your guard if you cannot act at all???

Helpless characters should (by default) provoke AoOs on their turn, just because it is their turn. This, for one thing, would beef up Hold Person a little.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, what is interesting is that our PC Clerics often took the 3E version of Hold Person and almost never take the 3.5 version. They watered it down that much.

A nice house rule I saw for 3.5 Hold Person:

If you make the initial save, the spell doesn't take effect. If you fail, it does.

The save each round once it takes effect is a free action instead of a full round action... but it only allows you to move for that round. Next round, on your turn, you make another save... if you fail, you're held again; if you save, you can move that round.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

A nice house rule I saw for 3.5 Hold Person:

If you make the initial save, the spell doesn't take effect. If you fail, it does.

The save each round once it takes effect is a free action instead of a full round action... but it only allows you to move for that round. Next round, on your turn, you make another save... if you fail, you're held again; if you save, you can move that round.

Another possibility that is less yo-yo like is to increase the save DC of the latter (i.e. after initial) saves by 5.

This would put the spell somewhere between 3E and 3.5.

 

[Thanee]

Yep, that was something I had considered once, but never tried it. Thought about a +4 DC increase after the initial save (if failed only, of course).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Bad Paper]

If you make the initial save, the spell doesn't take effect. If you fail, it does.

The save each round once it takes effect is a free action instead of a full round action... but it only allows you to move for that round. Next round, on your turn, you make another save... if you fail, you're held again; if you save, you can move that round.

wow. That's a beautiful hybrid of Burning Blood and Wrack.