Help my group settle a dispute: Fiver players (A,B,C,D,E) begin the round in combat with Villain. Initiative order:
A
B
VILLAIN
C
D
E
A attacks villain. B casts Hold Person. Villain fails the save and is paralyzed. DM then has Villain roll another save (in the same round) because it's now the Villain's turn.
DM's POV: Spell says target's next turn it gets a save, so it's ok.
My POV: Villain failed the save and should not get another save in the same round, but should get it on the next round. Two saves in the same round breaks the game.
Opinions?
The villian on his turn gets a new save...this is a full round action so he can do nothing other then get a new save.
This is correct.
If you wish, think of it this way:
A
B
C
D
E
VILLAIN
Now, On A's turn, he casts Hold Person and the Villain fails the save and is paralyzed. Then B, C, D, and E all attack the helpless Villain. If he somehow survives, should he be allowed a Save? If your answer is no, then please understand that A, B, C, D, and E will all attack the helpless victim a second time (well, it's A's first time since he didn't actually attack in the first round; he cast the Hold Person instead).
Surely you don't think the rules intend to give everyone two attacks against the helpless victim, do you?
And since initiative order is irrelevent to this question, the answer is to read it as it is literally written. Whenever you cast Hold Person on a target, that target gets an immediate save to resist. If that fails, then every round, on the victim's turn, whenever those turns come, he is allowed to attempt another save.
|
The villian on his turn gets a new save...this is a full round action so he can do nothing other then get a new save.
+1
The fact that they failed the first save means they have to burn at least one full round action, which means that the spell isn't wasted. The fact that the others don't necessarily get to attacked the held AC is just an inconvenience of initiative order.To look at it another way: Wouldn't YOU want to get that save?
The villian on his turn gets a new save...this is a full round action so he can do nothing other then get a new save.+1
The fact that they failed the first save means they have to burn at least one full round action, which means that the spell isn't wasted. The fact that the others don't necessarily get to attacked the held AC is just an inconvenience of initiative order.
To look at it another way: Wouldn't YOU want to get that save?
Thanks Blake. This way of looking at it helped it make more sense to me. Much appreciated.
Thanks Blake. This way of looking at it helped it make more sense to me. Much appreciated.The villian on his turn gets a new save...this is a full round action so he can do nothing other then get a new save.+1
The fact that they failed the first save means they have to burn at least one full round action, which means that the spell isn't wasted. The fact that the others don't necessarily get to attacked the held AC is just an inconvenience of initiative order.
To look at it another way: Wouldn't YOU want to get that save?
On behalf of StabbityDoom, you're welcome :)
|
The problem comes in that if the villian gets to save again on his turn (I am in favor of this ruling BTW as it seems to be supported by raw) he looses the condition (paralysis) imposed by the spell. Players C,D,& E loose the opportunity to attack a helpless target and coup de grace to take him out. If he gets to save right away, then it influences casters who use multi-save spells (Hideous Laughter, I'm looking at you) to delay until after the villian to maximize the effect. This smells of cheese and not really in the best intentions of the game. On the other hand, if you don't allow the re-save, a BBEG can be neutralized by a single bad or fumbled save.
|
|
On behalf of StabbityDoom, you're welcome :)Thanks Blake. This way of looking at it helped it make more sense to me. Much appreciated.The villian on his turn gets a new save...this is a full round action so he can do nothing other then get a new save.+1
The fact that they failed the first save means they have to burn at least one full round action, which means that the spell isn't wasted. The fact that the others don't necessarily get to attacked the held AC is just an inconvenience of initiative order.
To look at it another way: Wouldn't YOU want to get that save?
O.o?
The problem comes in that if the villian gets to save again on his turn (I am in favor of this ruling BTW as it seems to be supported by raw) he looses the condition (paralysis) imposed by the spell. Players C,D,& E loose the opportunity to attack a helpless target and coup de grace to take him out. If he gets to save right away, then it influences casters who use multi-save spells (Hideous Laughter, I'm looking at you) to delay until after the villian to maximize the effect. This smells of cheese and not really in the best intentions of the game. On the other hand, if you don't allow the re-save, a BBEG can be neutralized by a single bad or fumbled save.
Does it?
Suppose this heinous villain has a very powerful attack. You name it, it could be anything. Well, anything that 3rd level characters are afraid of.
Wait for the villain to maximize your effect and he might just use that deadly attack. But cast it now and that villain loses his turn. I think it's very worthwhile to rob an enemy of his turn. Even if said enemy doesn't have a very powerful attack, it's reasonable to assume that he has some kind of attack, and that if he uses it, you'll be forced to heal damage during or after the fight - maybe a lot of damage.