Having said that, even if I am wrong about the first paragraph I'm not wrong about the second. Delaying is very clearly listed under Special Initiative Actions. And Hold Person doesn't make an exception for action type, it just says that you can't take any actions. Which would include readying and delaying, since they're clearly labeled as "actions".
I have to disagree with you in this, since readying and delaying are two different kind of actions.
Indeed, ready an action is considered a standard action, therefore, you can't ready an action while subject to a Hold Person spell. On the other hand, delay isn't even considered an action (regardless of that weird interpretation that, based in a chart, assume delaying is an action taken to no take any action) so they're different. Keep in mind that with a readied action you could actually interrupt another's action, meanwhile you can't do so by delaying.
And finally, I think some folks are taking the CRB "Actions in Combat" chart too strictly. I mean, there is summarized everything a player could do in a combat round. I see the "delay" section in it like a failsafe clause: "Remember, you don't 'have' to act immediately every turn. If you don't know what to do or need other party member to act first you can always delay."
You can make the rules say anything you want if you chop up sentences and omit context.Liar.
When your hit point total reaches 0, ... [f]irst you must ... assume the form of any Large humanoid creature of the giant subtype[,] ... use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, ... and kill without qualms.That's how we've always played it. Strictly RAW.?
I assume you're going for humor.
You have to ask?
You have to ask?You can make the rules say anything you want if you chop up sentences and omit context.Liar.
When your hit point total reaches 0, ... [f]irst you must ... assume the form of any Large humanoid creature of the giant subtype[,] ... use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, ... and kill without qualms.That's how we've always played it. Strictly RAW.?
I assume you're going for humor.
Could have either been a joke or an attempt at biting sarcasm.
So yeah, I guess I did.
Personally I would rule in favor of not being able to delay. You're aware of what is going on but not able to react. Basically, you don't get a turn. You get a saving throw, which, if you succeed, gives you a turn with a full-round action missing from it.
Otherwise you open up a huge can of worms:
"You're panicked."
"I delay until it wears off."
Panicked says you can take no other actions but delay isn't an action. Only difference with Hold Person is that hold person says you do nothing rather than saying you run away (in before "but delay is nothing").If you're waiting are you doing something?
With the panicked condition there isn't such a problem:
Panicked: A panicked creature must drop anything it holds and flee at top speed from the source of its fear, as well as any other dangers it encounters, along a random path. It can't take any other actions. In addition, the creature takes a –2 penalty on all saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. If cornered, a panicked creature cowers and does not attack, typically using the total defense action in combat. A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.
Panicked is a more extreme state of fear than shaken or frightened.
Bolded mine.
As you can see, the panicked condition dictates specifically what a character must do while under it. It not so with Hold Person, since the next STs are optional, taking a full-round action each.
And, in fact, I think you can't delay if you are using your turn's actions already.
Could have either been a joke or an attempt at biting sarcasm.
Is there a difference? ;)
You have to ask?You can make the rules say anything you want if you chop up sentences and omit context.Liar.
When your hit point total reaches 0, ... [f]irst you must ... assume the form of any Large humanoid creature of the giant subtype[,] ... use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon, ... and kill without qualms.That's how we've always played it. Strictly RAW.?
I assume you're going for humor.
Could have either been a joke or an attempt at biting sarcasm.
So yeah, I guess I did.
Ah, that's fair. Just being playful.
|
You can make the rules say anything you want if you chop up sentences and omit context.
I think you are wrong.
Look what is "No Action" and what is "Not an action".
No Action
Delay
5 foot stepBoth are not part of any other action.
Not an action
Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and[ b]are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow[/b].It clearly states that the "Not an action" are a inherent part of a larger action and present a clear example of that.
I know that you aren't trolling the thread, so I'll answer you before I go.
I may very well be wrong about "no action" and "not an action" being the same thing. Personally, I think the confusion comes from the copy/paste from 3.5 (which I discussed earlier).
Having said that, even if I am wrong about the first paragraph I'm not wrong about the second. Delaying is very clearly listed under Special Initiative Actions. And Hold Person doesn't make an exception for action type, it just says that you can't take any actions. Which would include readying and delaying, since they're clearly labeled as "actions".
And as clearly as that it say:
Special Initiative Actions
...
Delay
By choosing to delay, you take no action
You see something that change what I did say in the whole piece?
Special Initiative ActionsHere are ways to change when you act during combat by altering your place in the initiative order.
DelayBy choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.
You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what's going to happen. You also can't interrupt anyone else's action (as you can with a readied action).
JJ sez you can't delay while being held. Mind you, this is not official in and of itself. But it generally indicates RAI.
JJ sez you can't delay while being held. Mind you, this is not official in and of itself. But it generally indicates RAI.
What was his reasoning? Better yet do you have a link?
The poison FAQ seems relevant enough to me. That's how I would rule it.
Using Reshar's example of Panic and that his belief is that a Delay is not an action:
I am panicked.
I must flee when I take an action.
I will delay.
But you must flee.
No, I must flee when I take an action. I haven't taken an action yet.
In fact, I will delay until I am no longer panicked.
JJ says Treesmasha is right, and sexah too.
Delay is something you have to consciously choose to do. It is, therefore, an action, and therefore is not something you can choose to do while being held.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=664?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#33190
JJ:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=664?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#33190Delay is something you have to consciously choose to do. It is, therefore, an action, and therefore is not something you can choose to do while being held.
While JJ, is not an official rules source (I feel like this statement gets thrown around a lot lately), I am inclined to agree. However, you could make a case that delaying is only a mental action, which is allowed under the text of the spell. I guess this is one of those things that you can expect to be ruled differently by different GMs.
A 5-foot step is also something you can choose to do, but it is not an action so choosing does not equal an action.
With that aside the rules say delaying does not take an action.
Using Reshar's example of Panic and that his belief is that a Delay is not an action:
I am panicked.
I must flee when I take an action.
I will delay.
But you must flee.
No, I must flee when I take an action. I haven't taken an action yet.
In fact, I will delay until I am no longer panicked.
Not quite. The correct interpretation of that example is, in my opinion:
I am panicked.
I must flee when it's my turn.
I will delay.
You can't. Because you can only declare you are delaying when it's your turn... and now that is your turn, you must flee.
End.
Remember, delay an action doesn't negate your turn. That's why (IIRC) if you choose to delay during a surprise round, you're aware of the enemy from the start of your turn... only you choose to act later.
Same reasoning for the "delay doesn't allow to postpone a ST against poison" rule.
Edit: Needless to say, being panicked does indeed mess with the PC's mind. He can't even THINK on nothing besides of run the hell out of whatever is the source of his/her fear. ;)
Players have been allowed to delay in cases of hold person and similar effects in all the groups I've been a part of, so I could see no reason to disallow an NPC from doing the same in the very few circumstances where that would be beneficial for NPCs :)
Nothing in hold person says you are not mentally aware. You just can't move since the spell has taken over your mind and indirectly your body, and the save for hold person is an actual choice, so you should know to let your friend try to remove it first before doing it on your own.
The spell even says "The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware.."
I can't see how the intent was to simply allow someone to delay to avoid the penalty, though. That's what doesn't follow for me, even if you can finagle the writing to fit the case to allow it.
How does anyone "simply delay to avoid the penalty" in the discussed case? The held person delays, in the hope that a spellcaster is able to remove the condition. Even in the best case scenario, the spellcaster effectively lost their turn (in place of the held person, who reduced their initiative, possibly to their disadvantage). In the worst case scenario (the spellcaster is unable to successfully dispel), both the spellcaster and the held person effectively lose their turns.
Last night I was DMing a session of the Rise of the Runelord adventure path.
** spoiler omitted **
My argument for my interpretation is simple. Hold person does not force someone to take their turn at their initiative point since the option to delay is defined as a 'No Action'. Did I make a bad ruling?
Thank you
I don't see this as complicated - you find yourself held against your will and, as you strain to throw off the magic, you prepare to act immediately upon the end of the spell, be it by save, duration or something else (like Dispel Magic). So long as you allow players to pull off the same trick, I can't imagine what the problem would be, especially considering that in 'real time', all of these actions are happening very close to simultaneously - the players shouldn't technically even know when their opponents actions come in the initiative order, though obviously that's unavoidable.
I wasn't trying to point out that you can delay panicked, just that the logic behind arguing "cannot take any actions" is nearly identical to panicked's "can't take any other actions". Panicked doesn't say anything about "on your turn" or "as soon as possible" so you can freely argue that if you delay (which is being argued doesn't count as any other actions because it "isn't an action") you cannot flee yet.
Just because Panicked says what you have to use your actions for and Hold Person only limits your options to one choice (do I try to save) doesn't change the availability of delay.
Remember that Hold Person is a mental compulsion just as much as Fear is mental. One issues the command "hold still" while the other says "flee". Hold person only says the person is aware, not that they are any more coherent in thinking than the feared individual. If anything their mental faculties are less available as they cannot even cast purely mental spells while being panicked requires them to do so.
Bolded mine.
If we take that into account, still delaying is a valid option.
A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.
As you said before, Hold Person issues the command "hold still", and delaying is just that... holding still. Just as you can do all kind of actions in order to flee while panicked (include complex thinkgs like casting a Teleport or Plane Shift spell) you could delay while you are holded, since you are doing the exact thing the spell commands you to to: hold still, doing nothing more.
Remember that the saving throw is optional and is a full-round action. It's not like Hold Person force you to make a ST each round.
In the case of the Still and Silent spells, Hold Person prevents you from doing so, and you have gave me the reason: the spell commands you to "hold still", not to cast spells.
The very fact that you could voluntarily can fight back the spell (hence the ST) also implies that you can comply to it and do nothing. Then, since delay can be interpreted as "doing nothing to act later", you can delay since your mental faculties are not that severed and in fact, the spell's subject doing nothing is the entire reason of the spell to begin with.
How does anyone "simply delay to avoid the penalty" in the discussed case? The held person delays, in the hope that a spellcaster is able to remove the condition. Even in the best case scenario, the spellcaster effectively lost their turn (in place of the held person, who reduced their initiative, possibly to their disadvantage). In the worst case scenario (the spellcaster is unable to successfully dispel), both the spellcaster and the held person effectively lose their turns.
Would you rather the hypothetical beefed up spellcaster miss his or her turn because of a failed save, or the spellcaster's familiar, who is in possession of a Wand of Dispel Magic?
I'd much rather the BBEG lose the turn as opposed to the mook. That's why I targeted the BBEG in the first place.
I don't see this as complicated - you find yourself held against your will and, as you strain to throw off the magic, you prepare to act immediately upon the end of the spell, be it by save, duration or something else (like Dispel Magic). So long as you allow players to pull off the same trick, I can't imagine what the problem would be, especially considering that in 'real time', all of these actions are happening very close to simultaneously - the players shouldn't technically even know when their opponents actions come in the initiative order, though obviously that's unavoidable.
And I agree with you in that, and the only problem I see in the OP's ruling was the use of the hivemind without a in-game explanation.
But, as this is a Rule Question Thread, the subject at hand is about if you can use Delay while you are subject of a Hold Person spell.
As an aside, I see that many folks that were contributing to this thread came to know about James Jacobs's thoughts on the matter recently, and take it like the Holy Word, thus leaving the debate.
First, since Jason Bulhman is the Lead Designer, I think his opinion would be more relevant as he posess a greater rule knowledge than Jacobs (as Jacobs acknowledges).
Second, even if you could argue that Jacobs's opinion could be taken as RaI, I've seen he clearly advertise against that, as his opinion is just that... his opinion.
Sadly, this thread still lacks the needed enough FAQ flags to get an official Paizo Team answer. :(
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
or
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡︵ ┻━┻︵ ┻━┻
or even
┻━┻︵ \(°□°)/ ︵ ┻━┻
</ragequit>
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
or
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡︵ ┻━┻︵ ┻━┻
or even
┻━┻︵ \(°□°)/ ︵ ┻━┻
</ragequit>
Just like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparantly, the OP's comment (and my response) in the middle of page two was missed. I'm going to place it back here not as an aggressive move towards the OP, but to point out his mindset in regards to initiative and where I believe he went wrong...
Rogue falls from a 200 meter cliff. He is 25.6 meters from the ground and the start of the next turn.
Story A -
Rogue init higher than wizards. Rogue goes splat.Story B -
Rogue init lower than the wizard's. Wizards flies to intercept rogue. Wizard cast fly.Why can't the Rogue in Story A delay and choose to write Story B?
So you want to delay falling...? That sounds really cool on paper, I suppose, but stop thinking of this as a tabletop RPG for a second, and look at it through the eyes of the rogue. "I think I'll just stop falling for 2 seconds to let my wizard friend come down here and save me with a spell..." Yeah, sounds like something that shouldn't happen to me. Also, this example you've provided is exactly the reason you shouldn't be able to delay making your saving throw against the hold person.
Does anyone else think you should be able to delay falling to avoid negative consequences (death)? I know that falling and hold person are different situations, but to me, the intention of delaying is NOT to allow you to escape negative consequences of conditions curently afflicting your character. This is why the FAQ specifically says you can't delay your saving throw against poisons. IMO, any negative conditions occur at your initiative count, not later, and I would play this the same way for monsters as I would for players.
EDIT: Yes, I'm making an RAI arguments, and yes this is the Rules forum, so RAI is not "the law of the land". The point of FAQs, however is changing the law of the land when needed, and I personally feel that this is a situation where things need to be changed. "Delaying" your initiative to avoid falling to your death is, frankly, a silly concept when you look at it through the eyes of the falling character. Hold person is mechanically different in wording, but I can't imagine the intent being any different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you in that a falling character delaying to avoid death is kinda silly.
But.
As I have said before, falling and poison falls into the same category: things that happen, you wanted or not. The ST to avoid poison damage is not conscious, is your body reacting to it without you even notice; with the falling, well... if your PC could consciously cancel gravity at will, you wouldn't be falling in the first place, would you?
OTOH, the saving throws (after the first one) against Hold Person are a different thing. They are voluntary and not reactionary, so you could choose to wait to another moment to try to break free of the spell. In that sense, delay is a valid option for a held character, PC or NPC.
|
The problem here is one of terminology. The word 'action' is used in two completely different game mechanics:-
• 'action', as in full round/standard/move/swift/free/immediate/no action (the headings in the Actions In Combat tables)
• 'action', as in attack/cast a spell/draw a weapon/delay/move my speed/use a spell-like ability/make a knowledge check/withdraw/charge/save versus an ongoing hold person/ready/5-foot step etc. etc. etc. (the individual actions on the Actions In Combat tables)
Delaying is an action in terms of things you choose to do, but not an action in terms of consuming a standard/move/swift action.
The restriction in the spell prevents you choosing to take the actions listed on the tables, like attack/cast a spell/delay. What game actions these activities consume (or not) is not the focus of the restriction.
You can't choose to take special initiative actions when you can't take any actions.
OK, let's get this:
So, you have a table where says the kind of actions a character could make in a round. For simplicity's sake, were grouped as "full-round", "standard", "move", "swift", "inmediate", "free" and "no action". These categories summarize the entire spectrum of thing a character could make in a round.
You say that:
Delaying is an action in terms of things you choose to do, but not an action in terms of consuming a standard/move/swift action.
Hold Person gives you the paralyzed condition AND prevents you from doing any other actions. Why would do that? Because even paralyzed, a spellcaster could cast a Silenced Still spell or use a SLA... or whatever.
Nonetheless, it doesn't prevents you from thinking, as you are aware of your situation.So, as DeltaOneG pointed out, Hold Person is a magical mental compulsion, and its ST is optional (after the first one). That mental compulsion is something like "hold still and don't move", therefore negating any effort you would try to make.
But then we find out that delay, although been a "Special Initiative Action" not consume any time (so is regarded as a "no action") and don't need any effort to be accomplished so you don't need to do anything in order to delay...
Then, by delaying, you are only complying to the spell's effect for a brief time (maybe 2 seconds).
Now, you are taking a verbatim approach saying that, as delay is reflected in the "Actions in Combat" table, you can't delay. But you forget that the table exists to inform the players what kind of things a character could do in the Pathfinder RPG combat and, by verbatim, the spell never refers to such table in the terms of which actions prevents.
Now that I think about it, by the same route...
Could a held spellcaster make use of Spellcraft to know what's happening to him/her after failing the first saving throw? Could even use skills like Perception and Knowledge(any) while held?
I would think that yes, he/she can.
Because the spellcaster is still aware. His/Her senses still work and can think... since Hold Person's description doesn't say something like "the subject cannot think while held and only can do it in order to break free of the spell", like (in some way) the panicked condition states.
|
|
Special initiative actions are actions which the creature can choose to take.
A paralysed creature could choose to delay, because delaying is a purely mental action, a type of action which he is still allowed to take.
However, hold person prevents you from taking any actions, even purely mental actions. So special initiative actions are not allowed when held.
Well, re-reading the Hold Person description, I've found that is a mind-affecting spell (and thus having the mind affecting sub-descriptor). Preventing mental actions (like delay and Knowledge checks) sounds logical from there... unless they are using the other meaning of the word 'action': used as a reference for in-game round time consume.
If with 'action' are referring to 'moments', then you could delay because it isn't a full round, standard, move, swift, inmediate or free action. It clearly says that is "no action".
If with action are referring to 'events', then you can't delay by RaW... even if its a spell that commands you to do nothing and you do... nothing. Weird.
In any case, I think that's the meaning of "action" in the spell description is the heart of the matter, and what should be clarified by the Paizo Staff.
I think most people are forgetting one very important thing about hold person:
HOLD PERSON
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]
Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.
A person under the effect of a hold person spell isn't in their right frame of mind. I would say they don't get to make the decision to delay. They may know that a dispel magic is one turn away but they are compelled to not take any actions regardless.
The restriction in the spell prevents you choosing to take the actions listed on the tables, like attack/cast a spell/delay. What game actions these activities consume (or not) is not the focus of the restriction.
Sorry Malachi, but you have this entirely backwards :)
The restricted actions are game actions. That is you cannot take a standard action, cannot take a move action, cannot take a free action, cannot take a swift or immediate action. Even silent/still spells require a standard action which is why by RAW you can't cast them (I wouldn't run it that way in my game, I'd allow the caster who burned the spell levels and feats for such to use his silent/still spell).
Being paralyzed also prevents you from taking non-actions that would involve movement (5' step).
"It is aware..."
Being aware is a mental state. Being aware means after you were held you can still see that big creature that just came through the door and is about to pulverize your paralyzed self into mush. You can't do anything about it, but you are aware it is happening. Being aware means you also used a reactive kn check 'action' to recognize that it was an ogre. Being aware means you can make perception checks regarding things going on around you. Or spellcraft checks. Again you can't do anything about any of these things - but you are fully aware of them. All of these are the fabled 'no action' actions (oxymoron?). Being aware allows all of these things.
A person under the effect of a hold person spell isn't in their right frame of mind.
Being aware suggests this is not the case. The spell doesn't say they have limited awareness, or partial awareness.
I think most people are forgetting one very important thing about hold person:
HOLD PERSON
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.A person under the effect of a hold person spell isn't in their right frame of mind. I would say they don't get to make the decision to delay. They may know that a dispel magic is one turn away but they are compelled to not take any actions regardless.
Great point here - Based on this (and my personal opinion), I believe the hold person spell should be errata'd to read as follows:
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 must attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown.
Would you rather the hypothetical beefed up spellcaster miss his or her turn because of a failed save, or the spellcaster's familiar, who is in possession of a Wand of Dispel Magic?
I'd much rather the BBEG lose the turn as opposed to the mook. That's why I targeted the BBEG in the first place.
If the BBEG had the foresight to equip his familiar with a wand of dispel magic as opposed to any of a large number of other wands that might be more useful in most cases, more power to him. It would rule the same if a player decided to arm his familiar with a dispel magic wand for the same purpose. The BBEG will be just as miffed at you getting out of his spell in a manner other then expected then getting to act just as you are miffed the BBEG gets out of his in an manner other then expected and getting to act.
Great point here - Based on this (and my personal opinion), I believe the hold person spell should be errata'd to read as follows:
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 must attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown.
That is a good way to solve the problem. Of course, there can be other solutions according with the different interpretations given in this thread.
Being aware suggests this is not the case. The spell doesn't say they have limited awareness, or partial awareness.
A person under the effect of a hold person spell isn't in their right frame of mind.
Oh, they most certainly are aware of what's going on. But they're compelled to take no actions. Quoting from the PRD:
Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.
Hold person says, "Hold right there. Don't move. Don't... Do... Anything." The target has no choice but to obey. Their turn comes up in initiative and the held player (or the GM controlling the held NPC) says, "I do nothing," and you move on to the next person in initiative.
I'd insist the held person make a frowny face and seethe heavily. Just like you'd imagine in a movie or TV show or something. Save or suck doesn't mean you can't have some fun with it. :)
Good point Ansel.
I was defending the "you can delay while held" based in that Hold Person affects the subject like a taser would do to a person in real life.
However, since this is a fantasy game, you can always say: "It's magic... duh".
And from that perspective, makes sense that you must focus your will (and thus spending a full-round action) to break free of the spell... unless the 'aware' part in the spell's description means that the spells only affects the subject's motor ability and deep, complex thought.
In such case, delay is an option.
If the BBEG had the foresight to equip his familiar with a wand of dispel magic as opposed to any of a large number of other wands that might be more useful in most cases, more power to him. It would rule the same if a player decided to arm his familiar with a dispel magic wand for the same purpose. The BBEG will be just as miffed at you getting out of his spell in a manner other then expected then getting to act just as you are miffed the BBEG gets out of his in an manner other then expected and getting to act.Would you rather the hypothetical beefed up spellcaster miss his or her turn because of a failed save, or the spellcaster's familiar, who is in possession of a Wand of Dispel Magic?
I'd much rather the BBEG lose the turn as opposed to the mook. That's why I targeted the BBEG in the first place.
1. I probably wouldn't allow PCs to do it either.
2. It's a bit different when you're thwarting PC actions like that as the DM. And if you're focusing on the spellcaster/familiar thing, you're missing the larger point - that's merely the first example that came to mind.
I think most people are forgetting one very important thing about hold person:
HOLD PERSON
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.A person under the effect of a hold person spell isn't in their right frame of mind. I would say they don't get to make the decision to delay. They may know that a dispel magic is one turn away but they are compelled to not take any actions regardless.
I think this is the only good argument I've seen why a held creature can't delay their action. It would be better if the text of the spell were written that the held creature must attempt the save as a full round action instead of may. With that may in there, it suggests the held creature could elect to do nothing... which is basically the same as delaying.
Does anyone else think you should be able to delay falling to avoid negative consequences (death)? I know that falling and hold person are different situations, but to me, the intention of delaying is NOT to allow you to escape negative consequences of conditions curently afflicting your character.
That is not even comparable. You have to make a conscious effort to make that save which is an action. Delaying allows you to choose when to make that action. There is nothing in hold person which takes that choice away.
I don't agree with the "hivemind" aspect, but beyond that it is legal per RAI also.
The problem here is one of terminology. The word 'action' is used in two completely different game mechanics:-
• 'action', as in full round/standard/move/swift/free/immediate/no action (the headings in the Actions In Combat tables)
• 'action', as in attack/cast a spell/draw a weapon/delay/move my speed/use a spell-like ability/make a knowledge check/withdraw/charge/save versus an ongoing hold person/ready/5-foot step etc. etc. etc. (the individual actions on the Actions In Combat tables)
Delaying is an action in terms of things you choose to do, but not an action in terms of consuming a standard/move/swift action.
The restriction in the spell prevents you choosing to take the actions listed on the tables, like attack/cast a spell/delay. What game actions these activities consume (or not) is not the focus of the restriction.
You can't choose to take special initiative actions when you can't take any actions.
By the rules delaying takes no action. It is just under a category that has the word "Action" in the the name. It is basically similar to the "level" word problem.
I think most people are forgetting one very important thing about hold person:
HOLD PERSON
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.A person under the effect of a hold person spell isn't in their right frame of mind. I would say they don't get to make the decision to delay. They may know that a dispel magic is one turn away but they are compelled to not take any actions regardless.
The spell says you are aware. Without any confusion(not the game term) in play there is no restriction in play.
Does anyone else think you should be able to delay falling to avoid negative consequences (death)?
I'll try to justify this. Not necessarily in the sense of how the rules are, but as requested, how they SHOULD be.
The negative consequences should be checked either on the character's turn or at the end of the round if the character delays beyond the round. The character should be able to delay until then.
High initiative is supposed to be a good thing. You are quicker/more aware than anyone else, so you get to act first.
Now let's assume a round where you begin in mid-fall. Going first is now a BAD thing. Your wizard can't save you before you splat. Neither your quickness nor awareness justify moving before the wizard (you can't fall meaningfully quicker or slower). It's solely a mechanical artifact based on how the combat began.
It's one thing to say a high initiative lets you leap to attack or whip out a weapon or fire off a spell before anyone else. It's another to say it lets the poison spread through your body faster or that you hurtle towards the ground quicker, or that you have an opportunity to do nothing (hold person) faster.
The initiative mechanics makes sense when it justifies the first set of actions, but it doesn't when it is applied to the second. However, since things happening to you on your turn is firmly tied to your order in initiative, it's not easily to decouple entirely.
A good solution is to allow you to delay your turn in any circumstance, so your reflexes/combat awareness do you no favors, but also doesn't create the situation where because you're a reactive person or a warrior priest, or that you have a killer instinct of the beast, that you fall through the sky or poison flows through your veins faster than it would for someone without those abilities.
To prevent abuse and make sure the conditions do affect you in a reasonable time, they happen either when you take your turn, or at the end of the round, whichever comes first.
Being aware suggests this is not the case. The spell doesn't say they have limited awareness, or partial awareness.
A person under the effect of a hold person spell isn't in their right frame of mind.
Oh, they most certainly are aware of what's going on. But they're compelled to take no actions. Quoting from the PRD:
Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.Hold person says, "Hold right there. Don't move. Don't... Do... Anything." The target has no choice but to obey. Their turn comes up in initiative and the held player (or the GM controlling the held NPC) says, "I do nothing," and you move on to the next person in initiative.
I'd insist the held person make a frowny face and seethe heavily. Just like you'd imagine in a movie or TV show or something. Save or suck doesn't mean you can't have some fun with it. :)
Your free will to take an action is taken away for hold person. It does not take away your free will in every sense of the word. As an example a Geas-Quest can still resist orders by trying to subvert them, and that takes free will. You have to look at the spell in question to see how your free will is being manipulated.
School enchantment (compulsion) ;A clever recipient can subvert some instructions.
edit:dominate person says the subject can resist certain orders. That requires free will, and nothing in hold person says the person is so out of their minds to choose to not break the spell aka not take an action.