Hold Person and Delaying Initiative


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

The spell denies the subject the choice to take any actions at all...!

...with a single exception. The subject may choose to attempt another save as a full round action, but the subject doesn't have to.

Delaying is an action you take (a special initiative action) that doesn't cost a full round/standard/move/swift/free/immediate action to perform.


Ximen Bao wrote:
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.

Well, since feather fall is an immediate action, they can regardless of anyone's initiative.

Ximen Bao wrote:
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.

I wouldn't say that having a higher initiative lets a poison spread through your body faster.

I would, however, say that if your friend has a lower initiative that they won't react fast enough to cast delay poison in time.


I don't see any rule arguments against delaying. The arguments that it breaks the effect of the spell is moot since the ally of the target could simply have had the appropriate initiative score to cast the dispel magic before the target even got a turn.

Delaying is actually quite dangerous, in general. If it allows an enemy to move adjacent, that sets them up for a coup-de-grace if the dispel (and subsequent saving throw) fail, whereas they would have had a second chance to save if they had attempted it prior to the enemy's turn.

Now... springing it on the players is another matter, but it sounds like it worked out in the end. Sometimes discovering a little-known rule makes things interesting.

I'm more interested in people's opinions on the effects of Delaying vs. glitterdust, which is not an action, and specifically says "end of turn".


Ansel Krulwich wrote:
Ximen Bao wrote:
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.

Well, since feather fall is an immediate action, they can regardless of anyone's initiative.

This assumes a non-immediate action is necessary, so assume he doesn't have feather fall prepared and needs to use levitate or something.

Ansel Krulwich wrote:


Ximen Bao wrote:
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.

I wouldn't say that having a higher initiative lets a poison spread through your body faster.

I would, however, say that if your friend has a lower initiative that they won't react fast enough to cast delay poison in time.

React fast enough to what?

If the poison was affecting a slow person, the friend could react.
If the poison was affecting a fast person, the friend could not react.

Since they're trying to react to the poison, not the person, this shows the problem of tying the effect speed to the person's speed.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The spell denies the subject the choice to take any actions at all...!

...with a single exception. The subject may choose to attempt another save as a full round action, but the subject doesn't have to.

Delaying is an action you take (a special initiative action) that doesn't cost a full round/standard/move/swift/free/immediate action to perform.

I already addresses that. The RAW says delaying does not take an actioe Just because it is listed under special initiative actions that doea make it an action if the text says it is not.


Majuba wrote:

I don't see any rule arguments against delaying. The arguments that it breaks the effect of the spell is moot since the ally of the target could simply have had the appropriate initiative score to cast the dispel magic before the target even got a turn.

Delaying is actually quite dangerous, in general. If it allows an enemy to move adjacent, that sets them up for a coup-de-grace if the dispel (and subsequent saving throw) fail, whereas they would have had a second chance to save if they had attempted it prior to the enemy's turn.

Now... springing it on the players is another matter, but it sounds like it worked out in the end. Sometimes discovering a little-known rule makes things interesting.

I'm more interested in people's opinions on the effects of Delaying vs. glitterdust, which is not an action, and specifically says "end of turn".

RAW I would say it allows for the delay. RAI I am not sure. I don't think the rules always take such things into account when they are written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All this is an action/isn't an action stuff kind of misses the point.

Your job as a DM is to make the game fun.

Here's a simple rule:

It can be fun when the players exploit a rules loophole to the disadvantage of their enemies.

It's NEVER fun when the DM exploits a rules loophole to the disadvantage of the PCs. You already have plot knowledge and the ability to craft the encounter on your side, if you think your PCs are doing too well use those things instead.

So, even if what you described is technically allowable, you shouldn't do it.

Ken


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kenmckinney wrote:

All this is an action/isn't an action stuff kind of misses the point.

Your job as a DM is to make the game fun.

Here's a simple rule:

It can be fun when the players exploit a rules loophole to the disadvantage of their enemies.

It's NEVER fun when the DM exploits a rules loophole to the disadvantage of the PCs. You already have plot knowledge and the ability to craft the encounter on your side, if you think your PCs are doing too well use those things instead.

So, even if what you described is technically allowable, you shouldn't do it.

Ken

This is off the mark for the purpose of the rules forum. Fun is important, but the rules forum is for 'how does this actually work'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would actually agree with the players on this one.

The biggest issue I have is the use of metagame, How did creature intuitively know that the caster was going to immediately dispel it and, therefore, delay his turn rather than rationally attempting to break the enchantment. If it is an action/isn't an action, it really doesn't matter as bbangerter stated.


Without wanting to wade through all the pages, I can't see the issue here, but RAW.... I can see a problem with it.

Hold person gives you the paralysed condition
Paralysed gives you Str 0.
Str 0 makes you unconscious.

I don't think you can delay when you are unconscious. I can't actually see any rules to support that theory though.

Ignoring that minor problem... Special initiative actions don't specify that they are an action type. The word 'action' It seems more a 'header' section than actually meaning they are 'actions' per say. Even if you wanted to say special actions are an action, to quote the SRD on the Delay action...

"By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act."

Not the 'you take no action' which to me implies that it is 'not an action'. The only iterp that it's going to come down to is whether the delay is a standard action (as there is no action type specified so should default to nonoe).... even still... a paralysed char CAN take purely mental actions (which I'd assume delaying would be characterised as because there is no physical action involved with it).

From a logical front, I have no issue with it. Had the other creature been acting first anyway, then the outcome would have been the same. It's a little worse here because they were 1 after the other, but logically speaking if they were at opposite ends of the round, the BBEG has just ignored his chance to break free and been flat footed a whole round hoping his buddy will want to dispel instead of smite, AND that he'll pass the dispel check. Helm to gunnery decks.... LAUNCH ROGUES.

From a fluff perspective, I can WELL see... maybe not a delay and calmly waiting and testing if he can move or not, but I CAN see a ready action of "As soon as I can move, I'm going to charge that so-and-so in the pointy hat for turning me into a statue." which would be more straining against it waiting for it to pop and then exploding in a slavering frenzy of barbarian love.

So.... there's a question on if it's rules legal (but I can't see anything explicit that you can't delay when unconscious), but it ticks "logical outcome not being too broken" and fluff for me.


Zilkaiden wrote:

I would actually agree with the players on this one.

The biggest issue I have is the use of metagame, How did creature intuitively know that the caster was going to immediately dispel it and, therefore, delay his turn rather than rationally attempting to break the enchantment. If it is an action/isn't an action, it really doesn't matter as bbangerter stated.

I think that the rule for not being able to delay a save makes this a mostly moot point, but let's assume that the creature was paralyzed for some other hypothetical reason that didn't require a full action to save, but that doesn't deny you the ability to take mental actions.

What other option does a paralyzed character really have other than delaying his action?


Ecaterina Ducaird wrote:

Without wanting to wade through all the pages, I can't see the issue here, but RAW.... I can see a problem with it.

Hold person gives you the paralysed condition
Paralysed gives you Str 0.
Str 0 makes you unconscious.

That is not true. Being paralyzed does not cause Str or Dex 0. It is the other way around. If that were true paralyzed characters could not take mental actions.


Delaying may also get you coup d grace'd, especially if the caster brings a melee type to stand beside you with dimension door, as an example.

Had you taken made that save, you would not be about to have to make a much more difficult fort save.


wraithstrike wrote:

Delaying may also get you coup d grace'd, especially if the caster brings a melee type to stand beside you with dimension door, as an example.

Had you taken made that save, you would not be about to have to make a much more difficult fort save.

Drastically less relevant when it's the DM making the decision to delay, knowing precisely when everybody acts.


fretgod99 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Delaying may also get you coup d grace'd, especially if the caster brings a melee type to stand beside you with dimension door, as an example.

Had you taken made that save, you would not be about to have to make a much more difficult fort save.

Drastically less relevant when it's the DM making the decision to delay, knowing precisely when everybody acts.

True, but a GM metagaming will give the party more trouble than normal anyway. I think there are more neutral GM's than there are ones that will go out of their way to help the bad guys win.


wraithstrike wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Delaying may also get you coup d grace'd, especially if the caster brings a melee type to stand beside you with dimension door, as an example.

Had you taken made that save, you would not be about to have to make a much more difficult fort save.

Drastically less relevant when it's the DM making the decision to delay, knowing precisely when everybody acts.
True, but a GM metagaming will give the party more trouble than normal anyway. I think there are more neutral GM's than there are ones that will go out of their way to help the bad guys win.

Right, that GM wouldn't pull the delay shenanigans. But then again, if that happened we wouldn't be here in the first place. ;)

Anyway, I've said my piece. Strict RAW doesn't seem to disallow it, but I cannot imagine that it's something that was actually intended to be a usable tactic to thwart a Hold Person spell.


I don't think it is so much disallowed per RAI, as it is a situation that was not thought of when the rules were made. Corner cases like this are normally not what a designer is thinking about.

I would not be surprised if it was not RAI, but I also think it is another way to backup my logic of killing caster first, if they are supporting the BBEG.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The spell denies the subject the choice to take any actions at all...!

...with a single exception. The subject may choose to attempt another save as a full round action, but the subject doesn't have to.

Delaying is an action you take (a special initiative action) that doesn't cost a full round/standard/move/swift/free/immediate action to perform.

I already addresses that. The RAW says delaying does not take an actioe Just because it is listed under special initiative actions that doea make it an action if the text says it is not.

In the Actions In Combat tables, the possible action types are:-

• standard
• move
• full round
• free
• swift
• immediate
• no action

'No action' is an action type. The actions under that heading are actions you choose to take.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

That's hilarious Malachi!


First for the OP I hope your friend cools down. Not a great response and way out of line from the simple presentation here.

Now as to the rules question this to me seems like straight shenanigans. The dude was held. That is the end of his turn unless he makes his save. Delaying implies you have an action to take. Being held removes the opportunity to delay your actions because you can't take any. Lets see no available actions therefore no available actions to delay.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The spell denies the subject the choice to take any actions at all...!

...with a single exception. The subject may choose to attempt another save as a full round action, but the subject doesn't have to.

Delaying is an action you take (a special initiative action) that doesn't cost a full round/standard/move/swift/free/immediate action to perform.

I already addresses that. The RAW says delaying does not take an actioe Just because it is listed under special initiative actions that doea make it an action if the text says it is not.

In the Actions In Combat tables, the possible action types are:-

• standard
• move
• full round
• free
• swift
• immediate
• no action

'No action' is an action type. The actions under that heading are actions you choose to take.

Actually a very good point here. In the combat section, "No action" has two different actions listed - Delay and 5-foot step. That goes a bit further in reenforcing my thought that you should not be able to delay while under the effects of hold person, since the other "no action" is 5 foot step, and it's a lot less ambiguous on whether taking a 5 foot step would be allowed.

Also, wraithstrike is likely right, this is a corner case that designers likely never considered - which leads me to thought that RAI is probably the more obvious choice, and since most of us (most, not all) had never really given this much thought before this thread popped up, RAI would seem to be that you should not be able to delay while under the effects of hold person.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The spell denies the subject the choice to take any actions at all...!

...with a single exception. The subject may choose to attempt another save as a full round action, but the subject doesn't have to.

Delaying is an action you take (a special initiative action) that doesn't cost a full round/standard/move/swift/free/immediate action to perform.

I already addresses that. The RAW says delaying does not take an actioe Just because it is listed under special initiative actions that doea make it an action if the text says it is not.

In the Actions In Combat tables, the possible action types are:-

• standard
• move
• full round
• free
• swift
• immediate
• no action

'No action' is an action type. The actions under that heading are actions you choose to take.

No action is not an action type. It is just there to let you know some things don't use an action, even though you are performing an act.

PRD wrote:


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 are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

The name alone tells you all you need to know. "Not an action" is literally not an action.


Gnomezrule wrote:

First for the OP I hope your friend cools down. Not a great response and way out of line from the simple presentation here.

Now as to the rules question this to me seems like straight shenanigans. The dude was held. That is the end of his turn unless he makes his save. Delaying implies you have an action to take. Being held removes the opportunity to delay your actions because you can't take any. Lets see no available actions therefore no available actions to delay.

He did fail his save but the next round a person being held can make another save as a full round action to break the spell. The BBEG chose to delay instead of immediately make his 2nd attempt to break the spell.

Silver Crusade

Quote:

No action is not an action type. It is just there to let you know some things don't use an action, even though you are performing an act.

PRD wrote:

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 are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
The name alone tells you all you need to know. "Not an action" is literally not an action.

If it were true that the actions listed under the action type 'no action' were not actions, then a paralysed person could nock an arrow to a bow.


Now if you want to move away from the game definition of "action" and say they meant an act that required conscious effort, that would be more likely to restrict the spell, in case someone comes up with another way to bypass it. Of course that still leaves delaying open since waiting is not really an action, and by delaying that is all you are doing.

In case I need more proof:

Quote:

Action Types

An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.

As you see neither "no action" or "not an action" are listed.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:

No action is not an action type. It is just there to let you know some things don't use an action, even though you are performing an act.

PRD wrote:

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 are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
The name alone tells you all you need to know. "Not an action" is literally not an action.

If it were true that the actions listed under the action type 'no action' were not actions, then a paralysed person could nock an arrow to a bow.

Since a paralyzed person can't move, that would not be true, and read my quote above this one.

Lantern Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


If it were true that the actions listed under the action type 'no action' were not actions, then a paralysed person could nock an arrow to a bow.

If a character had an action available to fire a bow, the nocking would not require an additional action, but a paralyzed individual cannot fire a bow, and therefore cannot perform the ancillary 'no action' associated with it. The arrow nocking was specifically listed as an example of something included in another activity requiring an actual action, so is not a very good parallel to delaying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To those that are stating that the "no action" on the table specifies actions:

1. There isn't a "no action" action. Nothing in "Actions in Combat" appears to support that notion. Delay is a Special Initiative Action, but the beginning of "Actions in Combat" specifies what actions count as actions. Everything else is not an action. This does not mean it is a "no action".

2. 5 foot step is not a "no action", it is a miscellaneous action, which doesn't even count as an action. Once again, there is no category of actions labeled "No Action". It is merely listed on the table for convenient reference. The section labeled "Actions in Combat" specifies every action that exists within the game mechanics.

3. This table that people keep referencing also says that "Prepare to throw splash weapon" is a full-round action yet the text makes no reference to this at all. The table does not dictate the rules, the rules text does.

That said, I agree that you shouldn't be able to delay your initiative to avoid making a saving throw. It is how I would rule it at my tables, and there is enough evidence on both sides to rule it either way. This issue doesn't come up often enough to make it FAQ worthy so I would expect table variation unless a developer decides to make a clarification post about it.

P.S. Nocking an arrow is a free action, not a so-called "no action"


Rules aside, I stand by my statement of this being a situation that the devs did not think of when they created the "hold person" spell, so unless this is FAQ'd each GM(and/or group) should decide for themselves how to play it.

Silver Crusade

Robert A Matthews wrote:
P.S. Nocking an arrow is a free action, not a so-called "no action"
Quote:
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 are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

Drawing an arrow is a free action. Nocking an arrow is not.


Regardless of it's validity(it could be argued either way) if the players are role playing and in general not meta-gaming during combat I wouldn't have done it.

If they are meta-gaming during combat often I would have felt free to have the npc's/monsters do the same.

However,I would have been prepared for the outcry that would surly erupt by having a dozen ways to point out what is good for them is good for the adversaries.

My players tend to want to hold tactical discussions at the table,in the middle of combat on a regular bases.

So I ruled anything said at the table was being yelled back and forth in combat(in game) for all to hear.

That toned down on the tactics cross talking and speed up the game a little.


OK, then nocking an arrow is part of attacking with the bow just like it says. It still mentions nothing about this "no action".

Quote:
considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow

The "no action" doesn't exist.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ximen Bao wrote:
MechE_ wrote:


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.

You assume that falling has something to do with your initiative. If that was true feather fall would be a swift action that you cast on your turn. Instead it is a immediate action that you can cast when the event that cause you to fall happen.

Teh rules about falling say:

PRD wrote:

Falling

Creatures that fall take 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6. Creatures that take lethal damage from a fall land in a prone position.

If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumps, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage. And if the character leaps down with a successful Acrobatics check, he takes only 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 1d6 points of lethal damage from the plunge.

Falls onto yielding surfaces (soft ground, mud) also convert the first 1d6 of damage to nonlethal damage. This reduction is cumulative with reduced damage due to deliberate jumps and the Acrobatics skill.

A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall. Casting a spell while falling requires a concentration check with a DC equal to 20 + the spell's level. Casting teleport or a similar spell while falling does not end your momentum, it just changes your location, meaning that you still take falling damage, even if you arrive atop a solid surface.

Falling into Water: Falls into water are handled somewhat differently. If the water is at least 10 feet deep, the first 20 feet of falling do no damage. The next 20 feet do nonlethal damage (1d3 per 10-foot increment). Beyond that, falling damage is lethal damage (1d6 per additional 10-foot increment).

Characters who deliberately dive into water take no damage on a successful DC 15 Swim check or DC 15 Acrobatics check, so long as the water is at least 10 feet deep for every 30 feet fallen. The DC of the check, however, increases by 5 for every 50 feet of the dive. .

Nothing about "you fall on your turn" or some such. I, as a GM, would say that, if you fall for more than a round, you fall at the initiative count at which the fall started, regardless of your initiative count.

You have started a 1.000' plunge at initiative 10, when the BEEG dispelled your fly spell? You fall your first 500' immediately, then, at your initiative count, you get to try to cast your spell, and when initiative count 10 come again you fall the other 500' and hit the terrain.

Ximen Bao wrote:


React fast enough to what?

If the poison was affecting a slow person, the friend could react.
If the poison was affecting a fast person, the friend could not react.

Since they're trying to react to the poison, not the person, this shows the problem of tying the effect speed to the person's speed.

Your initiative is 25, your friend initiative is 15, you are poisoned at initiative count 30. Your friend don't get to act.

Your initiative is 25, your friend initiative is 15, you are poisoned at initiative count 20. Your friend get to act.
Your initiative is 25, your friend initiative is 15, you are poisoned at initiative count 10. Your friend don't get to act.

The round is a cycle. After the surprise round and the initial round have ended an high initiative has very little effect. The relative initiative count of friends or foes matter much more.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.

Can dazed creatures take a 5-foot step on their turn?

Quote:
Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).

Can stunned creatures take a 5-foot step?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Majuba wrote:

I don't see any rule arguments against delaying. The arguments that it breaks the effect of the spell is moot since the ally of the target could simply have had the appropriate initiative score to cast the dispel magic before the target even got a turn.

Delaying is actually quite dangerous, in general. If it allows an enemy to move adjacent, that sets them up for a coup-de-grace if the dispel (and subsequent saving throw) fail, whereas they would have had a second chance to save if they had attempted it prior to the enemy's turn.

Now... springing it on the players is another matter, but it sounds like it worked out in the end. Sometimes discovering a little-known rule makes things interesting.

I'm more interested in people's opinions on the effects of Delaying vs. glitterdust, which is not an action, and specifically says "end of turn".

RAW I would say it allows for the delay. RAI I am not sure. I don't think the rules always take such things into account when they are written.

If we are speaking of what action is the Delay special Action, I would say that it is not an action at all.

If we are speaking of Hold person and the Delay action RAW I would say that it is unclear and I would say that RAI it work as the paralyzed condition.
For me the "The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place." part of the spell define exactly what it do, while the "It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech." is only a colloquial description of its effect.
I see perfectly how other people can think differently and feel that the RAI is for the target to be unable to take any action/non action beside trying to break free.
My thinking could be affected by how it worked in the 1st and 2nd edition, where you were capable to take purely mental action.
The spell is a good candidate for a FAQ as there are plenty of creatures with supernatural abilities that would work even if they were paralyzed and Hold monster work like Hold person.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.

Can dazed creatures take a 5-foot step on their turn?

Quote:
Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).

Can stunned creatures take a 5-foot step?

You're starting to convince me they can.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Robert A Matthews wrote:

OK, then nocking an arrow is part of attacking with the bow just like it says. It still mentions nothing about this "no action".

Quote:
considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow
The "no action" doesn't exist.
PRD wrote:
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 are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

Not an action.

PRD wrote:


No Action Attack of Opportunity1
Delay .................. No
5-foot step ............ No

No Action.

There are both "No action" and "Not an action" in the game, and they are different things, as the "Not an action" is a inherent part of another action, while the "No action" is a activity that is separate from making an action.


I'd allow it.

To me, escaping from Hold Person is like escaping from being Pinned, only it requires mental rather than physical effort.

If you were Pinned and all you could do on your turn was try to make a CMB check to break free, you might choose to delay and hope one of your allies could kill the enemy or cast Freedom of Movement on you so you could do something more productive on your own turn.

Postponing a mental effort to break free is no different from postponing a physical attempt to break free.

I would speculate that the 'can take purely mental actions' description of paralysis is RAI and was not intended to be overridden by the Hold Person spell.

If you're more interested in RAW, listing Delay as 'No Action' specifies that it is not an action. Just because there are some examples of other things that are not actions on another page does not mean that No Action can be an action.

Say, did you ever notice that a 5-foot step is listed as a Miscellaneous action (page 189), a Free action (page 181, in the AoO example text) and No Action in table 8-2? One might almost conclude that the rules were ambiguous in some way...

Silver Crusade

I've made a new thread: Can you take actions when you can't take actions?

There's more detail in the first post than in the title, obviously.

Pop over and hit FAQ.


@Malachi, the current title is nonsensical. It also shows the heavy bias that you believe 'no actions' are some form of actual action. Remove the bias please.

Further I think it should be broken down into two separate questions for the 5' step and the delay - while both are 'no action' they have very different behaviors and could easily be ruled differently.


As JJ sez "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."

Thereby, despite the machinations of the meaning of a "no action action", you can't delay while held.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DrDeth wrote:

As JJ sez "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."

Thereby, despite the machinations of the meaning of a "no action action", you can't delay while held.

So JJ opinion is that you can't take mental actions while under the effect of Hold Person/Monster?

Or that delay is a physical action?


Diego Rossi wrote:

So JJ opinion is that you can't take mental actions while under the effect of Hold Person/Monster?

Or that delay is a physical action?

I would assume that's indeed his opinion. Why would he think differently if the hold person spell is perfectly clear that you can't take any actions except for attempting a will save as a full round action to end the spell?

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

As JJ sez "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."

Thereby, despite the machinations of the meaning of a "no action action", you can't delay while held.

So JJ opinion is that you can't take mental actions while under the effect of Hold Person/Monster?

Or that delay is a physical action?

Just to be clear, while being held gives you the paralysed condition, and that condition allows you to take purely mental actions, being held also prevents you from taking any actions, with the single exception of attempting a new will save as a full round action.

Hold Person wrote:
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 may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Silver Crusade

DrDeth wrote:

As JJ sez "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."

Thereby, despite the machinations of the meaning of a "no action action", you can't delay while held.

It would be useful if you could provide a link, or cut&paste JJ's comment.


DrDeth wrote:

As JJ sez "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."

Thereby, despite the machinations of the meaning of a "no action action", you can't delay while held.

The book disagrees with JJ, and he has said some posters know the rules better than he does so "JJ sez" is not a valid argument.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Funny how being held doesn't prevent your from taking conscious actions, just physical ones.

Silver Crusade

bbangerter wrote:
@Malachi, the current title is nonsensical. It also shows the heavy bias that you believe 'no actions' are some form of actual action. Remove the bias please.

While the title is deliberately provocative to entice people to look, the actual first post is what will get the FAQ request and this contains the actual question. It is written in such a way that the PDT will know exactly what is being asked and therefore know which answer is required.

Quote:
Further I think it should be broken down into two separate questions for the 5' step and the delay - while both are 'no action' they have very different behaviors and could easily be ruled differently.

But the very argument for being able to delay while held is entirely based on it's status as 'no action', despite being a special initiative action.

If 'no action' means it's not an action then it's equally true for both delay and 5-foot step.

While being paralysed stops a 5-foot step (because it also says you cannot move), you are not paralysed when dazed or stunned, so there is nothing preventing you from taking a 5-foot step beyond being unable to take any actions. If 'no action' refers only to action type (standard/move etc.) then there is nothing preventing a 5-foot step or a delay. But if 'can't take any actions' includes those activities you choose to do on your turn (even though they don't cost you an action type) then you can't take a 5-foot step OR delay.


The special initiative action is not action, and delaying specifically says it does not take an actions. You can take an action, and not take an action at the same time. This is just like your you can take standard actoin, but not take a standard action argument that you tried to use in the manyshot thread.

You are either doing something or you are not.

And please stop with the silly 5-foot step argument. Paralysis means you can't move. It does not even need the "no action" verbage to stop that since you can't 5 foot step without moving.

PRD wrote:
paralyzed character cannot move, speak, or take any physical action. He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless. Not even friends can move his limbs. He may take purely mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components.

"Can't move" and "rooted to the spot" stop 5 foot steps twice.

So now how are you going to 5 foot step if you can't move?


Wraithstrike et al, if you are arguing for Hold Person to allow for "mental actions" and you are defining "delay" as a mental action, are you also saying that a subject under hold person could use su/sp/ex abilities which are mental actions as well?

This in turn would then bring up the conundrum of you can't take any actions and yet using a spell-like ability, which is a purely mental action, that consumes a standard action of time, normally.

151 to 200 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Hold Person and Delaying Initiative All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.