|
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.
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?
Do you even read my posts at all?
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.
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.
My argument is that delaying is not an action at all. As for mental actions they would be allowed under paralysis, but hold person specifically says you can not take actions, which would override the normal paralysis rules, so you could not even use an SLA while under hold person by my interpretation.
With that aside even if by actions, they mean "acts", delaying should still work because by delaying you are just waiting until later to try to fight against the magic.
Hold Person says: You can't do anything except try to get rid of me
Person being held: Ok, I will wait until the initiative count of 10 instead of trying on 16 to get rid of you.
edit:This is just a rules argument. They may come down and say the RAW is against the spirit of the rules in this case, and I would understand if they did.
Do you even read my posts at all?
My post came 4 minutes after yours. You just happened to finish first. That post was not there when I started typing.
My post came 4 minutes after yours. You just happened to finish first. That post was not there when I started typing.
Do you even read my posts at all?
Ooookaaay...I'll buy that. : )
I'd appreciate it if you responded to it's point, though.
I did, but it was in the other thread.. :)
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.
I see absolutely no reason why a paralyzed superman couldn't eyebeam a person standing directly in front of him.
|
|
I see absolutely no reason why a paralyzed superman couldn't eyebeam a person standing directly in front of him.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.
While a paralysed Superman could use his heat vision, a held Superman could not.
Hence why I didn't bring holder person/monster into it.
I see absolutely no reason why a paralyzed superman couldn't eyebeam a person standing directly in front of him.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.
In Pathfinder it would most likely take some type of action to do so. In real life I would agree however.. :)
edit: The retriever has eye beams, and if you could paralyze it I doubt it could use those beams..
|
|
I did, but it was in the other thread.. :)My post came 4 minutes after yours. You just happened to finish first. That post was not there when I started typing.
Do you even read my posts at all?
Ooookaaay...I'll buy that. : )
I'd appreciate it if you responded to it's point, though.
I looked, but I couldn't find a response to that particular question.
Apologies if I've just been dense (and we've all been there!), but I'll ask it again.
If, as you assert, 'can't take actions' refers strictly to action types (standard/move etc.), and the reason that you can delay is because it is defined as 'no action', then the 5-foot step is also do-able on that basis.
What would make you think that the RAW allows one but not the other when you 'can't take actions'?
Sorry I missed that part of the question.
RAW I think you could take a 5 foot step, but it is not RAI. I am sure we both agree on that.
I don't consider delaying to be an act or an action, and I think that may be at the center of our disagreement. All you are doing is waiting until later to take your turn by delaying.
|
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.
If we go with the original version of the spell (1st and 2nd edition), that is how it did work. You could even fly with a fly spell as it was a mental activity.
With the 3rd edition the text was changed so not allowing you to take mental action could have been a rule change decision or it could simply have been an unintended consequence of wanting to have a more smooth reading text.I find strange that the paralyzed that the spell say that you are paralyzed (and link the condition) and then it casually say that you can't make any action, something that is way stronger than paralyzed.
|
|
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.
If we go with the original version of the spell (1st and 2nd edition), that is how it did work. You could even fly with a fly spell as it was a mental activity.
With the 3rd edition the text was changed so not allowing you to take mental action could have been a rule change decision or it could simply have been an unintended consequence of wanting to have a more smooth reading text.
I find strange that the paralyzed that the spell say that you are paralyzed (and link the condition) and then it casually say that you can't make any action, something that is way stronger than paralyzed.
That's because while paralysis may be a purely physical condition (leaving your mind free), the hold spells are mind-affecting compulsions, so your mind is not free.
|
|
Sorry I missed that part of the question.
RAW I think you could take a 5 foot step, but it is not RAI. I am sure we both agree on that.
I don't consider delaying to be an act or an action, and I think that may be at the center of our disagreement. All you are doing is waiting until later to take your turn by delaying.
This may be the source of our disagreement.
In support of my position, I will point out that there are things like breathing and other autonomous functions that aren't considered actions in either sense, but delay is something you actively choose to do, on your turn. It is not something you can do outside your own turn, it is a conscious choice you make.
If you can't take mental actions then you can't make such choices. For example, while you still breathe, you could not take the deliberate choice to hold your breath.
Anyway, how come your siding with (your perception of) RAW over RAI in this, but with (your perception of) RAI over RAW in the other thread?
That's because while paralysis may be a purely physical condition (leaving your mind free), the hold spells are mind-affecting compulsions, so your mind is not free.
Right, but Hold Person affects your mind in a very specific way: it paralyze you and prevents you from doing nothing besides fight the spell or surrender to it...
And delaying, in this case, is just that: you surrender to the spell's command... for a brief time.
EDIT: And if we are going verbatim, it doesn't says that you cannot think. In fact, the whole "you are aware" thing allows that.
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.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 doesn't. Your rather strained reading of the rule is the problem. Look, just get over the whole "no action action thing'. Don't think about the word 'action" as a PF game term in a legalistic way. Pathfinder has said over and over that their rules are never meant to be read that way. RAI rules over RAW.
It's clear what the RAI is. Yes, there can be some ambiguities over the terms "acton" etc., but that's not at all important in PF. PF is NOT 3.5. It is not run by WotC. Legalistic hairsplitting doesn't win out over common sense.
Being Held stops you from taking ANY action, except a save. Not any "Action as defined in paragraphs 3-7." A better wording is you can do NOTHING AT ALL, except make a Save.
Getting hung up over the meaning of the word 'action" is soooo 3.5.
We're beyond that now.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aberrant change feather fall to fly.
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?
That sounds fine and cinematic, in theory, but you know it would soon cease be used for such last-minute daring rescues.
As soon as the precedent was set, that a falling person can choose to indefinitely delay their descent, it would be cheesed up the wazoo.
Rogue: "Delay. Hey, how about a little help here?"
Wizard: "Why aren't you splattered all over the floor?"
Rogue: "I delayed. I don't have to fall until I take an action."
Wizard: "So how come you're talking to me?"
Rogue: "Because talking isn't an action. Theoretically, we can hold a conversation for the entire game session, and no time pass in-game."
GM: "You'd better not."
Wizard: "So, what are you expecting me to do?"
Rogue: "Stop me falling, maybe feather fall. Quickened levitation, something like that."
Wizard: "I could probably do something like that, yeah."
GM: "Can somebody take their damn turn?"
Wizard: "Okay. Scorching Ray."
Rogue: "What?"
Wizard: "Not at you. At that orc, there."
Rogue: "But what about me?"
Wizard: "If you can stay up there indefinitely, then it's not urgent. I need to clear up these orcs first. You're injured, you don't want to land in the middle of this."
Rogue: "Err...well. I delay again, I suppose."
GM: "The surviving orcs flee."
Wizard: "I fly off after the fleeing orcs."
Rogue: "What? Get back here!"
Wizard: "Sorry, can't hear you, over the sound of battle."
GM: "Go in the other room for a bit, while I run this bit for Wizard and the others."
Rogue: "Charming."
<later>
GM: "You can come back in now."
<Rogue returns to table>
GM: "Two days have passed. You're still hovering above the battlefield. You're hungry and tired, because you haven't slept. And you soiled yourself."
Wizard: "How you doing?"
Rogue: "Where've you been?"
Wizard: "We found their lair, finished them off. Got a bit beat up, so we camped there to prep some healing. Divvied the loot, and came back."
Rogue: "Have you got that feather fall spell, or not?"
Wizard: "Damn, I forgot. You'll have to stay up there till tomorrow, so I can prep it."
GM: "Gee, I'm glad I allowed you to delay as a non-action. It's been a real white-knuckle thrill-ride. Reminiscent of the finest heroic legends."
|
|
Not really fun, Snorter. It seem simply a cheap debate trick to win an argument when you have nothing real to back you up.
As I am not willing to re type it read this post in this same thread.
Short version: falling has nothing to do with your initiative.
The bad guy push you out of a cliff at initiative count 10? You fall at initiative count 10, regardless of your initiative. You don't get to hover in mid air till your turn come and only then falling. You fall immediately.
Also, talking is labeled as a free action. :)
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think at this point the arguments can be boiled down to two basic statements:
1. Delaying is a special initiative action that moves your initiative. You are prevented from delaying whenever you would be prevented from acting.
2. Delaying is what happens when a character skips their turn. Waiting to see what happens is a delay, as is saying, "I do nothing." Anybody who is conscious can just stand there like a lump on their turn and thus delay.
I'm not sure that dancing around semantics is really going to make any progress at this point. It doesn't seem like any of the arguments really lead to a 3rd description of delaying. I don't think there is clear rules support for either position, although I tend to subscribe to option 2 myself.
Snorter, the only one arguing for your silly falling scenario is you.
|
I guess it would depend on my group if I did that or not. If your group metagames a bit, than they should expect you to as well. If you wanted to put it in a role-playing sense the caster could have said something like "Just hold on I will free you" or something to that extent, as a free action(possibly make the caster succeed a Spellcraft check to identify the spell), and then it all makes perfect sense.
|
|
For the main question, i.e. if you can delay while held by Hold person, I asked JJ if he feel that Hold person being stronger than paralysis and so blocking even purely mental actions was an intended mechanic and the reply was: "Yes".
I still think that delay is purely mental and can be done without the need to be able to take an "action" [game term], but you need to be able to act [colloquial term]. So, as Hold person stop you from acting, you can't delay while Hold.
For the main question, i.e. if you can delay while held by Hold person, I asked JJ if he feel that Hold person being stronger than paralysis and so blocking even purely mental actions was an intended mechanic and the reply was: "Yes".
I still think that delay is purely mental and can be done without the need to be able to take an "action" [game term], but you need to be able to act [colloquial term]. So, as Hold person stop you from acting, you can't delay while Hold.
I think that you are kinda missing the point in the second part. Delaying, as a [game term] doesn't spend time and as a [colloquial term] doesn't need anything to be accomplished.
I mean, while Hold Person doesn't let you accomplish any actions, the description of delay says specifically that by delaying, you take no actions at all so is still valid while you are held, IMO.
|
|
I think that you are kinda missing the point in the second part. Delaying, as a [game term] doesn't spend time and as a [colloquial term] doesn't need anything to be accomplished.
The other opinion is that it does need something in order to be accomplished: an act of will. This is a purely mental action, so can't be done when you can't take actions.
Okay, I think I got this.
Look at this. This is the description of the Summoner's "life link" ability:
Life Link (Su): Starting at 1st level, a summoner forms a close bond with his eidolon. Whenever the eidolon takes enough damage to send it back to its home plane, the summoner can, as a free action, sacrifice any number of hit points. Each hit point sacrificed in this way prevents 1 point of damage done to the eidolon. This can prevent the eidolon from being sent back to its home plane.
And this is a FAQ regarding a similar issue of that is being discused here:
Summoner: Can I use life link when it's not my turn, I'm paralyzed, or I otherwise can't take actions?
Although the ability is listed as a free action, it's something a summoner should be able to do at any time the eidolon would take enough damage to send it back to its home plane, even if it's not his turn (as is normally the case when he's being attacked), he's helpless from Strength or Dexterity poison, he's under a hold person spell, and so on. In other words, it's not an action at all, and shouldn't be listed as such.Update: APG page 56, in the Life Link description, paragraph 1, sentence 2, delete "as a free action"
—Sean K Reynolds, 09/09/11
Then, we have that the CRB says that delaying "is not an action", just like that "life link" ability, with the only difference that you can only anounce you are going to delay in your turn.
In other words, you can delay while held.
Sorry I missed that part of the question.
RAW I think you could take a 5 foot step, but it is not RAI. I am sure we both agree on that.
I don't consider delaying to be an act or an action, and I think that may be at the center of our disagreement. All you are doing is waiting until later to take your turn by delaying.
This may be the source of our disagreement.
In support of my position, I will point out that there are things like breathing and other autonomous functions that aren't considered actions in either sense, but delay is something you actively choose to do, on your turn. It is not something you can do outside your own turn, it is a conscious choice you make.
If you can't take mental actions then you can't make such choices. For example, while you still breathe, you could not take the deliberate choice to hold your breath.
Anyway, how come your siding with (your perception of) RAW over RAI in this, but with (your perception of) RAI over RAW in the other thread?
Actually you not doing anything at all by delaying. The game just needed a mechanical way to say "do nothing until later".
As for your question I already said the devs did not think of this situation when the spell was created, and it may very well be against the spirit of the rules so I would have no problem if they were to rule against it, for the purpose of hold person. I just don't think the argument of "special actions count as actions" is rules legal. That is why I said it is better to just force the save to be made on the same inititiave count as the original save if the GM only found a loophole in the rules.
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.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 doesn't. Your rather strained reading of the rule is the problem. Look, just get over the whole "no action action thing'. Don't think about the word 'action" as a PF game term in a legalistic way. Pathfinder has said over and over that their rules are never meant to be read that way. RAI rules over RAW.
It's clear what the RAI is. Yes, there can be some ambiguities over the terms "acton" etc., but that's not at all important in PF. PF is NOT 3.5. It is not run by WotC. Legalistic hairsplitting doesn't win out over common sense.
Being Held stops you from taking ANY action, except a save. Not any "Action as defined in paragraphs 3-7." A better wording is you can do NOTHING AT ALL, except make a Save.
Getting hung up over the meaning of the word 'action" is soooo 3.5.
We're beyond that now.
Delaying is not an action in any sense of the word. You are actually waiting until later to take your turn. Are you really trying to argue that doing nothing is actually doing something?
Also the RAI is not clear because like I said the devs cant think of every possible corner case when a rule is made, but I have repeated that and more enough times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you are kinda missing the point in the second part. Delaying, as a [game term] doesn't spend time and as a [colloquial term] doesn't need anything to be accomplished.The other opinion is that it does need something in order to be accomplished: an act of will. This is a purely mental action, so can't be done when you can't take actions.
There is no mystical force that says you must act. Your init just means you have the opportunity to act. It is no different than me choosing to not take an AoO.
Lots of straw man examples going about as of late.
|
|
Snorter, the only one arguing for your silly falling scenario is you.
Well, apart from Wharwick, whose post I quoted in my response.
Who explicitly asked "Why can't I delay, to avoid continuing to fall, and hang in midair, waiting for someone else's initiative to come up?".Which sounds fine and dandy, especially if the player is giving the GM puppy eyes, and making a case that "there's only 2 initiative counts between us, and that's the blink of an eye".
But fails to account for what happens if the second person gets taken out of action, or simply chooses to do something else instead (my example).
If the GM has already set a precedent, that you can cease falling by choosing the delay action, they have very shaky grounds for retconning that the falling character actually fell after all.
And then there was the poster, way back in the beginning of the thread, who suggested he should be allowed to delay to avoid bleed <rolls eyes>.
|
|
There is no mystical force that says you must act. Your init just means you have the opportunity to act. It is no different than me choosing to not take an AoO.I think that you are kinda missing the point in the second part. Delaying, as a [game term] doesn't spend time and as a [colloquial term] doesn't need anything to be accomplished.The other opinion is that it does need something in order to be accomplished: an act of will. This is a purely mental action, so can't be done when you can't take actions.
Characters don't choose their place in the initiative order, it's a random roll modified by how fast their reactions are.
The initiative counts down, and creatures act when it rolls around to them.
'Doing nothing' includes doing nothing to change your position in the initiative order. Delaying is an act which changes your initiative count. The fact that it doesn't use up any of your allotment of (standard/move etc.) actions doesn't stop actively changing your initiative being an action.
that FAQ for summoner actually makes a very compelling statement in favor of delaying while held. If the FAQ states that you can do one thing while held that isn't an action then I suppose you should be able to do anything else that isn't an action. You have convinced me. I will allow delaying while held in my games.
As far as my table barring further clarification if summoners get to use a no action then delaying is viable.
Besides its still a risky tactic and eats up a spell casters standard if it works or his standard and your whole turn if not.
There is no mystical force that says you must act. Your init just means you have the opportunity to act. It is no different than me choosing to not take an AoO.I think that you are kinda missing the point in the second part. Delaying, as a [game term] doesn't spend time and as a [colloquial term] doesn't need anything to be accomplished.The other opinion is that it does need something in order to be accomplished: an act of will. This is a purely mental action, so can't be done when you can't take actions.
Characters don't choose their place in the initiative order, it's a random roll modified by how fast their reactions are.
The initiative counts down, and creatures act when it rolls around to them.
'Doing nothing' includes doing nothing to change your position in the initiative order. Delaying is an act which changes your initiative count. The fact that it doesn't use up any of your allotment of (standard/move etc.) actions doesn't stop actively changing your initiative being an action.
It is not an act. Init count is a meta-game construct to help keep things organized in a turn based system.
In the game world it plays out like this.
Caster:hold person
BBEG:fails save
BBEG minion: I got you boss.
NEXT ROUND
Caster:does ______
BBEG: I can put a lot of effort into breaking free of this spell right now or I can trust my buddy. <decides to wait to see how things play out>
That bolded area basically amounts to doing nothing, which is not an action.
Now Malachi what the OP did may be against the spirit of the spell. I won't disagree with that, but you are trying to find a rule to get the result you want. You would have more support by saying the spell is intended to take your turns away, and argue against it(the OP's ruling) because it is against the spirit of the rules, which is how pouncing barbarian with a lance got stopped.
Hold person just paralyses you, you may take mental actions RAI, and you must rule RAI not RAW as I will demonstrate. The spell states you may take no actions. It says nothing about exceptions. Then it says you may take a full round action to make a save.
Full round action. Action action action ACTION!
The spell has contradicted itself, and thus forces us all to stop acting like a bunch of rules lawyers and think about the way the spell was intended. It is a spell that paralyses you but leaves you aware. What you can think but not delay? BS! Paralysis states you can take mental actions, thus you can here too.
Also the guy is he is strong willed and intelligent would know to wait for a dispel magic, as he would know his friend could cast it.
It doesn't. Your rather strained reading of the rule is the problem. Look, just get over the whole "no action action thing'. Don't think about the word 'action" as a PF game term in a legalistic way. Pathfinder has said over and over that their rules are never meant to be read that way. RAI rules over RAW.
It's clear what the RAI is. Yes, there can be some ambiguities over the terms "acton" etc., but that's not at all important in PF. PF is NOT 3.5. It is not run by WotC. Legalistic hairsplitting doesn't win out over common sense.
Being Held stops you from taking ANY action, except a save. Not any "Action as defined in paragraphs 3-7." A better wording is you can do NOTHING AT ALL, except make a Save.
Getting hung up over the meaning of the word 'action" is soooo 3.5.
We're beyond that now.
Delaying is not an action in any sense of the word. You are actually waiting until later to take your turn. Are you really trying to argue that doing nothing is actually doing something?
Also the RAI is not clear because like I said the devs cant think of every possible corner case when a rule is made, but I have repeated that and more enough times.
As I said- just get over the term "action". Again, like I said, PF is not meant to be read legalistically like 3.5. It is to be played under RAI aka Common Sense. So, it makes no difference whether "no action" is a "action" or not.
The RAI is very clear. You can do NOTHING while Held but make your save. You can not delay.
Hold person just paralyses you, you may take mental actions RAI, and you must rule RAI not RAW as I will demonstrate. The spell states you may take no actions. It says nothing about exceptions. Then it says you may take a full round action to make a save.
Full round action. Action action action ACTION!
The spell has contradicted itself, and thus forces us all to stop acting like a bunch of rules lawyers and think about the way the spell was intended. It is a spell that paralyses you but leaves you aware. What you can think but not delay? BS! Paralysis states you can take mental actions, thus you can here too.
Also the guy is he is strong willed and intelligent would know to wait for a dispel magic, as he would know his friend could cast it.
If a mental action such as an SLA takes an action hold person still would not allow it.
The paralysis condition says you can take purely mental actions. Hold Person says you can take no actions, so they are not exactly the same.
We do agree on the rest though.
It doesn't. Your rather strained reading of the rule is the problem. Look, just get over the whole "no action action thing'. Don't think about the word 'action" as a PF game term in a legalistic way. Pathfinder has said over and over that their rules are never meant to be read that way. RAI rules over RAW.
It's clear what the RAI is. Yes, there can be some ambiguities over the terms "acton" etc., but that's not at all important in PF. PF is NOT 3.5. It is not run by WotC. Legalistic hairsplitting doesn't win out over common sense.
Being Held stops you from taking ANY action, except a save. Not any "Action as defined in paragraphs 3-7." A better wording is you can do NOTHING AT ALL, except make a Save.
Getting hung up over the meaning of the word 'action" is soooo 3.5.
We're beyond that now.
Delaying is not an action in any sense of the word. You are actually waiting until later to take your turn. Are you really trying to argue that doing nothing is actually doing something?
Also the RAI is not clear because like I said the devs cant think of every possible corner case when a rule is made, but I have repeated that and more enough times.
As I said- just get over the term "action". Again, like I said, PF is not meant to be read legalistically like 3.5. It is to be played under RAI aka Common Sense. So, it makes no difference whether "no action" is a "action" or not.
The RAI is very clear. You can do NOTHING while Held but make your save. You can not delay.
Actually both games go by RAI, unless you were on the optimization sub-forum for 3.5 in which case the most favorable interpretation took precedence.
Delaying is not an action, and I don't just mean the game term definition. It is only waiting so it is still rules legal. Now if you are saying the spirit of the spell is to force you to make the next save on the same init count every turn you could be right, but there is nothing to support that.
In short--->There is nothing in hold person preventing you from taking the action to break the spell later since you have to make an active attempt to do so. I have also seen no rules based argument that supports "You have to make this decision right now".
This is the rules forum. If you don't have a rules quote then provide a logical argument.
@ wraith strike
So, he can delay, but could not cast say a still silent spell with no material components? How are you aware but unable to take mental actions? If that is what the rules say RAI or RAW fine, but then you can delay?
I think this spell needs an errata
Because it's a standard action which the spell prevents you from taking.
Why? Why can you think but not cast a spell without components. Because the rules say so. That's a stupid reason, lazy lazy rationalization. The game is supposed to follow the laws of logic not rule fiat.
If you couldn't think fine. If your thoughts were muddied or couldn't concentrate fine. But the reason here is therefore because no. Why? because no and no other reason. If this is true then you shouldn't be able to delay either because no. It doesn't have to make sense you just can't.
Is this really the way you guys play?
Why? Why can you think but not cast a spell without components. Because the rules say so.
Yes
@ wraith strike
So, he can delay, but could not cast say a still silent spell with no material components? How are you aware but unable to take mental actions? If that is what the rules say RAI or RAW fine, but then you can delay?
I think this spell needs an errata
I already explained it. The spell says you can not take actions, and SLA require actions. There is way to get around it.
Magic works how it works. It does not have to make sense.
Well actually that can apply to a lot of rules. As an example the fighter can only retrain combat feats gained with bonus slots. That makes no sense from an in-game world point of view, but it is the rule.
Why? Why can you think but not cast a spell without components. Because the rules say so. That's a stupid reason, lazy lazy rationalization. The game is supposed to follow the laws of logic not rule fiat.
If you couldn't think fine. If your thoughts were muddied or couldn't concentrate fine. But the reason here is therefore because no. Why? because no and no other reason. If this is true then you shouldn't be able to delay either because no. It doesn't have to make sense you just can't.
Is this really the way you guys play?
The RAI often fails to make sense, and yes I follow RAI, and "because the rules say so" is often all the answer you need in the rules forum.
Now if you go to the advice or general discussion forum you can ask for different flavor to make it make sense for you, but here we only care about intent.
edit:If you think this game follows logic for the purpose of RAI you are about to be highly disappointed with many of the rules.
@Hogeyhead:
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. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown.
You cannot take the standard action required to cast a stilled, silenced spell because Hold Person specifically says that you can't take actions.
There are two(ish) camps regarding the use of Delay:
Delay doesn't take an action to use, and as described (eloquently) by another poster is an entirely metagame act that the player takes that alters the initiative order (a metagame construct).
Alternatively, since it isn't classified as an action you can as a character choose to delay your turn because Hold Person only prohibits taking other actions.
Delay requires a mental action on the part of the character to act later in the initiative order, an action which is prohibited by Hold Person. The only action the affected PC can take is to take the Hold Person save.
Not because of 'lazy lazy rationalisation' and not 'because no'.
Well it is lazy to give you a status effect without a reason (if I'm aware why can't I take mental actions) but you guys are correct this is the rules forum and the spell says you can take no actions except somehow the action they want you to take.
Since delay is listed under actions and special initiative actions it would then make sense for it to not be allowed as I suppose the spell removes free will and forces you to resist it (why would you make a spell like that? but I digress once again) so you may not delay.
Am I interpreting this correctly?
Also am I the only one who finds it a little silly that you may take no action is then followed by you may take a full round action? Are we sure the rules are not contradicting themselves, I mean it is obvious what was intended, but the word except never appears.
Well it is lazy to give you a status effect without a reason (if I'm aware why can't I take mental actions) but you guys are correct this is the rules forum and the spell says you can take no actions except somehow the action they want you to take.
Since delay is listed under actions and special initiative actions it would then make sense for it to not be allowed as I suppose the spell removes free will and forces you to resist it (why would you make a spell like that? but I digress once again) so you may not delay.
Am I interpreting this correctly?
Also am I the only one who finds it a little silly that you may take no action is then followed by you may take a full round action? Are we sure the rules are not contradicting themselves, I mean it is obvious what was intended, but the word except never appears.
There is no contradiction. The spell does not just say you are paralyzed. It says you are paralyzed and then goes on to add additional stipulations. One of which is no actions are allowed. The other is you get a save every round to break free of the spell.
The reason you get a save is most for balance reasons that go along with the spell level. If the spell did not allow you to break free it would be worth a higher level slot.
The spell does not remove free will since it says you are aware, and the spell does not say you "must" make a save so that is why you don't have to.
But if you can't delay you must make the save, no free will.
But if you can't delay you must make the save, no free will.
You can delay.
No matter whether you use the game term "action" or the real life term, delaying is not an action.
The game only has 6 actions, and delaying does not use any of them.
If you want to use the real life definition, an action is doing something. Delaying is just waiting. Waiting=doing nothing.