Convince me Hold Person is good (Vengeance Paladin)

[Oramac]

I'm playing a Vengeance Paladin in one of my current campaigns, and I keep seeing that Hold Person is almost always rated sky-blue. But I just can't wrap my head around it.

Sure, it paralyzes the target. Great.

But assuming I use it at the start of combat, it takes my action and concentration, so I don't get to do anything else (namely, attack).

The target gets a save.

The targets turn comes, so it gets another save.

Then I finally get to attack it.


So basically, it takes my action, concentration (so no Bless), and a full turn to use, and the big bad gets two saves before I even get a chance to go nova on it.

So help me out here. Why does everyone say this is so good?

[Spacehamster]

As is it is not sky blue, but if you take couple levels sorcerer multiclass you can quicken it and get in 2 auto crits if it sticks, plus even single class it lets your party members auto crit the enemy or just ignore him and take out the non held mooks. :)

[Daehron]

So help me out here.
Sometimes it is not about optimizing your actions.

Sometimes it is about optimizing the party's actions, and crippling the opponents actions.

Forcing an opponent to spend their turn on a saving throw can make a big difference in many a fight.

That said, you are a pally, your spell save dc is crap compared to the real casters. Leave control effects to the folks who do it best, Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers.

[OrlockDelesian]

Well, assuming he fails his first save, he is Paralysed until his action comes, during which all hits against him are critical hits (time for the rogue to do a party), when his action comes, he has to waste it to roll to save again, and success is not a given.

So you could actually unload everything on him for (assuming 30 dpr) will deal 30-60 damage if you make both attacks.

While paralyzed the damage the group will make is way way more.

And AC is usually much higher than a wisdom save.

[Asmotherion]

If I was playing a paladin I would simply not care about spells at all... your spell slots are meant to be used for bolt smiting, and maybe some versality once in a wile. Maybe one of those X smite spells too, but I doubt they are any better than the class feature which you get to use twice per round once you get your second attack (4 with polearm master). Actually the best paladin you can make in my oppinion is paladin 2 and then Favored Soul sorcerer all the way (thematically correct, gives you a second attack at level 6 (character level 8), you get a lot more spell slots to spam divine smite, and you get a pair of angelic wings such marks you as an angel among people, assuming you are into that kind of play since you chose paladin in the first place.

[RulesJD]

1. Don't cast it on your turn. Ready Action -> Cast Hold Person after the end of the target's turn. That way they only get 1 save before your turn and you then get a round of auto-crits.

2. Most importantly, it only works on Humanoids. Almost everyone forgets this. This is why it shouldn't be sky blue except in campaigns where you're fighting almost exclusively humanoids.

[BiPolar]

1. Don't cast it on your turn. Ready Action -> Cast Hold Person after the end of the target's turn. That way they only get 1 save before your turn and you then get a round of auto-crits.

2. Most importantly, it only works on Humanoids. Almost everyone forgets this. This is why it shouldn't be sky blue except in campaigns where you're fighting almost exclusively humanoids.

Both of these are 100% correct. I love the idea of (1) and will definitely be using this when fighting humanoids.

Also, responding to Asmotherion, the spell slots I do try and save for my divine smites or if I want to attempt a control with a spell smite (blinding, wraithful, etc.) but I often do find myself casting things like Haste, bless, magic weapon, shield of faith. I just tried out Command recently and absolutely love that one.

[Oramac]

Thanks everyone!

I was assuming single-class Paladin, as I want to give Avenging Angel a shot, but the Favored Soul / Quicken idea is solid.

I also hadn't thought of readying the action for the end of the targets turn. That's a really good idea.

[BiPolar]

Thanks everyone!

I was assuming single-class Paladin, as I want to give Avenging Angel a shot, but the Favored Soul / Quicken idea is solid.

I also hadn't thought of readying the action for the end of the targets turn. That's a really good idea.

Personally, I'm generally not a multiclasser fan - especially for classes that have very juicy abilities as you level. Slowing down your Paladin progression is a very big deal. Delaying ASI/Feat, delaying 2nd attack, delaying auras, delaying spells (especially if you don't have someone else who can cast Haste) are all VERY big costs.

[Oramac]

Personally, I'm generally not a multiclasser fan

I'd generally agree, with a couple exceptions. In the case of my Paladin, he's already 8th level anyway, so MCing isn't gonna happen regardless.

I was more just trying to see how Hold Person could be effective when it seems like I give up a lot to use it.

[BiPolar]

I'd generally agree, with a couple exceptions. In the case of my Paladin, he's already 8th level anyway, so MCing isn't gonna happen regardless.

I was more just trying to see how Hold Person could be effective when it seems like I give up a lot to use it.

I've only had a couple of opportunities, but it's been well worth it. Autocrit on hit is just too good.

[SharkForce]

Personally, I'm generally not a multiclasser fan - especially for classes that have very juicy abilities as you level. Slowing down your Paladin progression is a very big deal. Delaying ASI/Feat, delaying 2nd attack, delaying auras, delaying spells (especially if you don't have someone else who can cast Haste) are all VERY big costs.

in some cases, you can gain a lot from multiclassing as well, though. it isn't something to do indiscriminately, and certainly single-classed paladin has a lot going for it. but in this case, multiclassed paladin/sorcerer can do some pretty danged cool tricks as well.

[PoeticDwarf]

I'm playing a Vengeance Paladin in one of my current campaigns, and I keep seeing that Hold Person is almost always rated sky-blue. But I just can't wrap my head around it.

Sure, it paralyzes the target. Great.

But assuming I use it at the start of combat, it takes my action and concentration, so I don't get to do anything else (namely, attack).

The target gets a save.

The targets turn comes, so it gets another save.

Then I finally get to attack it.


So basically, it takes my action, concentration (so no Bless), and a full turn to use, and the big bad gets two saves before I even get a chance to go nova on it.

So help me out here. Why does everyone say this is so good?

Without action surge or quicken it is pretty good, but not amazing as it could be.

it is good with other melee'ers. The other melee person will probably hit and autocrit, and if there is another melee person you will get free crits for TWO people for only your action, hopefully they can do that another round and you can do that too. AND that person can't take actions so will spill his round also for your round.

Better action for caster types but absolutely great

[R.Shackleford]

Sometimes it is not about optimizing your actions.

Sometimes it is about optimizing the party's actions, and crippling the opponents actions.

Forcing an opponent to spend their turn on a saving throw can make a big difference in many a fight.

That said, you are a pally, your spell save dc is crap compared to the real casters. Leave control effects to the folks who do it best, Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers.

The first part of your response is dead on but that last part... I don't know what sort of low cha Paladin you play but they typically have good DC because cha also goes to your saves. Out of all the Gish classes, Paladin have it made.

Typically Str = Cha, Con, everything else.

Plus it isn't like enemies typically have great saves to begin with.

[AvatarVecna]

Even at it's least optimal, if the enemy fails their original save, anybody who tries to melee attack the paralyzed foe between your turn and that foes turn gets advantage and auto-crits on a hit. The other melee'ers in the party will love you for it.

Still, Bless is pretty good...

[Firechanter]

Concerning Save DC: it's rather so-so during the first half of the game. It picks up once you have the ASIs available for Cha and your Prof bonus climbs. In the final stages, your Save DC is just as good as a primary caster's.

Well, then it depends on your campaign how many humanoids with poor Wis saves you get at high levels.
But that fearsome level 20 Sorc or Barbarian? Well, if they didn't think to take Resilient (Wis), their save will still be around +0, so good luck to them beating your DC19.

[Foxhound438]

That said, you are a pally, your spell save dc is crap compared to the real casters. Leave control effects to the folks who do it best, Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers.

by no means necessarily. You can certainly bump Cha at 4 and 8 to have the same DC as a full caster, and let your spell effects take care of helping your physical attacks.

Moreover, to the OP, you certainly can blow a L3 or 4 slot later on for multiple targets. That way even if they all succeed on their save on turn you've traded your 1 turn for 2 or more of theirs.

[Daishain]

Hold Person is one of the best spells in the game when certain conditions are met. Enemies are humanoid and unlikely to make their saves (whether because of high DC and/or just really low wisdom), and either the spell can be slotted up to affect multiple targets or the nature of the battle is such that paralyzing just one foe is worth an action.

The issue, as I see it, is that these conditions, while pretty easy to meet as a full caster, are notably tougher as a Paladin. I tend to recommend leaving control spells that allow a save to the full casters

[Specter]

It's better for an EK than for you. However, if you take 3 Sorcerer levels it's good. Assuming you don't want that, it's bad, UNLESS you have another heavy striker in the group, in which case it's good.

[Finieous]

If it's one-on-one and you get one auto-crit out of it, you come out ever so slightly ahead. This assumes Str 16 and a 65% chance to hit.

Option 1 (Attack Round 1 with 2nd-level smite; attack Round 2 with 1st-level smite)
Round 1: ((4.5+13.5+3)*0.65) + (18*.05) = 14.55
Round 2: ((4.5+9+3)*0.65) + (13.5*.05) = 11.4
Total: 25.95 damage

Option 2 (Cast hold person Round 1; attack Round 2 with 1st-level smite)
Round 1: 0
Round 2: (9+18+3)*0.8775 = 26.35
Total: 26.35 damage

What this means is that you should never do it if it's one-on-one, even readying to cast at the end of their turn, because there's at least some chance the target makes its save. In that case, you do zero damage in Round 1 and 11.4 damage in Round 2 -- less than half the damage you'd have done if you'd just used the 2nd-level slot to smite (on a hit) in Round 1. Of course, there's some chance as well for a second, third, etc., auto-crit, but the probabilities of that drop quickly (e.g. if the first save is 50%, failing two is 25%, failing three is 12.5%, etc.).

Now, it's usually not one-on-one, which means that other party members will get attacks with advantage for auto-crits. But following the same logic, you're better suited as a paladin to attacking a target held by a caster than you are to doing the holding yourself.

[R.Shackleford]

by no means necessarily. You can certainly bump Cha at 4 and 8 to have the same DC as a full caster, and let your spell effects take care of helping your physical attacks.

Moreover, to the OP, you certainly can blow a L3 or 4 slot later on for multiple targets. That way even if they all succeed on their save on turn you've traded your 1 turn for 2 or more of theirs.

Do other people not start with a 16 Cha? Cause I start with a 16 Cha...


It's better for an EK than for you. However, if you take 3 Sorcerer levels it's good. Assuming you don't want that, it's bad, UNLESS you have another heavy striker in the group, in which case it's good.

No. EK's tend to dump Int as they are super MAD (Str/Dex, Str/Dex, Con, Wis, Int are all needed) and boosting Int doesn't really do a whole lot for the EK, unlike Cha for the Paladin (Cha to saves).

[GanonBoar]

First, about the OP's question: as others have said, with other heavy hitters it becomes substantially better, especially with a Rogue in the party. And to be honest, in my experience most humanoids you encounter won't have a spectacular Wis, and with a decent save DC it's entirely feasible for you to get a chance to hit them.


No. EKs tend to dump Int as they are super MAD (Str/Dex, Str/Dex, Con, Wis, Int are all needed) and boosting Int doesn't really do a whole lot for the EK, unlike Cha for the Paladin (Cha to saves).
First of all, Eldritch Strike means that EKs can definitely effectively use Hold Person, even with low Int.

Second, EK's aren't nearly as MAD as you're making them sound, and even then they can manage it with their insane amounts of ASIs. A Dex based fighter can comfortably dump Str and vice versa, Charisma is unnecessary for them, Wisdom isn't that important, and even a 14 Con is workable, especially for ranged EKs. That gives plenty of room for a high Int.

Finally, in what world do EKs 'tend' to dump Int? 90% of the EKs I've seen have had a high Int. Just because the EK can very much afford to dump Int doesn't mean it does, or even should.

[BiPolar]

If it's one-on-one and you get one auto-crit out of it, you come out ever so slightly ahead. This assumes Str 16 and a 65% chance to hit.

Option 1 (Attack Round 1 with 2nd-level smite; attack Round 2 with 1st-level smite)
Round 1: ((4.5+13.5+3)*0.65) + (18*.05) = 14.55
Round 2: ((4.5+9+3)*0.65) + (13.5*.05) = 11.4
Total: 25.95 damage

Option 2 (Cast hold person Round 1; attack Round 2 with 1st-level smite)
Round 1: 0
Round 2: (9+18+3)*0.8775 = 26.35
Total: 26.35 damage

What this means is that you should never do it if it's one-on-one, even readying to cast at the end of their turn, because there's at least some chance the target makes its save. In that case, you do zero damage in Round 1 and 11.4 damage in Round 2 -- less than half the damage you'd have done if you'd just used the 2nd-level slot to smite (on a hit) in Round 1. Of course, there's some chance as well for a second, third, etc., auto-crit, but the probabilities of that drop quickly (e.g. if the first save is 50%, failing two is 25%, failing three is 12.5%, etc.).

Now, it's usually not one-on-one, which means that other party members will get attacks with advantage for auto-crits. But following the same logic, you're better suited as a paladin to attacking a target held by a caster than you are to doing the holding yourself.

Why would you not use a 2nd level smite in round 2? Also, if he's casting level 2 spells, then he's 5th level and has 2 attacks per round.

[R.Shackleford]

First, about the OP's question: as others have said, with other heavy hitters it becomes substantially better, especially with a Rogue in the party. And to be honest, in my experience most humanoids you encounter won't have a spectacular Wis, and with a decent save DC it's entirely feasible for you to get a chance to hit them.


First of all, Eldritch Strike means that EKs can definitely effectively use Hold Person, even with low Int.

Second, EK's aren't nearly as MAD as you're making them sound, and even then they can manage it with their insane amounts of ASIs. A Dex based fighter can comfortably dump Str and vice versa, Charisma is unnecessary for them, Wisdom isn't that important, and even a 14 Con is workable, especially for ranged EKs. That gives plenty of room for a high Int.

Finally, in what world do EKs 'tend' to dump Int? 90% of the EKs I've seen have had a high Int. Just because the EK can very much afford to dump Int doesn't mean it does, or even should.

Wisdom is one of the strong saves, you want a decent wis save. Especially the Fighter, don't want those nasty effects to have the Fighter hurt the party now do we? Also wisdom is tied to one of the most important skills in the game, perception. In actual game play I think Resilient (Wis) might be the most important feats a fighter can take to help the party.

EKs that use strength will still want some Dex and definately want some Con. That leaves Int barely getting by unless you want that Wis save to suck.

Eks that go Dex (melee) will very much want some Con and some Wis (its funny when Command can cause a fighter to run). Int can be a bit higher, especially with the right race but then you are pigeonheld...pigenhold...err.. forced to taking specific races.

EKs that go ranged won't get the benefit of criting the Held Person target as to get the crit you must be adjacent. Also, the Fighter gets no other benefit from having that High Int, no bonuses to saves or anything else. The Fighter doesn't even have Investigation on their class list.

EKs that dump Int can boost their CON, which means that their concentration checks will be even better. They can then use spells that boost themselves instead of hoping that creatures don't save against them.

Almost every EK i've seen in personal and public play has had low Int. I don't play in a white room, I can only tell you what I've seen in person, and EKs dumping Int is very popular since the EK has came out.

[GanonBoar]

Wisdom is one of the strong saves, you want a decent wis save. Especially the Fighter, don't want those nasty effects to have the Fighter hurt the party now do we? Also wisdom is tied to one of the most important skills in the game, perception. In actual game play I think Resilient (Wis) might be the most important feats a fighter can take to help the party.

While people say this a lot, it is perfectly fine to dump Wis. Wisdom saves are good, yes, but you don't need to go out of your way to prevent failing them. And resilient (Wis) reduces the need for high wis anyway, and fighters can get perception proficiency

EKs that use strength will still want some Dex and definately want some Con. That leaves Int barely getting by unless you want that Wis save to suck.

I agree that Con is important (although like I said, a 14-16 is still workable) but Dex? Sure, Initiative, dex saves, blah blah blah, but a low dex can definitely work.


Eks that go Dex (melee) will very much want some Con and some Wis (its funny when Command can cause a fighter to run). Int can be a bit higher, especially with the right race but then you are pigeonheld...pigenhold...err.. forced to taking specific races.

Again, 14-16 Con can work, and a low Wis can work. Still space for Int.


EKs that go ranged won't get the benefit of criting the Held Person target as to get the crit you must be adjacent. Also, the Fighter gets no other benefit from having that High Int, no bonuses to saves or anything else. The Fighter doesn't even have Investigation on their class list.

...but the rest of the party will. And Investigation is very easy to pick up (which also reduces the need for perception) from a race, background, even a feat which you can afford to take. Also, this is like saying a Str based fighter gains no benefit from having a high Str apart from more damage and accuracy. While the benefits he gets aren't great in number, they are great in magnitude.

EKs that dump Int can boost their CON, which means that their concentration checks will be even better. They can then use spells that boost themselves instead of hoping that creatures don't save against them.

As I said, it's still a viable option, but so is boosting Int.

Almost every EK i've seen in personal and public play has had low Int. I don't play in a white room, I can only tell you what I've seen in person, and EKs dumping Int is very popular since the EK has came out.
Well, I can say that almost every EK I've seen has had high Int.

Also, you didn't address my point about Eldritch Strike.

[R.Shackleford]

Well, I can say that almost every EK I've seen has had high Int.

Also, you didn't address my point about Eldritch Strike.

I'm not saying what you have done. I'm saying what I've seen in actual game experience and from the years (5e came out in 2014, almost official years... Man the play test makes it feel like longer...).

Sorry that I missed this but Eldritch Strike just makes it easier to have a lower Int!

Disadvantage on a save is about -3 to a save. You can afford to have a lower Int if you are using that feature. Yeah a higher int would be nice but you can't really afford it if you want to have a decent chance at stopping Wis saves, have a good Con Save/Concentration Check, and still have some room for some Strength or Dexterity.

There are builds that rely on a higher Int, that's fine, but most builds that I've seen (even the ones in 3.5) dump Int.

[Finieous]

Why would you not use a 2nd level smite in round 2? Also, if he's casting level 2 spells, then he's 5th level and has 2 attacks per round.

I wanted to use a 2nd-level slot and a 1st-level slot for both, to make it an apples-to-apples comparison based on expenditure of resources. You're right that he'd be 5th level, so that's worse for hold person. Ends up being 37 damage for no spell (and two extra attacks), 32.9 with the spell.

[Oramac]

I wanted to use a 2nd-level slot and a 1st-level slot for both, to make it an apples-to-apples comparison based on expenditure of resources. You're right that he'd be 5th level, so that's worse for hold person. Ends up being 35.7 damage for no spell (and two extra attacks), 32.9 with the spell.

Looks like the short version is: with 2+ melee allies, use Hold Person; without 2+ melee allies, just smite the sumbich.

[BiPolar]

Looks like the short version is: with 2+ melee allies, use Hold Person; without 2+ melee allies, just smite the sumbich.

First off, I suck at math. Second, we're assuming we hit on all attacks.

But shouldn't they be equal after 2 rounds? In the first case you basically get two more attacks because you didn't cast hold person. In the 2nd case with hold person you've critted and doubled your dice...which makes them equal. If you have ANYONE else attacking during this, then Hold Person should be better.

[RulesJD]

I wanted to use a 2nd-level slot and a 1st-level slot for both, to make it an apples-to-apples comparison based on expenditure of resources. You're right that he'd be 5th level, so that's worse for hold person. Ends up being 37 damage for no spell (and two extra attacks), 32.9 with the spell.

Yeah that's not accurate, especially for Paladins that are Great Weapon users (aka a fair amount of them).

Any great weapon using Paladin will have the GWM feat. Hold Person = auto-crit = automatic bonus action attack, so they would get 3 attacks. Advantage = much greater chance to hit, especially when throwing on GWM for +10 damage.

Hold Person is a significantly useful spell for 2h Paladins, it's just that the limitation of humanoid is pretty significant as well.

[BiPolar]

Yeah that's not accurate, especially for Paladins that are Great Weapon users (aka a fair amount of them).

Any great weapon using Paladin will have the GWM feat. Hold Person = auto-crit = automatic bonus action attack, so they would get 3 attacks. Advantage = much greater chance to hit, especially when throwing on GWM for +10 damage.

Hold Person is a significantly useful spell for 2h Paladins, it's just that the limitation of humanoid is pretty significant as well.

Even without GWM, shouldn't they be equal across two rounds? Again, I suck at math.

[Finieous]

Yeah that's not accurate


Eh, my math is accurate. If there's a flaw, please point it out.



especially for Paladins that are Great Weapon users (aka a fair amount of them).


Okay, but I wasn't considering paladins with GWM, so charging me with inaccuracy "because GWM" seems odd. So let's see. I'll leave the fighting style out of it and just use the feat. I'll also assume we're not using Oath of Vengeance for now. Looks like you're at about 40 damage with no spell and 53.7 with the spell. Since this assumes the save fails, you still have better expected damage in a one-on-one situation without casting it.

[BiPolar]

Eh, my math is accurate. If there's a flaw, please point it out.



Okay, but I wasn't considering paladins with GWM, so charging me with inaccuracy "because GWM" seems odd. So let's see. I'll leave the fighting style out of it and just use the feat. I'll also assume we're not using Oath of Vengeance for now. Looks like you're at about 40 damage with no spell and 53.7 with the spell. Since this assumes the save fails, you still have better expected damage in a one-on-one situation without casting it.

See my post earlier, you are replacing two attacks with a doubling of damage dice...bringing you back to the damage equivalent of 4 attacks. No?

[Finieous]

See my post earlier, you are replacing two attacks with a doubling of damage dice...bringing you back to the damage equivalent of 4 attacks. No?

No. The damage dice might be the same, except the four attacks from the no-spell option also have a chance to crit -- it's just not automatic as it is on a hit with the spell. Plus, the static damage modifier(s) aren't affected by a critical hit.

[BiPolar]

No. The damage dice might be the same, except the four attacks from the no-spell option also have a chance to crit -- it's just not automatic as it is on a hit with the spell. Plus, the static damage modifier(s) aren't affected by a critical hit.

Gotcha, so you've got four opportunities at 5% each to get a crit on those attacks. The odds aren't great you'd crit, bu tthey are there as you said (and you get your STR modifier 2 more times as well.) However, banking on a crit vs automatically getting one is a big ask. Just as equally on those, you could fumble (which you've doubled). And if you there are other melee combatants who can get a round (or 2!) in, then I think Hold Person is a safer bet.

...and, this is important, that enemy is no attacking any of you.

[MrStabby]

Hold person is seriously awesome. As others have said you will have a party around you, which makes it even better. Wasting potentially multiple turns making saves, taking increased damage all the while from critical hits... its all good.

Yes you don't want it in every fight but you can save your slots for when it is that fantastic.

[Oramac]

And if you there are other melee combatants who can get a round (or 2!) in, then I think Hold Person is a safer bet.

So fun fact I just noticed with regards to this part. The paralyzed condition doesn't actually specify the attack has to be a melee attack, just that the attacker must be within 5 feet of the taret.


...Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the
attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.

So all the casters in the party can close to melee range, get an auto-crit, then move away without taking an OA as well.

Yea, I'm starting to see some good uses for this spell. :D

[Finieous]

Gotcha, so you've got four opportunities at 5% each to get a crit on those attacks. The odds aren't great you'd crit, bu tthey are there as you said (and you get your STR modifier 2 more times as well.) However, banking on a crit vs automatically getting one is a big ask. Just as equally on those, you could fumble (which you've doubled). And if you there are other melee combatants who can get a round (or 2!) in, then I think Hold Person is a safer bet.

I'm not "banking on a crit," I'm just doing the math for average damage based on 65% probability of a hit and 5% probability of a crit. There are no "fumbles," so that doesn't affect the math.

I did forget to change the damage die when I recalculated for greatsword with Great Weapon Master. At 50% save chance, the expected average damage is 43.5 with no spell and 36.8 with spell.

I agree, and stated in my original post, that it's better with other melee attackers. My claim was only about its effectiveness in a "one-on-one" situation. The best scenario of all remains the bard or cleric casting it, and the paladin using both rounds to bash instead of spending one casting the spell. :smallsmile:

[Ace Jackson]

So fun fact I just noticed with regards to this part. The paralyzed condition doesn't actually specify the attack has to be a melee attack, just that the attacker must be within 5 feet of the taret.



So all the casters in the party can close to melee range, get an auto-crit, then move away without taking an OA as well.

Yea, I'm starting to see some good uses for this spell. :D

Yes, however, nothing about being paralyzed takes away the disadvantage for ranged within melee (save x-bow expert). Still a good deal mind, you just make the ranged attack normally (disadvantage range, advantage proximity to paralyzed target, sum cancel), and if you hit, you crit, I actually found this out after planning to exploit it in just that way with produce flame as a one-two punch.

EDIT: Just reviewed the text, the ranged attack action described in chapter 9 combat does have an astrick for enemies who are incapacitated, and for some reason, at some point I missed the subpoint of the paralyzed that says the creature is incapacitated as the condition. So yeah, looks like advantage should still work.

[Oramac]

you just make the ranged attack normally (disadvantage range, advantage proximity to paralyzed target, sum cancel)

True enough. I'd say that's a fair trade for an auto-crit though. Especially for a build like Tempest Sorcerer that can maximize their damage with things like Destructive Wrath. (though this is a bit off the main topic, but it's my damn thread, so who cares!)

[Finieous]

You can't crit with destructive wrath. I think I'm getting confused. :smallbiggrin:

Definitely confused: was thinking wave. Carry on...

[Ace Jackson]

You can't crit with destructive wrath. I think I'm getting confused. :smallbiggrin:

He's suggesting a thunder or lightning based spell attack hitting a paralyzed target, it then auto crits, doubling the damage dice, which are then given max value*.

*due to the above mentioned destructive wrath channel divinity feature.

[Oramac]

You can't crit with destructive wrath. I think I'm getting confused. :smallbiggrin:

You're thinking of Destructive WAVE. Destructive Wrath is the Tempest Cleric Channel Divinity option that allows them to maximize lightning or thunder damage.

[RulesJD]

You can't crit with destructive wrath. I think I'm getting confused. :smallbiggrin:

Definitely confused: was thinking wave. Carry on...

Paralyzed = auto-crit from any "attack" made within 5ft, including spell attacks. So Chromatic Orb upcast from 5ft away + Destructive Wrath = kablamo.

Regarding the 4 attacks vs 2, you're forgetting. With GWM, you get to automatically make a bonus attack if you crit. So it's really 4 attacks (no spell) vs 3 (spell). This boost the damage SIGNIFICANTLY above with the auto-crits + smite.

Additionally, advantage = GWM +10 damage is ~+25% more likely to connect = another significant damage boost.

So yes, against a Humanoid target Hold Person is worth it for a 2h Paladin with GWM (which should be all of them by level 1/4). It's just that not many targets will be Humanoid.

[BiPolar]

I'm not "banking on a crit," I'm just doing the math for average damage based on 65% probability of a hit and 5% probability of a crit. There are no "fumbles," so that doesn't affect the math.
yeah, my bad. That's a houserule we use :) Fumbles are bad, mmk?



I did forget to change the damage die when I recalculated for greatsword with Great Weapon Master. At 50% save chance, the expected average damage is 43.5 with no spell and 36.8 with spell.

I agree, and stated in my original post, that it's better with other melee attackers. My claim was only about its effectiveness in a "one-on-one" situation. The best scenario of all remains the bard or cleric casting it, and the paladin using both rounds to bash instead of spending one casting the spell. :smallsmile:

Still, it remains that the only way to outperform is IF you crit. That's what I was saying about 'banking' on it. You may not be, but the percentage calculation you are making does. In a pure 1:1 combat, which is unlikely to be the situation OP is in (single PC campaigns I'm guessing are pretty rare), then yes, you break even if you don't crit, and come ahead if you do. However, in a party situation, you have to include the opportunity for others attack and crit as well as shutting down that enemy and preventing them from damaging and/or killing you or your friends. When I said banking, I'd rather take the autocrit and give it to my friends AND shut down the enemy then take the increased chance for a natural crit.

[Finieous]

Regarding the 4 attacks vs 2, you're forgetting. With GWM, you get to automatically make a bonus attack if you crit. So it's really 4 attacks (no spell) vs 3 (spell).


No, I'm not.



This boost the damage SIGNIFICANTLY above with the auto-crits + smite.


Yes, it does. The damage with spell is about 63, compared to about 43 for no spell. But then you have to factor in the save chance...



Additionally, advantage = GWM +10 damage is ~+25% more likely to connect = another significant damage boost.


Yes, I included that in the math as well.



So yes, against a Humanoid target Hold Person is worth it for a 2h Paladin with GWM (which should be all of them by level 1/4). It's just that not many targets will be Humanoid.

No, the expected average damage for such a paladin will be lower casting the spell in a one-on-one situation, compared with using the 2nd-level slot to smite in round 1. It's not a huge difference, though, and if the sense of #win when the target fails the save exceeds the sense of #fail when the target succeeds, go for it. It's fun. :smallbiggrin:

ETA: I'm getting ready to leave work and I won't be able to keep arguing, so here's he math with greatsword and GWM. No fighting style, and "no-spell" isn't using OoV to get advantage. Both options use a 2nd-level and 1st-level slot. My notation sucks, but I believe the math is correct. I do think I had a calculation error the first time for the GWM scenario - it's actually a tiny difference.

ETA2: I'm home and will include notation. And correct a couple errors, including not factoring in no-spell's bonus attack on crit. ;)

Option 1 (no spell)
Round 1: ((7+13.5+3+10)*0.4)+((7+3+10)*0.4)+(34*0.05)+(7*0. 05)+(8.35*0.0975) = 24.26
Weapon Damage = 7
Smite (2nd level) = 13.5
STR Mod = 3
GWM = 10
Hit Chance = 40%
Crit Damage with Smite = 34
Crit Damage w/o Smite = 7
Crit Bonus Attack Damage = 8.35
Crit Chance = 5%

Round 2: ((7+9+3+10)*0.4)+((7+3+10)*0.4)+(25*0.05)+(7)*0.05 )+(8.35*0.0975) = 22
Weapon Damage = 7
Smite (1st level) = 9
STR Mod = 3
GWM = 10
Hit Chance = 40%
Crit Damage with Smite = 25
Crit Damage w/o Smite = 7
Crit Bonus Attack Damage = 8.35
Crit Chance = 5%

Total: 46.26

Option 2 (spell)
Round 1: 0
Round 2a (save fails): ((14+18+3+10)*0.64)+((14+3+10)*0.64)+((14+3+10)*0. 64) = 63.36
Weapon Damage = 14
Smite (1st level) = 18
STR Mod = 3
GWM = 10
Hit Chance = 64%
Crit Chance = 100%

Total (2a): 63.36

Round 2b (save succeeds): ((7+9+3+10)*0.4)+((7+3+10)*0.4)+(25*0.05)+(7)*0.05 )+(8.35*0.0975) = 22
Weapon Damage = 7
Smite (1st level) = 9
STR Mod = 3
GWM = 10
Hit Chance = 40%
Crit Damage with Smite = 25
Crit Damage w/o Smite = 7
Crit Bonus Attack Damage = 8.35
Crit Chance = 5%

Total (2b) = 22

50% save chance: 42.68

So maybe use it in a one-on-one situation if you can ready the spell to cast after the opponent's turn, as long as the opponent is a humanoid tough enough to blow three spell slots on but doesn't have an especially good Wisdom save.

[supergoji18]

I'm playing a Vengeance Paladin in one of my current campaigns, and I keep seeing that Hold Person is almost always rated sky-blue. But I just can't wrap my head around it.

Sure, it paralyzes the target. Great.

But assuming I use it at the start of combat, it takes my action and concentration, so I don't get to do anything else (namely, attack).

The target gets a save.

The targets turn comes, so it gets another save.

Then I finally get to attack it.


So basically, it takes my action, concentration (so no Bless), and a full turn to use, and the big bad gets two saves before I even get a chance to go nova on it.

So help me out here. Why does everyone say this is so good?
because there is a thing called party members. They tend go either before the bad guy or right after you in the initiative order.

[RulesJD]

If it's one-on-one and you get one auto-crit out of it, you come out ever so slightly ahead. This assumes Str 16 and a 65% chance to hit.

Option 1 (Attack Round 1 with 2nd-level smite; attack Round 2 with 1st-level smite)
Round 1: ((4.5+13.5+3)*0.65) + (18*.05) = 14.55
Round 2: ((4.5+9+3)*0.65) + (13.5*.05) = 11.4
Total: 25.95 damage

Option 2 (Cast hold person Round 1; attack Round 2 with 1st-level smite)
Round 1: 0
Round 2: (9+18+3)*0.8775 = 26.35
Total: 26.35 damage

What this means is that you should never do it if it's one-on-one, even readying to cast at the end of their turn, because there's at least some chance the target makes its save. In that case, you do zero damage in Round 1 and 11.4 damage in Round 2 -- less than half the damage you'd have done if you'd just used the 2nd-level slot to smite (on a hit) in Round 1. Of course, there's some chance as well for a second, third, etc., auto-crit, but the probabilities of that drop quickly (e.g. if the first save is 50%, failing two is 25%, failing three is 12.5%, etc.).

Now, it's usually not one-on-one, which means that other party members will get attacks with advantage for auto-crits. But following the same logic, you're better suited as a paladin to attacking a target held by a caster than you are to doing the holding yourself.

This is the math I'm referring to.

I see no other post where you calculate out the math (which you should really do a better job of labeling your variables). You make statements later about damage numbers but only provide the raw number, not the calculation behind it.

[Finieous]

This is the math I'm referring to.

I see no other post where you calculate out the math (which you should really do a better job of labeling your variables). You make statements later about damage numbers but only provide the raw number, not the calculation behind it.

Yeah, I'm not going to put more effort into it. If you want to check my math by doing the calcs yourself, that'd be swell.

[KorvinStarmast]

We had a five person party.
Me cleric.
Had hold person. Levels 4 and 5 were when we had a chance at humanoids I needed to hold.
The seven times that I used that spell, they made their saves six times. Our fighters got NO bonus out of the spell. The rest of the time we were fighting other kinds of monsters.

I decided that Hold Person is overrated unless you have a way of forcing disadvantage on a save. Yeah, when it works, nice, that one time: chutney.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm playing a Vengeance Paladin in one of my current campaigns, and I keep seeing that Hold Person is almost always rated sky-blue. But I just can't wrap my head around it.

Sure, it paralyzes the target. Great.

But assuming I use it at the start of combat, it takes my action and concentration, so I don't get to do anything else (namely, attack).

The target gets a save.

The targets turn comes, so it gets another save.

Then I finally get to attack it.


So basically, it takes my action, concentration (so no Bless), and a full turn to use, and the big bad gets two saves before I even get a chance to go nova on it.

So help me out here. Why does everyone say this is so good?

Teamwork. You hold them, they lose a minimum of 1 turn and your allies get a bunch of free attacks. And that's even if they succeed at the save at the end of their turn.

Plus if you do get the chance to attack, it's an attack with advantage and automatically a critical hit for melee attacks.

So...for Divine Smite with a Greatsword we're looking at:

4d6+5 for the greatsword, +2d8 for improved divine smite, +10d8 for a 4th level slot expended.

So for two attacks, we'd be looking at 146 damage. Average.


That said, you are a pally, your spell save dc is crap compared to the real casters. Leave control effects to the folks who do it best, Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers.

Paladins spell save DC is the same formula as a sorcerer or warlock, and Paladins should have maximized charisma, so no, their save DC is identical.

[krugaan]

We had a five person party.
Me cleric.
Had hold person. Levels 4 and 5 were when we had a chance at humanoids I needed to hold.
The seven times that I used that spell, they made their saves six times. Our fighters got NO bonus out of the spell. The rest of the time we were fighting other kinds of monsters.

I decided that Hold Person is overrated unless you have a way of forcing disadvantage on a save. Yeah, when it works, nice, that one time: chutney.

This. I had this spell as on my valor bard. 18 CHA, and it worked once out of 5 times, and the target shook free one turn later. The oddity of it is, when you use it as CC you lose one of the major benefits (extra damage) and when you use it for damage it's fun for the big numbers, but it's more of a "win-more" move.

[Firechanter]

We had a five person party.
Me cleric.
Had hold person. Levels 4 and 5 were when we had a chance at humanoids I needed to hold.
The seven times that I used that spell, they made their saves six times. Our fighters got NO bonus out of the spell. The rest of the time we were fighting other kinds of monsters.

I decided that Hold Person is overrated unless you have a way of forcing disadvantage on a save. Yeah, when it works, nice, that one time: chutney.

I feel ya. In our game, the DM is also notoriously lucky with his saves (we roll everything openly). Our Sorc player is particularly unlucky with his damage, so... in conjunction with those stupidly lucky save rolls, he often ends up doing just single-digit damage to most enemies even with an upcast fireball. Really makes you cry. ^^

But yours is a prime example of the Hold Person dilemma: at low levels, your Save DCs are too low to reliably debuff an enemy. At higher levels, your Save DC would be more reliable, but humanoids become a rare sight. And Hold Monster is a significantly higher investment -- and a Vengadin only gets it at level 17.

I also play a Vengeance Pala, currently level 9, and not once did I get around to casting Hold Person. At lower levels I didn't do it because of save chances. Then humanoids ceased to come up very often, and those that did were usually Wizards or Clerics themselves, so again pointless to throw a Wis-Save at them. Besides, my Save DC now is 15, so still far from reliable against enemies that might be worth having it cast at them at level 9ish.

[Finieous]

This. I had this spell as on my valor bard. 18 CHA, and it worked once out of 5 times, and the target shook free one turn later. The oddity of it is, when you use it as CC you lose one of the major benefits (extra damage) and when you use it for damage it's fun for the big numbers, but it's more of a "win-more" move.

This plays into a suspicion I have about "control" in 5e. Every control spell with a save begins: "Lose a turn and use a spell slot for an X% chance to do Y." Either your turn better not be worth much comparatively, or X better be very high, or Y better be big -- certainly bigger than "target loses a turn." In 5e, X usually isn't terribly high. Hypnotic pattern? Okay, Y is big. Command, hold person, fear, etc.? Way more situational. This seems very different from 3.x, where you could get X very high, or certainly from TSR (A)D&D where X could be high and Y (real save-or-sucks and save-or-dies) was often huge. In B/X, for example, hold person could affect 1d4 targets and lasted for nine (9) turns! That's an hour-and-a-half, or 540 B/X combat rounds!

I'm not at all convinced it's a bad thing, but it's a big difference in the power of control spells.

[krugaan]

This plays into a suspicion I have about "control" in 5e. Every control spell with a save begins: "Lose a turn and use a spell slot for an X% chance to do Y." Either your turn better not be worth much comparatively, or X better be very high, or Y better be big -- certainly bigger than "target loses a turn." In 5e, X usually isn't terribly high. Hypnotic pattern? Okay, Y is big. Command, hold person, fear, etc.? Way more situational. This seems very different from 3.x, where you could get X very high, or certainly from TSR (A)D&D where X could be high and Y (real save-or-sucks and save-or-dies) was often huge. In B/X, for example, hold person could affect 1d4 targets and lasted for nine (9) turns! That's an hour-and-a-half, or 540 B/X combat rounds!

I'm not at all convinced it's a bad thing, but it's a big difference in the power of control spells.

I do not miss save or suck at all. Particularly hold person. My favorite magical item was ring of free action, lol.

Yeah, since they limited the Y and added concentration, action economy is more important than ever. In fact, I'm fairly certain 5E is built around it. That puts a finite limit on the amount of CC you can throw out, which is also a good thing and terms of caster/martial balance. If you're using hold person for the "win more damage big numbers" that's fine, but in terms of action economy you need to bump it up to 3rd slot or higher.

Hypnotic pattern is generally worth it even if the hypnosis is broken, simply because for one action you're denying more than one of the enemy. Any aoe CC like that is generally worthwhile.

[Tanarii]

or certainly from TSR (A)D&D where X could be high and Y (real save-or-sucks and save-or-dies) was often huge. In B/X, for example, hold person could affect 1d4 targets and lasted for nine (9) turns! That's an hour-and-a-half, or 540 B/X combat rounds!Yeah, but magic-users were fragile. Technically, everyone was compared to modern standards. But Magic-users particularly so. Glass cannon meant it.

OTOH, what was good for the goose was good for the gander. Players with the spells had a huge advantage. If their enemies had the spells, it was a huge disadvantage.

I do a lot less evil cackling when I'm designing dungeons nowadays. :smallsigh:

[Jarlhen]

We fought our way through the castle, made it to the throne room where the necromancer was waiting. His minions had worn us down, he knew we weren't in a great state. He unveiled our greatest threat yet, a flesh golem. We knew that if he pulled the lever the flesh golem would be released and we'd have to fight both. As the party was involved in talking the whole thing over with the necromancer (our job was to empty the castle, no one cared if the necromancer lived or died as long as he wasn't there) and taking the diplomatic route the bard decided to take a different approach. Hold person mid-sentence, necromancer failed his saving throw, the rest of the party attacked. By the time the necromancer got to make his first saving throw he was dead and on the ground. The chained up flesh golem was a breeze.

That's why hold person is incredibly potent. And it's not the first time either. It can entirely change the entire encounter. In case it's not clear, melee attackers get advantage and crit on hit against paralyzed creatures. Hold person paralyzes.

[KorvinStarmast]

Do other people not start with a 16 Cha? Cause I start with a 16 Cha. For a Paladin? In our group, two different campaigns, neither paladin (Vengeance, Devotion) maxed Cha at character creation. Both boosted Strength and Con. (Cha at 14 for both).

[RulesJD]

As another aside:

The saving throw for Hold Person happens at the end of the target's turn, thus you've at least burned 1 turn of actions for the target. Not ideal, but something.

I still agree that it's not Sky Blue unless you're in a campaign of humanoids.

[Firechanter]

Yeah, but magic-users were fragile. Technically, everyone was compared to modern standards. But Magic-users particularly so. Glass cannon meant it.

OTOH, what was good for the goose was good for the gander. Players with the spells had a huge advantage. If their enemies had the spells, it was a huge disadvantage.

I do a lot less evil cackling when I'm designing dungeons nowadays. :smallsigh:

Pre-3E, you could wipe an entire party up to level 5 at will, while presenting a nominally "fair and balanced" challenge. Just use one of the spells that don't allow a save if the target has less than 6HD/levels. Sleep was one of them, if memory serves.

That's why in pre-3E, NPC casters ALWAYS just blast. If they used a Control spell _once_ it would be immediately Game Over, and nothing the players could do about it, not even commit their fate to a die roll.

Edit:
Ah, correction: in AD&D2nd, the following lowlevel spells would be surefire TPKers:
- Sleep: no save allowed. One casting can send a level 1 party to the land of dreams. Your only chance: be an Elf.
- Command: no save allowed before level 6. Only affects 1.
and last not least, the ultimate Playerkiller spell:
- Colour Spray. No save before level 6. Affected creatures fall unconscious. Nobody is immune.

[KorvinStarmast]

This plays into a suspicion I have about "control" in 5e. Every control spell with a save begins: "Lose a turn and use a spell slot for an X% chance to do Y."

I'm not at all convinced it's a bad thing, but it's a big difference in the power of control spells.
Yeah, CC is nowhere near as useful as before unless you find a way to create disadvantage for the saves. That can take a bit of thinking and sometimes it requires DM rulings.

[Tanarii]

Pre-3E, you could wipe an entire party up to level 5 at will, while presenting a nominally "fair and balanced" challenge. Just use one of the spells that don't allow a save if the target has less than 6HD/levels. Sleep was one of them, if memory serves.

That's why in pre-3E, NPC casters ALWAYS just blast. If they used a Control spell _once_ it would be immediately Game Over, and nothing the players could do about it, not even commit their fate to a die roll.It made researching your enemy, caution, and tactical play critical to success. Also, it's worth noting that interrupting spells was a big thing back then.

And yes, even then, Game Over happened a lot. Character death, and even TPKs, were an expected thing. Henchmen or other player parties recovering bodies or looking for MIA characters inspired many missions.

Not that you can't make this happen even in D&D 5e. It just doesn't happen as often due to one spell, enemy, or trap. :smallamused:

[Finieous]

As another aside:

The saving throw for Hold Person happens at the end of the target's turn, thus you've at least burned 1 turn of actions for the target. Not ideal, but something.


No, the second saving throw happens at the end of the target's turn. They get the first save when you cast the spell. Thus, at least, you've done nothing but burn your own action and a 2nd-level spell slot.

[Firechanter]

No, the second saving throw happens at the end of the target's turn. They get the first save when you cast the spell. Thus, at least, you've done nothing but burn your own action and a 2nd-level spell slot.

Sure, but that's always a possibility/risk. If you blast, the target can also save and laugh at your piddly damage. If you attack, you may miss. At the end of the day, if the dice don't like you, you have always wasted your turn.
If your Hold Person takes at first, then you've exchanged your action and a slot vs their entire turn, even if they make the second save. Depending on the opponent, this exchange can be worthwhile.

[BiPolar]

No, the second saving throw happens at the end of the target's turn. They get the first save when you cast the spell. Thus, at least, you've done nothing but burn your own action and a 2nd-level spell slot.

Yes, that's the risk for a standard save or nothing spell. But if it does fail, that's potentially a full round of crits for all melee attacks in the group. I can tell you that as a Paladin (with a +4 modifier at level 9), if there's a humanoid I'm concerned about taking out easily, I'm gonna try and hold it.

[BiPolar]

No, I'm not.



Yes, it does. The damage with spell is about 63, compared to about 43 for no spell. But then you have to factor in the save chance...



Yes, I included that in the math as well.



No, the expected average damage for such a paladin will be lower casting the spell in a one-on-one situation, compared with using the 2nd-level slot to smite in round 1. It's not a huge difference, though, and if the sense of #win when the target fails the save exceeds the sense of #fail when the target succeeds, go for it. It's fun. :smallbiggrin:

ETA: I'm getting ready to leave work and I won't be able to keep arguing, so here's he math with greatsword and GWM. No fighting style, and "no-spell" isn't using OoV to get advantage. Both options use a 2nd-level and 1st-level slot. My notation sucks, but I believe the math is correct. I do think I had a calculation error the first time for the GWM scenario - it's actually a tiny difference.

ETA2: I'm home and will include notation. And correct a couple errors, including not factoring in no-spell's bonus attack on crit. ;)

Option 1 (no spell)
Round 1: ((7+13.5+3+10)*0.4)+((7+3+10)*0.4)+(34*0.05)+(7*0. 05)+(8.35*0.0975) = 24.26
Weapon Damage = 7
Smite (2nd level) = 13.5
STR Mod = 3
GWM = 10
Hit Chance = 40%
Crit Damage with Smite = 34
Crit Damage w/o Smite = 7
Crit Bonus Attack Damage = 8.35
Crit Chance = 5%

Round 2: ((7+9+3+10)*0.4)+((7+3+10)*0.4)+(25*0.05)+(7)*0.05 )+(8.35*0.0975) = 22
Weapon Damage = 7
Smite (1st level) = 9
STR Mod = 3
GWM = 10
Hit Chance = 40%
Crit Damage with Smite = 25
Crit Damage w/o Smite = 7
Crit Bonus Attack Damage = 8.35
Crit Chance = 5%

Total: 46.26

Option 2 (spell)
Round 1: 0
Round 2a (save fails): ((14+18+3+10)*0.64)+((14+3+10)*0.64)+((14+3+10)*0. 64) = 63.36
Weapon Damage = 14
Smite (1st level) = 18
STR Mod = 3
GWM = 10
Hit Chance = 64%
Crit Chance = 100%

Total (2a): 63.36

Round 2b (save succeeds): ((7+9+3+10)*0.4)+((7+3+10)*0.4)+(25*0.05)+(7)*0.05 )+(8.35*0.0975) = 22
Weapon Damage = 7
Smite (1st level) = 9
STR Mod = 3
GWM = 10
Hit Chance = 40%
Crit Damage with Smite = 25
Crit Damage w/o Smite = 7
Crit Bonus Attack Damage = 8.35
Crit Chance = 5%

Total (2b) = 22

50% save chance: 42.68

So maybe use it in a one-on-one situation if you can ready the spell to cast after the opponent's turn, as long as the opponent is a humanoid tough enough to blow three spell slots on but doesn't have an especially good Wisdom save.

I probably need to think more about this, but giving a .05% of crit damage in the calculation I don't think works. There is a .05% chance you crit, but the damage shouldn't be considered at the .05%. It's either there or it isn't. And 95% of the time, it's not going to be there.

[krugaan]

Sure, but that's always a possibility/risk. If you blast, the target can also save and laugh at your piddly damage. If you attack, you may miss. At the end of the day, if the dice don't like you, you have always wasted your turn.
If your Hold Person takes at first, then you've exchanged your action and a slot vs their entire turn, even if they make the second save. Depending on the opponent, this exchange can be worthwhile.

There are spells which do not allow saves that are somewhat effective against casters, including most wall / obscurement spells and silence. The effect is a lot less all or nothing than hold person.

In my group we tend to CC the mooks and kill the caster as quickly as possible. Then again, I'm the only experienced player, as well as the only CCer (usually).

[Finieous]

I probably need to think more about this, but giving a .05% of crit damage in the calculation I don't think works. There is a .05% chance you crit, but the damage shouldn't be considered at the .05%. It's either there or it isn't. And 95% of the time, it's not going to be there.

This is how you calculate average damage, incorporating the probability of a hit/crit. It's a statistical average. I mean...I guess I'm not sure what to tell you.

[BiPolar]

This is how you calculate average damage, incorporating the probability of a hit/crit. It's a statistical average. I mean...I guess I'm not sure what to tell you.

Totally fair if that's how one calculates average damage :) I haven't taken statistics (or calculated them myself) in about 20 years. I'll take your word on it.

[PoeticDwarf]

Even at it's least optimal, if the enemy fails their original save, anybody who tries to melee attack the paralyzed foe between your turn and that foes turn gets advantage and auto-crits on a hit. The other melee'ers in the party will love you for it.

Still, Bless is pretty good...

AND the enemy won't act. You have two upsides

[Finieous]

Sure, but that's always a possibility/risk. If you blast, the target can also save and laugh at your piddly damage. If you attack, you may miss. At the end of the day, if the dice don't like you, you have always wasted your turn.
If your Hold Person takes at first, then you've exchanged your action and a slot vs their entire turn, even if they make the second save. Depending on the opponent, this exchange can be worthwhile.

I agree with all this. I was just clarifying JD's statement, which suggested that at least (worst), the target would lose one turn since the save comes at the end of its turn.

[Tanarii]

This is how you calculate average damage, incorporating the probability of a hit/crit. It's a statistical average. I mean...I guess I'm not sure what to tell you.What's your formula. Because it looks like you're doing:
(H + C) + (H*Smite + C*Smite) + {1-[1-C^2]}*(Bonus attack)
Which isn't the correct way to calculate 2 attacks, with a smite first attack if crit happens, otherwise on second attack. Although it's really damn close, if a bit low

The correct way is:
(H + C) + (H+{1-[1-C^2]})*Smite + {1-[1-C^2]}*(Bonus attack)

That extrapolates out to:
(H + C) + (H*Smite *{2C*Smite - C^2*Smite}) + {1-[1-C^2]}*(Bonus Attack)

Basically, instead of {C*Smite}, you should be using {2C*Smite - C^2*Smite}. So your damage is a bit low in the non-auto-crit rounds.

[Finieous]

Basically, instead of {C*Smite}, you should be using {2C*Smite - C^2*Smite}. So your damage is a bit low in the non-auto-crit rounds.

I'm sure you're right. Close enough for government work. :smallsmile:

[Oramac]

Close enough for government work. :smallsmile:

That's not saying much. lol

[Finieous]

That's not saying much. lol

It's a rounding error! :smallbiggrin:

[BiPolar]

I'm sure you're right. Close enough for government work. :smallsmile:

I once said that while working with NOAA on a project. They didn't find it amusing.

[Finieous]

I once said that while working with NOAA on a project. They didn't find it amusing.

Yeah, context is everything! This doesn't involve catastrophic hurricanes or anything, so we should be good. The result is that no-spell's advantage over spell should be just a smidge greater.

[Malifice]

I also hadn't thought of readying the action for the end of the targets turn. That's a really good idea.

The drawback is that readying a spell = concentration. You cant concentrate on a spell while you have one readied, and if you get hit you have to make a save or lose the spell.

Failing a save against Hold Person (and its buddy Hold Monster) is a death sentence. Very few 5E critters can survive a whole round of attacks with advantage + auto crits + auto failed Str/ Dex saves from a party of PCs.

[Knaight]

On top of the arguments already made, I'd add that while 5e seems to have been built so that a typical fight has roughly even numbers on each side, that does slide around a bit, and as long as you outnumber them, losing an action to take away an action is a beautiful thing. This is particularly true against single enemies, where your party drops from something like 4 to 3 actions, where they statistically drop from 1 to something like 0.5, if not worse. 25% of your party capability traded away, for an average of 50% of theirs. That everyone on your side starts critting all the time so that you don't even lose the 25% overall is just the icing on the cake.

[krugaan]

On top of the arguments already made, I'd add that while 5e seems to have been built so that a typical fight has roughly even numbers on each side, that does slide around a bit, and as long as you outnumber them, losing an action to take away an action is a beautiful thing. This is particularly true against single enemies, where your party drops from something like 4 to 3 actions, where they statistically drop from 1 to something like 0.5, if not worse. 25% of your party capability traded away, for an average of 50% of theirs. That everyone on your side starts critting all the time so that you don't even lose the 25% overall is just the icing on the cake.

i have to say that, with very few exceptions, PCs generally do not (and should not) outnumber the enemy, unless that enemy has legendary actions, or is of a draaaaaaastically higher CR rating.

[Knaight]

i have to say that, with very few exceptions, PCs generally do not (and should not) outnumber the enemy, unless that enemy has legendary actions, or is of a draaaaaaastically higher CR rating.

I've seen it slide both ways.

Plus, just because you don't outnumber an enemy at the beginning of a fight doesn't mean you can't outnumber them at the end.

[Malifice]

i have to say that, with very few exceptions, PCs generally do not (and should not) outnumber the enemy, unless that enemy has legendary actions, or is of a draaaaaaastically higher CR rating.

Depends on the DM.

A standard 'adventuring day' in my campaign for a party of 5 x 5th level PCs would look something like:

1) 1 Chimera
2) 3 Displacer beasts
3) Hobgoblin captain and 7 hobgoblins
4) 4 Ankhegs
5) 1 Orog (riding a giant boar) and 5 orcs
6) 1 Young black dragon

So its a bit of a mix. A few mook heavy fights, a few solo fights, and a few where the party is on about even footing with an equal number of antagonists.

[krugaan]

Depends on the DM.

A standard 'adventuring day' in my campaign for a party of 5 x 5th level PCs would look something like:

1) 1 Chimera
2) 3 Displacer beasts
3) Hobgoblin captain and 7 hobgoblins
4) 4 Ankhegs
5) 1 Orog (riding a giant boar) and 5 orcs
6) 1 Young black dragon

So its a bit of a mix. A few mook heavy fights, a few solo fights, and a few where the party is on about even footing with an equal number of antagonists.

Ah, yeah, i guess a mix is good. I confess I'm colored by the campaign im in, my friend likes the "one or two fights a day unless we're assaulting the temple."

[krugaan]

I've seen it slide both ways.

Plus, just because you don't outnumber an enemy at the beginning of a fight doesn't mean you can't outnumber them at the end.

Or artificially outnumber them with C+C, walls, etc. Hypnotic pattern is like, the greatest spell from 5th level until ... well, whatever level it stops being good.

[Malifice]

Ah, yeah, i guess a mix is good. I confess I'm colored by the campaign im in, my friend likes the "one or two fights a day unless we're assaulting the temple."

For sure man. Nova strikes and casters probably rock in your games!

[krugaan]

For sure man. Nova strikes and casters probably rock in your games!

hah, game, singular. We have no nova strikers, lol.

[Malifice]

hah, game, singular. We have no nova strikers, lol.

Odd. With only 1-2 encounters in an adventuring day, full casters and paladins (and barbarians) should be dominating.

[krugaan]

Odd. With only 1-2 encounters in an adventuring day, full casters and paladins (and barbarians) should be dominating.

the whole thing is wildly unbalanced, lol. We have rather overpowered magical items, balanced by the fact that 3 out of the 4 of us have never played DnD before, lol.

Our wizard vacillates between blasting and firebolt (lol). Our moon druid and rogue are thankfully unkillable, but as valor bard I'm the only "healer" and ranged physical fighter.

We have no strength classes, lol.

edit: although inexperience makes for some funny moments. Playing PotA, trying to stealth murderhobo our way through Rivergard keep.

"Can a bear hide?"
I told her to pretend to be a rug, lol.

[Oramac]

"Can a bear hide?"
I told her to pretend to be a rug, lol.

Haha! That's great!

=================

So playing a different game last night, I found a far, far better use for Hold Person. Or rather, a far better user for it.

I was playing a Halfling Divination Wizard.

"I cast Hold Person on [target]. He rolls a 3 on the save."

Bam. I now actually hope for low rolls on my Divination dice.

EDIT: If my DM is reading this, I'm sorry!

[Socratov]

Haha! That's great!

=================

So playing a different game last night, I found a far, far better use for Hold Person. Or rather, a far better user for it.

I was playing a Halfling Divination Wizard.

"I cast Hold Person on [target]. He rolls a 3 on the save."

Bam. I now actually hope for low rolls on my Divination dice.

EDIT: If my DM is reading this, I'm sorry!

Well, to be fair, this is exactly how a diviner should be played.

down to a T.

[Oramac]

Well, to be fair, this is exactly how a diviner should be played.

down to a T.

True. Though previously I'd hoped for one high and one low roll, so I could give the high roll to my party. Now I hope for two low rolls so I can do things like keep Hold Person going for 2+ full rounds (or any other spell in the same vein).