Hold Person on a magically flying creature

[Mars Ultor]

While battling a flying human wizard, the cleric cast Hold Person. The wizard didn't have wings, he was flying by means of the Fly spell. Hold person says the creature is aware, but even incapable of speech, and is paralyzed and frozen in place.

Fly says that it only requires as much concentration as walking (which presumably is minimal).

There were different views on the effectiveness of the Hold Person in that instance. I felt it would only stop the flyer from moving, he'd remain in place. Another player believed the flyer would descend because he couldn't maintain the spell. The spell specifically states the conditions under which you descend, so falling damage wasn't an issue in this case. It was simply a question of whether or not a caster can maintain flight even while subject to Hold Person.

Assuming the wizard can maintain flight while held, since only minimal concentration is required, is the flyer still able to mentally direct his flight?

[St Fan]

A paralyzed wizard cannot move his body, talk or cast spell, but is still conscious.

The Fly spell gives mental control over the movements. So yes, a paralyzed wizard can still fly at the specified speed in whatever direction he might want. He cannot do much else until the hold person is broken, though.

[JNAProductions]

I agree. (I had a post earlier where I thought it was wrong, but I was in the wrong edition. :P)

[Crake]

nowhere does it actually say that the flight is mentally controlled, it merely grants you non-winged flight for the duration of the spell. Paralyzed non-winged fliers still cannot move while paralyzed, though they don't fall out of the air like winged fliers do.

[Torpin]

fly grants flight with perfect manuverability, which allows for hovering. which allows a character to take a full round action while flying and therefore maintaining the hover is a non action, and thus should be allowed to continue

[Erloas]

If "it requires only as much concentration as walking" and hold person prevents a person from walking, then it would prevent them from flying too. Because the fly spell itself, rather than the person, causes them to lower safely to the ground, then that would still happen even if held.



fly grants flight with perfect manuverability, which allows for hovering. which allows a character to take a full round action while flying and therefore maintaining the hover is a non action, and thus should be allowed to continue
No "... and its maneuverability is good." right there in the spell. Either way, it wouldn't matter as being able to hover in place doesn't change the effort required to fly. Also the "can do a full round action" doesn't change anything, because you can do a 5-ft step, free action, or swift actions, along with a full round action. Hold-person would prevent even free or switch actions (such as speech).

[Torpin]

If "it requires only as much concentration as walking" and hold person prevents a person from walking, then it would prevent them from flying too. Because the fly spell itself, rather than the person, causes them to lower safely to the ground, then that would still happen even if held.



No "... and its maneuverability is good." right there in the spell. Either way, it wouldn't matter as being able to hover in place doesn't change the effort required to fly. Also the "can do a full round action" doesn't change anything, because you can do a 5-ft step, free action, or swift actions, along with a full round action. Hold-person would prevent even free or switch actions (such as speech).

most of what you said was wrong, except for it being good and not perfect i'll stand corrected there. good manuverability also allows you to hover, and if flying has the same effort as walking then hovering would have the same effort as standing and you can stand while under the effects of hold person.

can do a full round action changes everything. it means you dont have to move to maintain your flight

[Deophaun]

Hold person prevents you from taking any actions, full stop. The only things you are allowed to do is a) be aware and b) breathe. Flying by means of the fly spell is neither of those things, and nothing in the fly spell says that it overrides hold person.

[Erloas]

most of what you said was wrong, except for it being good and not perfect i'll stand corrected there. good manuverability also allows you to hover, and if flying has the same effort as walking then hovering would have the same effort as standing and you can stand while under the effects of hold person.

can do a full round action changes everything. it means you dont have to move to maintain your flight

Hovering is a sub ability of flying and flying requires "as much concentration as walking." Hovering is not its own ability, it is part of fly and we know you can't fly. If hovering were easier than flying then it wouldn't be restricted to good or better flight. The fact that it is limited to the higher maneuverability means it is harder to do, not easier. Claiming that it requires less effort than moving is nonsensical. So trying to claim you can do a more difficult sub-ability of fly when you can't do normal fly doesn't make any sense.

[Torpin]

Hovering is a sub ability of flying and flying requires "as much concentration as walking." Hovering is not its own ability, it is part of fly and we know you can't fly. If hovering were easier than flying then it wouldn't be restricted to good or better flight. The fact that it is limited to the higher maneuverability means it is harder to do, not easier. Claiming that it requires less effort than moving is nonsensical. So trying to claim you can do a more difficult sub-ability of fly when you can't do normal fly doesn't make any sense.


Hold person prevents you from taking any actions, full stop. The only things you are allowed to do is a) be aware and b) breathe. Flying by means of the fly spell is neither of those things, and nothing in the fly spell says that it overrides hold person.

RAW seems to disagree with you



If a flying creature fails to maintain its minimum forward speed, it must land at the end of its movement. If it is too high above the ground to land, it falls straight down, descending 150 feet in the first round of falling. If this distance brings it to the ground, it takes falling damage. If the fall doesn’t bring the creature to the ground, it must spend its next turn recovering from the stall. It must succeed on a DC 20 Reflex save to recover. Otherwise it falls another 300 feet. If it hits the ground, it takes falling damage. Otherwise, it has another chance to recover on its next turn.

the minimum fly speed for good maneuverability is 0. therefore when under the effects of hold person you manage to go atleast 0 feet thus meeting the minimum speed, therefore YOU DONT FALL

[Deophaun]

RAW seems to disagree with you

the minimum fly speed for good maneuverability is 0. therefore when under the effects of hold person you manage to go atleast 0 feet thus meeting the minimum speed, therefore YOU DONT FALL
I'm curious. Where did I say that you fall? Can you quote me?

As for RAW:

The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech.
Now, if you want the specifics of what happens with hovering, from the spell itself:

A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls.
It would seem safe to infer from this that a creature flying without aid of its wings does not fall.

It's amazing how much clearer things are when we read the description for the thing we're talking about!

[Crake]

I'm curious. Where did I say that you fall? Can you quote me?

As for RAW:

Now, if you want the specifics of what happens with hovering, from the spell itself:

It would seem safe to infer from this that a creature flying without aid of its wings does not fall.

It's amazing how much clearer things are when we read the description for the thing we're talking about!

If we wanna be technical, you can still take purely mental actions while paralyzed, so SLAs, still/silent spells with no material or focus components are all things you can still do while paralyzed.

[Deophaun]

If we wanna be technical, you can still take purely mental actions while paralyzed, so SLAs, still/silent spells with no material or focus components are all things you can still do while paralyzed.
While true, hold person doesn't just say you become paralyzed. It specifically precludes taking any actions.

[Ashtagon]

My personal gut instinct interpretation: hold person prevents voluntary muscle action. It doesn't affect concentration. As the fly spell doesn't require muscle action, it is not affected by hold person.

Checking the rules, and...

Hold person makes the target paralysed. "A paralysed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralysed swimmer can’t swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralysed creature, however, counts as 2 squares." It strikes me that they wouldn't have called out a winged flying creature unless non-winged flying creatures were somehow treated differently.

The fly spell itself requires "as much concentration as walking". That doesn't say anything about muscle action required, only concentration (which is a purely mental act).

If you rule that hold person should end magical flight, this would make beholders suddenly very vulnerable to a simple low-level spell, which is probably not intended.

Overall, it would appear that the wizard could continue to operate and maintain the fly spell normally, unhindered by the hold person spell. However, the hold person would prevent the wizard from doing pretty much anything else.

Dissenting View: If in your setting the fly spell requires certain physical actions to "operate" (e.g., whole body gestures similar to Superman's flight), then hold person would pretty much scupper the spell.

[Doctor Awkward]

According to the Rules of the Game articles on Movement:

Part Four (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a), Flight and Other Speeds:

"Hover: Hover is the ability to stay in one place while airborne. As shown in the Dungeon Master's Guide, creatures with perfect or good maneuverability always have this ability. Less maneuverable creatures also might gain this ability via the Hover feat from the Monster Manual.

A creature with perfect maneuverability can hover as a free action and remain airborne.

A creature with good maneuverability also can hover as free action. It can instead hover as a move action and, as part of that move action, can move at half speed in any direction it likes (including straight up, straight down, or backward). Before or after it moves, the hovering creature can turn to face any direction it likes. When it stops hovering, it can resume ordinary flight in any direction in which it could normally fly."

And Part Seven (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040720a), Spells, Conditions, and Movement:

"Paralyzed: Paralyzed creatures can take only purely mental actions. In most cases, that prevents the character from using most move, standard, or full-round actions. If the paralyzed creature has some form of movement that doesn't require it to move its body (such as a fly spell), it can use a move action to move, but it cannot take other sorts of move actions, such as drawing weapons."

So in Skip Williams's opinion, the fly spell requires only mental actions to control, and thus a creature that is under the effects of a fly spell may still spend move actions on their turn to direct their flight even while held.

Make of that what you will.

[Crake]

And Part Seven (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040720a), Spells, Conditions, and Movement:

"Paralyzed: Paralyzed creatures can take only purely mental actions. In most cases, that prevents the character from using most move, standard, or full-round actions. If the paralyzed creature has some form of movement that doesn't require it to move its body (such as a fly spell), it can use a move action to move, but it cannot take other sorts of move actions, such as drawing weapons."

So in Skip Williams's opinion, the fly spell requires only mental actions to control, and thus a creature that is under the effects of a fly spell may still spend move actions on their turn to direct their flight even while held.

Make of that what you will.

Huh, there you go then.


While true, hold person doesn't just say you become paralyzed. It specifically precludes taking any actions.

I take that as a short explanation of what paralysis actually means, so the players don't have to go look it up. To each their own though.

[Erloas]

I suppose it is also worth point out that it wasn't specified as D&D or PF.

PF hover requires a DC15 fly skill check, rather than just being part of "good" manuverability. So unless you can make dex based skill checks while paralyzed (Dex 0), you're not going to be able to hover.

Of course fly isn't a skill in D&D. It is also worth noting that the linked D&D reference is not the same as the SRD. I think the fact that, according to that reading, you can still fly freely while under the effects of Hold Person and paralyzed, goes against the whole idea. I suppose this is actually a case of RAW versus RAI. RAW you can't move with fly and hold person, but RAI says you can, because the guy worked on 3rd edition said it, so that must be the intention. Of course if he worked on 3rd or 3.5 isn't clear, and I have no idea if any of this changed between 3 and 3.5.

[Doctor Awkward]

I suppose it is also worth point out that it wasn't specified as D&D or PF.

PF hover requires a DC15 fly skill check, rather than just being part of "good" manuverability. So unless you can make dex based skill checks while paralyzed (Dex 0), you're not going to be able to hover.

Of course fly isn't a skill in D&D. It is also worth noting that the linked D&D reference is not the same as the SRD. I think the fact that, according to that reading, you can still fly freely while under the effects of Hold Person and paralyzed, goes against the whole idea. I suppose this is actually a case of RAW versus RAI. RAW you can't move with fly and hold person, but RAI says you can, because the guy worked on 3rd edition said it, so that must be the intention. Of course if he worked on 3rd or 3.5 isn't clear, and I have no idea if any of this changed between 3 and 3.5.

The linked reference is not the Rules As Written.

It's an article written by one of the three core members of the D&D 3rd Edition design team explaining his intention when they wrote the rules, and his personal opinion of how he feels rules that he did not specifically write should function.

It's an excellent resource when you encounter an area on which the rules are not clear (and there are a lot of those), or do not explicitly spell out something. But it's also important to note that Skip isn't stating what the rules say, he's explaining what he meant the rules to say.

So if you want to be one of those folks who believes that an author's work takes on a life and interpretation of its own that is more dependent upon the reader than the author themselves, then that article won't mean much to you.

[Torpin]

I suppose it is also worth point out that it wasn't specified as D&D or PF.

PF hover requires a DC15 fly skill check, rather than just being part of "good" manuverability. So unless you can make dex based skill checks while paralyzed (Dex 0), you're not going to be able to hover.

Of course fly isn't a skill in D&D. It is also worth noting that the linked D&D reference is not the same as the SRD. I think the fact that, according to that reading, you can still fly freely while under the effects of Hold Person and paralyzed, goes against the whole idea. I suppose this is actually a case of RAW versus RAI. RAW you can't move with fly and hold person, but RAI says you can, because the guy worked on 3rd edition said it, so that must be the intention. Of course if he worked on 3rd or 3.5 isn't clear, and I have no idea if any of this changed between 3 and 3.5.

pathfiner hold person specifies as does the 3.5 phb
" A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls"
fly grants magical flight not wings. now if everyone who was subject to hold person falls then they wouldnt have needed to add this specific. but since it specifies only those with wings, then anyone who flies without wings is going to stay aloft

[Erloas]

pathfiner hold person specifies as does the 3.5 phb
" A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls"
fly grants magical flight not wings. now if everyone who was subject to hold person falls then they wouldnt have needed to add this specific. but since it specifies only those with wings, then anyone who flies without wings is going to stay aloft
Hold Person is the same yes, but Pathfinder has changed fly. Hover is a DC15 fly skill check, having a good manuverability just gives a +4 to fly skill checks. It also has "Without making a check, a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed." Which you can't do if you aren't moving. The only part that deals with wings specifically is after a collision or after taking damage.

In the part of paralyze, that is still correct to call out because a winged creature falls, while someone effected by a fly spell will float down rather than fall.

[Segev]

nowhere does it actually say that the flight is mentally controlled, it merely grants you non-winged flight for the duration of the spell. Paralyzed non-winged fliers still cannot move while paralyzed, though they don't fall out of the air like winged fliers do.


Hold person prevents you from taking any actions, full stop. The only things you are allowed to do is a) be aware and b) breathe. Flying by means of the fly spell is neither of those things, and nothing in the fly spell says that it overrides hold person.


While true, hold person doesn't just say you become paralyzed. It specifically precludes taking any actions.


Huh, there you go then.



I take that as a short explanation of what paralysis actually means, so the players don't have to go look it up. To each their own though.

If it were just reiterating what paralysis means, it would say the same thing as the paralysis rules. It takes the time to specifically preclude any actions. Which, on the one hand, makes sense, since hold person is Mind Affecting, and thus can reasonably be said to prevent you from even taking actions that require nothing but a thought to activate, beyond thinking, itself. On the other, I'd never noticed that before; prior to this thread, I'd have said you could take purely mental actions, such as casting Stilled Silent spells and using psionic powers or spell-like abilities. But nope, it precludes you from doing so.

[PrismCat21]

I'm curious. Where did I say that you fall? Can you quote me?

Alrighty then.


Hold person prevents you from taking any actions, full stop. The only things you are allowed to do is a) be aware and b) breathe. Flying by means of the fly spell is neither of those things, and nothing in the fly spell says that it overrides hold person.

You didn't explicitly say that the creature would fall. What you did say heavily implies it.
It was poor phrasing. I believe I understand what you 'meant', but you were unclear. You can only blame yourself for others interpreting it differently.

I'm curious now. Where did Torpin claim that you said they would fall? Can you quote him?
It's amazing how much clearer things are when we double check our work to make sure we meant the things we said!

[Deophaun]

You didn't explicitly say that the creature would fall. What you did say heavily implies it.
It does no such thing. People need to learn the difference between "imply" and "infer."

For instance, I infer from the rest of your post that you want to be put on the Ignore list. So I will.

[Calthropstu]

The fly spell gives you flight that "requires no more effort than walking." You can't walk while held, so you can't fly while held. As such, you must make a fly check in order to hover. Since you can't MAKE the fly check, you fall.

Edit: at least in PF. I don't have my 3.5 books handy.

[Ashtagon]

The fly spell gives you flight that "requires no more effort than walking." You can't walk while held, so you can't fly while held. As such, you must make a fly check in order to hover. Since you can't MAKE the fly check, you fall.

Edit: at least in PF. I don't have my 3.5 books handy.

In 3.5, it requires no more concentration than walking; concentration is purely a mental activity. Pathfinder retains the concentration wording.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fly.htm
http://legacy.aonprd.com/coreRulebook/spells/fly.html

[Doctor Awkward]

If it were just reiterating what paralysis means, it would say the same thing as the paralysis rules. It takes the time to specifically preclude any actions. Which, on the one hand, makes sense, since hold person is Mind Affecting, and thus can reasonably be said to prevent you from even taking actions that require nothing but a thought to activate, beyond thinking, itself. On the other, I'd never noticed that before; prior to this thread, I'd have said you could take purely mental actions, such as casting Stilled Silent spells and using psionic powers or spell-like abilities. But nope, it precludes you from doing so.

If that's true, then the spell itself is contradictory and non-functional.

Hold person permits you to make a new attempt to free yourself as a full-round action, which you are forbidden from taking on account of not being allowed to take any actions.

[Deophaun]

Being able to take a full round action for the express purpose of freeing yourself seems like a more specific rule than a general prohibition on taking actions. Specific > General.

[Doctor Awkward]

Being able to take a full round action for the express purpose of freeing yourself seems like a more specific rule than a general prohibition on taking actions. Specific > General.

And you specifically cannot take any actions, including one to free yourself. Nothing in the spell text of hold person says that it is allowed to overcome itself.

[Deophaun]

And you specifically cannot take any actions, including one to free yourself.
Right. Any action. That makes it more general than a rule regarding a particular action.

General and specific are not binary qualities.

[Doctor Awkward]

Right. Any action. That makes it more general than a rule regarding a particular action.

General and specific are not binary qualities.


You are missing the point.

In order for hold person to function the way you want it to, the text would have to read something to the effect of, "you may take this full-round action to free yourself even though you are otherwise forbidden from taking other actions."

As written, that last sentence in the spell text is meaningless. It permits you to use a full-round action, which you explicitly cannot take, to make a new save against the spell effect.

As has been stressed repeatedly by the folks who want a held flying creature to fall, it doesn't matter what you are allowed to do with actions if you cannot take them in the first place.

[Deophaun]

You are missing the point.

In order for hold person to function the way you want it to, the text would have to read something to the effect of, "you may take this full-round action to free yourself even though you are otherwise forbidden from taking other actions."
No, you are missing the point. That rule is more specific than the one prohibiting all actions. The rule is specific trumps general. Ergo, there is no contradiction and the sentence is meaningful.

Now, we can go around with you repeating the same wrong thing a million more times and me correcting you, but I don't see much point to that.

[Doctor Awkward]

Now, we can go around with you repeating the same wrong thing quoting the text as it is currently interpreted by the boards a million more times and me correcting you misapplying the principle of specific trumps general in order to supplant what the spell text actually says with my own personal beliefs on how I feel the spell should work, but I don't see much point to that.

Fixed that for you.

[ericgrau]

I'm inclined to agree with Skip Williams regarding paralyzed. Hold person however says "cannot take any actions" as pointed out. It also repeats this part of the paralyzed rules: "A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls." While it's possibly that a magically flying creature could fall too, that's probably not the intent or would have said so. A flying creature with good maneuverability most likely hovers in place, unable to move.

The harder question is what happens to a creature with overland flight. That spell only grants average maneuverability, no hover. If you don't have at least half speed forward each round, you fall. One possible interpretation is that you can't move forward and therefore fall immediately. Another is that you continue to glide forward. But even gliding requires some control. Personally I would make the player spin out of control and immediately fall, but dive in a random direction. Not necessarily straight down.

Yeah you could read "freeze in place" as stuck in your square (vertically and horizontally), except that's no different than the paralyze rule. (1) Skip Williams gives one example of how to still move when paralyzed but magically flying. Though it doesn't work with Hold Person, it does show "freezing in place" doesn't mean stuck in 1 square. And (2) that contradicts the same Hold Person spell text that says there's a way to fall.

[Doctor Awkward]

Hold person however says "cannot take any actions" as pointed out.

And as has also been pointed out, such an interpretation causes a dysfunction as it renders the last line of the spell meaningless.

If you "cannot take actions", then you cannot spend a full-round action to attempt another save.

[ericgrau]

And as has also been pointed out, such an interpretation causes a dysfunction as it renders the last line of the spell meaningless.

If you "cannot take actions", then you cannot spend a full-round action to attempt another save.

That would simply be a specific exception to the rule of cannot take actions. That's perfectly normal and typical of the rules.

Even going by RAI, the paralyzed condition says you may take purely mental actions and is not long. It would have been a simple copy paste to include this in Hold Person. And they did in fact copy paste portions of the condition, but not this portion. Plus hold person is an enchantment (compulsion) effect that allows breathing yet not speech. That suggests the stopping of the actions is a mental effect not physical effect, and should affect purely mental actions too. The full round action to escape seems analagous to many physically restraining effects, where you can't do much action-wise except attempt to escape. Except it's mental rather than physical.

[Segev]

Being able to take a full round action for the express purpose of freeing yourself seems like a more specific rule than a general prohibition on taking actions. Specific > General.


And you specifically cannot take any actions, including one to free yourself. Nothing in the spell text of hold person says that it is allowed to overcome itself.

No, Deophaun's right. The spell gives a general rule: You cannot take any actions. It then specifically says that you can take a full-round action to attempt to free yourself (with some specifics of how you check whether you've succeeded). It doesn't have to say, "as an exception to the 'no actions' clause," because by saying that you CAN do this, it already created the exception. Not only is this clearly intended, by the spell text, to work this way, but it DOES work this way thanks to the specific-trumps-general exception-based rules.

As a second example to illustrate the point, the fly spell simply informs you that you can fly, and gives specifics for how that interacts mechanically with the rest of the system. It does not, nor does it need to, say anything about specifically overriding the lack of ability to fly that most creatures have.

Exception-based rules mean that, if something says you can do something specific, it overrides any general rules saying you cannot.


I think I get your position, Doc Awk, but "it says I can take a full-round action to try to get free!" doesn't automatically translate to "therefore, all mental-only actions are okay, even though the spell forbids taking any action." We can argue over whether they meant "any physical action" when they said "any action," and over whether they intended there to be an implicit exception, but the implicit exception follows other rules constructions and English language, while inserting the word "physical" requires assuming you've divined the intent of the writer.

[Doctor Awkward]

That would simply be a specific exception to the rule of cannot take actions. That's perfectly normal and typical of the rules.

Even going by RAI, the paralyzed condition says you may take purely mental actions and is not long. It would have been a simple copy paste to include this in Hold Person. And they did in fact copy paste portions of the condition, but not this portion. Plus hold person is an enchantment (compulsion) effect that allows breathing yet not speech. That suggests the stopping of the actions is a mental effect not physical effect, and should affect purely mental actions too. The full round action to escape seems analagous to many physically restraining effects, where you can't do much action-wise except attempt to escape. Except it's mental rather than physical.


No, Deophaun's right. The spell gives a general rule: You cannot take any actions. It then specifically says that you can take a full-round action to attempt to free yourself (with some specifics of how you check whether you've succeeded). It doesn't have to say, "as an exception to the 'no actions' clause," because by saying that you CAN do this, it already created the exception. Not only is this clearly intended, by the spell text, to work this way, but it DOES work this way thanks to the specific-trumps-general exception-based rules.

As a second example to illustrate the point, the fly spell simply informs you that you can fly, and gives specifics for how that interacts mechanically with the rest of the system. It does not, nor does it need to, say anything about specifically overriding the lack of ability to fly that most creatures have.

Exception-based rules mean that, if something says you can do something specific, it overrides any general rules saying you cannot.


And going by that logic, the specific definition of the paralyzed condition (which hold person directly references) would supplant the definition of the spell.

The second sentence isn't explaining additional effects of the hold person spell. It's trying to redefine what being paralyzed means, which, according to the primary source rule, the spell cannot do.


I think I get your position, Doc Awk, but "it says I can take a full-round action to try to get free!" doesn't automatically translate to "therefore, all mental-only actions are okay, even though the spell forbids taking any action." We can argue over whether they meant "any physical action" when they said "any action," and over whether they intended there to be an implicit exception, but the implicit exception follows other rules constructions and English language, while inserting the word "physical" requires assuming you've divined the intent of the writer.

Actually my specific position in those few posts is devil's advocate. I'm not suggesting that "cannot take actions" in addition to "being paralyzed" is actually correct. It's just an effort to demonstrate why ignoring common sense and obvious intent in favor of applying Biblical literalism to rules interpretations is a bad idea.

It always creates dysfunctions in other nearby parts of the game.

[Segev]

And going by that logic, the specific definition of the paralyzed condition (which hold person directly references) would supplant the definition of the spell.

The second sentence isn't explaining additional effects of the hold person spell. It's trying to redefine what being paralyzed means, which, according to the primary source rule, the spell cannot do.No, "paralyzed" is the general rule. Hold person's spelling out the effects of the spell is more specific than that. It going on to specify that you can take a full round action to try to free yourself is further more specific than "you cannot take any actions."


Actually my specific position in those few posts is devil's advocate. I'm not suggesting that "cannot take actions" in addition to "being paralyzed" is actually correct. It's just an effort to demonstrate why ignoring common sense and obvious intent in favor of applying Biblical literalism to rules interpretations is a bad idea.

It always creates dysfunctions in other nearby parts of the game.

Technically, you were going for proof by contradiction more than playing devil's advocate. I'm pointing out that the contradiction you're attempting to use to disprove the assertion that hold person does, in fact, prevent all actions (except the one specific action it says you can take) isn't a contradiction, because of how specific-trumps-general works and the standard construction of the RAW in D&D 3.5.

[Doctor Awkward]

No, "paralyzed" is the general rule. Hold person's spelling out the effects of the spell is more specific than that. It going on to specify that you can take a full round action to try to free yourself is further more specific than "you cannot take any actions."

Either hold person makes you paralyzed, and the effects of the paralysis condition take precedent because of how the primary source rule functions, or hold person does something in addition to making you paralyzed in which case the final sentence is meaningless because it does not specifically give itself an exception to it's own function of explicitly preventing all actions.

This is true in exactly the same way I've been told that Iron Heart Surge does nothing useful on account of you needing to be able to take a standard action to activate it, and how Nerveskitter required an errata stating that it could be cast even when flat-footed because you normally cannot cast immediate action spells while flat-footed and it would otherwise do nothing.

You don't get to have it both ways. At the moment you are picking and choosing when to enforce specific trumps general in order to reach your presupposed conclusion for how you think the spell should function in the stated situation.

[Segev]

Either hold person makes you paralyzed, and the effects of the paralysis condition take precedent because of how the primary source rule functions, or hold person does something in addition to making you paralyzed in which case the final sentence is meaningless because it does not specifically give itself an exception to it's own function of explicitly preventing all actions.The final sentence gives its own exception.

If I tell you to "keep your mouth shut and don't say anything for the duration of this meeting," and then, during the meeting, tell you, "Tell him what you told me just before we left the office for this meeting," the latter is a more specific instruction than the former, general one. The former is general to the meeting. The latter is specific to that moment. If we have a blanket rule that specific trumps general, there is no contradiction to my instructions, because the more specific one overrides the more general one. Once you'd told "him" what you told "me," the general instruction would be back in force, with nothing currently overriding it anymore.

Hold person operates like that: it provides a general rule that you may take no action for its duration. Then it gives a specific action that it flat-out says you can take while under its effects. This specific rule overrides the general one, enabling you to take that specific action as an exception to the general rule that you cannot act at all while under the effects of hold person.


This is true in exactly the same way I've been told that Iron Heart Surge does nothing useful on account of you needing to be able to take a standard action to activate it, and how Nerveskitter required an errata stating that it could be cast even when flat-footed because you normally cannot cast immediate action spells while flat-footed and it would otherwise do nothing.I see your confusion. Iron Heart Surge, and pre-errata nerveskitter, nowhere in their rules text specified that you could take the actions required by their action type under circumstances where you normally could not take such actions. They provided no exception to the general rules determining what actions you may take, but had rules requiring particular actions to be legal in order to activate them.

Hold person expressly states, in its text, "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.)" I have added emphasis to highlight the key phrase, "the subject may," because this is expressly providing a specific allowance to take the action described.

By your reading, even with the errata, nerveskitter wouldn't be able to be activated when flat-footed, because you're stating that the general rule that they can't take immediate actions while flat-flooted trumps the specific exception that the errata gives nerveskitter.

If Iron Heart Surge had text saying that it could be used on your turn even when normally denied actions, it would work as intended. Or, well, closer. Actually wording the exception to permit action on what would be your turn, if you had a turn, during what would be a standard action if you were allowed to take standard actions and had a standard action to take, without accidentally allowing you to activate it whenever you want as a "standard action" that doesn't actually have to wait for your initiative order nor consume your standard action for the round, would be tricky. And wordy. The point is, lacking any such exception-creating text, the fact that Iron Heart Surge requires a standard action to use means that you can't use it if you can't take standard actions.

Hold person has exception-creating text creating an exception to its own blanket forbiddance to taking any action at all, and this exception-creating text permits the subject to attempt a new saving throw as a full-round action that does not provoke AoOs. Thus, taking that action is allowed as an exception to the rule that you cannot take any actions at all while under hold person.

If hold person couldn't create this exception, then freedom of movement couldn't create the exception that being under its effects lets you act despite being under the effect of hold person.

It's all about general versus specific and exception-based design.


You don't get to have it both ways. At the moment you are picking and choosing when to enforce specific trumps general in order to reach your presupposed conclusion for how you think the spell should function in the stated situation.Quite the contrary. You're inverting specific and general several times in your argument. While there are cases where determining which is the specific exception to the (more) general rule is tricky, this is not such a case.

"It...cannot take any actions...." is more general than "[T]he subject may [take a particular, specific, action."

Iron Heart Surge provides no exceptional text saying you can take the action it requires to activate; thus, you may only take its action when you would otherwise be permitted to take that kind of action.

[liquidformat]

Either hold person makes you paralyzed, and the effects of the paralysis condition take precedent because of how the primary source rule functions, or hold person does something in addition to making you paralyzed in which case the final sentence is meaningless because it does not specifically give itself an exception to it's own function of explicitly preventing all actions.

This is true in exactly the same way I've been told that Iron Heart Surge does nothing useful on account of you needing to be able to take a standard action to activate it, and how Nerveskitter required an errata stating that it could be cast even when flat-footed because you normally cannot cast immediate action spells while flat-footed and it would otherwise do nothing.

You don't get to have it both ways. At the moment you are picking and choosing when to enforce specific trumps general in order to reach your presupposed conclusion for how you think the spell should function in the stated situation.

You seem to be lost as to how specific trumps general works, also I am not sure what you are trying to argue with this 'primary source rule functions' stuff as these are all primary source rules...

Anyways here is the order of operations from most general to most specific: paralysis general rules<first sentence of hold person states we are using paralysis + freeze in place as our base line< second sentence refines these general rules stating target can only breath nothing else< third sentence says oh ya you can also attempt to break this enchantment.

This seems pretty cut and dry to me, I am not seeing an argument here.

Also some random things to point out.

No where does the Fly spell claim it only requires mental effort and no physical effort. Furthermore, the fact that it one talks about speed in reference to carrying capacity (physical effort), two references requiring the same mental effort as walking, and three states that you can't run but can charge would suggest that it in fact does require physical effort to fly while using the fly spell. You just don't have wings.

Second fly spell does not talk about what happens if you loose the capacity to move it only goes over what happens when the spell ends if you are airborne / is canceled while you are airborne.

Third hold person does not cancel fly spell if simply forces you to freeze in what ever position you were in when struck by the spell and prevents you from taking any action besides attempting to break the spell.

By that logic if you are flying with a fly spell and hit by hold person, you do not just float there nor do you float down to the ground you simply fall end of story.

[Segev]

Third hold person does not cancel fly spell if simply forces you to freeze in what ever position you were in when struck by the spell and prevents you from taking any action besides attempting to break the spell.

By that logic if you are flying with a fly spell and hit by hold person, you do not just float there nor do you float down to the ground you simply fall end of story.

It does not say you fall, unless you are using wings to fly. The fly spell doesn't say you have to spend any actions to stay aloft. The rules say, barring external interactions, you cannot change your spatial coordinates without a move action (or similar). Hold person says you cannot take actions, which means you cannot take move actions (or similar). You therefore cannot move, barring something else moving you. Since fly is not negated, and hold person only says you fall if you're using wings to fly, you do not fall, because falling would be movement and you can't move without something else (such as hold person saying so) causing you to drop.

This may change in PF; I'd have to study the rules there more closely.

[Calthropstu]

It does not say you fall, unless you are using wings to fly. The fly spell doesn't say you have to spend any actions to stay aloft. The rules say, barring external interactions, you cannot change your spatial coordinates without a move action (or similar). Hold person says you cannot take actions, which means you cannot take move actions (or similar). You therefore cannot move, barring something else moving you. Since fly is not negated, and hold person only says you fall if you're using wings to fly, you do not fall, because falling would be movement and you can't move without something else (such as hold person saying so) causing you to drop.

This may change in PF; I'd have to study the rules there more closely.

In PF, you have to take an action to either hover (requiring a fly check) or move. If you move less than half your move you must pass a fly check.

[liquidformat]

It does not say you fall, unless you are using wings to fly. The fly spell doesn't say you have to spend any actions to stay aloft. The rules say, barring external interactions, you cannot change your spatial coordinates without a move action (or similar). Hold person says you cannot take actions, which means you cannot take move actions (or similar). You therefore cannot move, barring something else moving you. Since fly is not negated, and hold person only says you fall if you're using wings to fly, you do not fall, because falling would be movement and you can't move without something else (such as hold person saying so) causing you to drop.

This may change in PF; I'd have to study the rules there more closely.

I am sorry but you are unequivocally wrong, the rules are clear cut on this topic. The spell Fly does one thing and one thing alone and that is to give you a fly speed of 60 (unencumbered) with a maneuverability of good without the need/use of wings. The spell does nothing to change any of the general rules of flight except that you do not have wings. Since it doesn't you must follow the general rules of flight and therefore must make a free action to hover which a character who is paralyzed much less under the effects of hold person is incapable of.

The purpose of adding the comment about a winged creature inside of hold person is simply a clarification that trumps rules similar to the raptoran's ability to negate some falling damage while unconscious or helpless.

[Segev]

I am sorry but you are unequivocally wrong, the rules are clear cut on this topic. The spell Fly does one thing and one thing alone and that is to give you a fly speed of 60 (unencumbered) with a maneuverability of good without the need/use of wings. The spell does nothing to change any of the general rules of flight except that you do not have wings. Since it doesn't you must follow the general rules of flight and therefore must make a free action to hover which a character who is paralyzed much less under the effects of hold person is incapable of.

The purpose of adding the comment about a winged creature inside of hold person is simply a clarification that trumps rules similar to the raptoran's ability to negate some falling damage while unconscious or helpless.

Do the rules say it takes a free action to hover with Good maneuverability? If so, you're quite right: the creature falls.

I'll say that the clear intent was that they don't do so, since hold person calls out winged fliers as falling as if that's a distinct behavior compared to non-winged fliers, so I wouldn't be surprised by nor fault a DM for ruling with that apparent RAI over the RAW, but if the RAW do specify that it takes a free action to hover, the clause of hold person that forbids taking actions would, in fact, mean they cease to fly when they fail to take that free action.

[liquidformat]

Do the rules say it takes a free action to hover with Good maneuverability? If so, you're quite right: the creature falls.

I'll say that the clear intent was that they don't do so, since hold person calls out winged fliers as falling as if that's a distinct behavior compared to non-winged fliers, so I wouldn't be surprised by nor fault a DM for ruling with that apparent RAI over the RAW, but if the RAW do specify that it takes a free action to hover, the clause of hold person that forbids taking actions would, in fact, mean they cease to fly when they fail to take that free action.

I am afb so can't check; however, according to the rules of the game WotC article posted earlier (All About Movement (Part Four) (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a)) hovering is a free action or a move action. Interestingly the srd movement section does verify a creature with good maneuverability can hover but doesn't specify 'action cost' of hover. While the Hover feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm) says only a creature with perfect maneuverability can hover...

[Segev]

I am afb so can't check; however, according to the rules of the game WotC article posted earlier (All About Movement (Part Four) (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a)) hovering is a free action or a move action. Interestingly the srd movement section does verify a creature with good maneuverability can hover but doesn't specify 'action cost' of hover. While the Hover feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm) says only a creature with perfect maneuverability can hover...

Given the seeming-contradictory RAW and the presence of RAW in the place I'd go to first to look for flight rules (the flight rules themselves under "Good maneuverability") which says nothing about taking an action and does say they can hover, combined with the clear RAI in hold person that there is something worth calling out about winged fliers falling because they can't flap their wings, I am inclined to say that non-winged fliers don't fall per the RAW and RAI of hold person.

In PF, it seems like the RAW have an unintended consequence - given the requirement of a Fly check, which takes a free action - of causing subjects of fly to fall while under hold person. I would not fault a DM for ruling that the creature stays aloft due to apparent RAI, but the RAW would seem to have what I'd guess is a bug that makes them unable to do so.

[liquidformat]

Given the seeming-contradictory RAW and the presence of RAW in the place I'd go to first to look for flight rules (the flight rules themselves under "Good maneuverability") which says nothing about taking an action and does say they can hover, combined with the clear RAI in hold person that there is something worth calling out about winged fliers falling because they can't flap their wings, I am inclined to say that non-winged fliers don't fall per the RAW and RAI of hold person.

I am not sure if that is a reasonable assumption, my first thought when reading that ability went to raptorans and other fliers who have abilities to negate/reduce falling damage when unconscious/helpless. Plus this interpretation of magical flight seems to give it an incredible advantage when compared to mundane flight that I am just not seeing any RAW backup of.

On a side note in the comparison of hold person's winged creatures rule and raptoran's ability to reduce falling damage which one would be ruled as 'most specific' as they both are questionably on the same level of hierarchy?

[Segev]

I am not sure if that is a reasonable assumption, my first thought when reading that ability went to raptorans and other fliers who have abilities to negate/reduce falling damage when unconscious/helpless. Plus this interpretation of magical flight seems to give it an incredible advantage when compared to mundane flight that I am just not seeing any RAW backup of.

On a side note in the comparison of hold person's winged creatures rule and raptoran's ability to reduce falling damage which one would be ruled as 'most specific' as they both are questionably on the same level of hierarchy?

"Reduce falling damage" doesn't imply lack of falling - quite the opposite. Assuming raptorans' ability doesn't require them to take an action, it would kick in without conflict. Hold person says winged fliers fall. Raptorans' ability say they reduce falling damage when falling. No conflict.

The fact that hold person calls out winged fliers as falling implies that there's a difference between what happens to them and what happens to non-winged fliers. Now, this is strictly implication; we can read RAI into it, but there is no explicit statement in hold person about non-winged fliers' potential change in altitude. It's the fact that the rules for flight in the SRD that cover the kind of flight the fly spell gives which lead me to be convinced that those are the RAW that were in mind when hold person was written.

I see nothing inherently wrong with non-winged flight having advantages over winged flight. It does already whenever the question of room to spread wings comes up. It's not like there's no precedent for magic being better than non-magical approaches to the same thing. Not a good thing in all cases, but not really problematic, here.

[liquidformat]

If hold person only applied paralysis I would agree with you; however, since it also has 'freeze in place' I am not so sure.

... If a raptoran becomes unconscious or helpless while in midair, her wings naturally unfurl and powerful ligaments stiffen the wings. The raptoran descends in a tight corkscrew and takes only 1d6 points of falling damage, no matter what the actual distance of the fall.

Raptoran's ability functions on a principle that air resistance automatically activates the ability without needing a response so it stands to reason a paralyzed raptoran would use the above ability. On the other hand freeze in place of hold person would suggest a sort of rigor mortis like effect where you are locked in said position rather than limp like paralysis.

As far as hold person goes, if the ability didn't say anything about winged fliers at all what would be your RAW interpretation of how it interacts with wingless and winged fliers? Would you expect any flier with the ability to hover would hover, or would everyone fall, or something else?

[Segev]

That would have to be a DM call. A house rule, but a reasonable one. The RAW do not specify a special interaction with hold person or similar abilities, so the gliding would kick in by default despite the fluff not supporting it.

[Doctor Awkward]

The final sentence gives its own exception.


Except it doesn't.
You want it to, and that's why you are interpreting it that way.


If I tell you to "keep your mouth shut and don't say anything for the duration of this meeting," and then, during the meeting, tell you, "Tell him what you told me just before we left the office for this meeting," the latter is a more specific instruction than the former, general one. The former is general to the meeting. The latter is specific to that moment. If we have a blanket rule that specific trumps general, there is no contradiction to my instructions, because the more specific one overrides the more general one. Once you'd told "him" what you told "me," the general instruction would be back in force, with nothing currently overriding it anymore.


No, what you have here is two completely contradictory orders.
If I am given an absolute order not to speak during the meeting, then I am incapable of answering you when you then order me to.

In order for your hypothetical situation to not result in a contradiction, you would have to have ordered me to, "not speak at the meeting unless I instruct you to."

I would then be free to speak at your specific request. As you originally posed it, I am not.

Under you interpretation, hold person has the same problem.



By your reading, even with the errata, nerveskitter wouldn't be able to be activated when flat-footed, because you're stating that the general rule that they can't take immediate actions while flat-flooted trumps the specific exception that the errata gives nerveskitter.


This is quite literally the opposite of what I claimed. I claimed that hold person would require language precisely like what is found in the nerveskitter errata in order for the last sentence to have any meaning under your interpretation.

"The subject may" is not enough. That's exactly the same language found in Iron Heart Surge, which I have previously been told does not function on account of not having language identical to what is found in the nerveskitter errata.

As the Spell Compendium errata (and many others state), "Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically."

If something does not explicitly say that it is an exception, then it's an oversight or a contradiction.
And the main problem is that is a contradiction created by a faulty interpretation.



It's all about general versus specific and exception-based design.


No it's not.

Not every single thing that's stated in the D&D 3.5 ruleset is an exception to some other general rule.
Sometimes there are rules that just explain how things are.


Again, I have to stress that this is only an issue that is created with your patently incorrect interpretation of what the hold person spell does. The effects of that spell are that you are paralyzed. Nothing more and nothing less. This is evident as a result of the SRD hyperlinking to the Paralyzed entry in the Condition Summary. The remaining text that exists in that spell is merely a shortened description of the paralyzed condition for the benefit of the player who might not have the DMG in front of him.

In addition to the normal effects of being paralyzed, you are permitted to spend a full-round action on your turn to get a new save against the spell. This is an exception to the general rules on the paralyzed condition.


You are trying to invent a RAW solution to a problem where there isn't one. Because the rules do not adequately address this specific circumstance: there is nothing in the general rules on what type of action hovering is for creatures with good and perfect maneuverability. The specific nature of how the fly spell functions is not sufficiently explained in the spell text. RAW is utterly silent on what should happen to a paralyzed creature under the effects of the fly spell. All that you have to work with is an article from one of the core designers explaining how he wanted the rules to work.

Ignoring that in favor of something that causes more problems than it solves is a bad call.

[Doctor Awkward]

I am afb so can't check; however, according to the rules of the game WotC article posted earlier (All About Movement (Part Four) (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a)) hovering is a free action or a move action. Interestingly the srd movement section does verify a creature with good maneuverability can hover but doesn't specify 'action cost' of hover. While the Hover feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm) says only a creature with perfect maneuverability can hover...

According to Skip, Hovering should be a free action for creatures with good or perfect maneuverability.

Creatures can also hover with lesser maneuverability if they take the Hover feat. For those creatures, it is a move action.

[Jay R]

As the previous discussion demonstrates, different people can read these rules and come up with different answers.

Therefore this is a DM judgment call.

If I were the DM, I would rule that "cannot take any actions" includes that the character can't take any move actions. But nothing states that he would fall, so he would stay there motionless until the fly or the hold person spell ended.

But if I were a player, I would ask the DM for his or her ruling.

[Segev]

Except it doesn't.
You want it to, and that's why you are interpreting it that way. No, it does. It does so by saying you can do this. Here, let me demonstrate where you're going wrong with your own quote:


If I am given an absolute order not to speak during the meeting, then I am incapable of answering you when you then order me to.

In order for your hypothetical situation to not result in a contradiction, you would have to have ordered me to, "not speak at the meeting unless I instruct you to."

I would then be free to speak at your specific request. As you originally posed it, I am not.In D&D's exception-based rule design, there is no such thing as an "absolute order" (in the sense that the rules make one). Any "order" - i.e. rule - that applies generally has an inherent and implicit "unless a more specific rule says otherwise." It's how exception-based design works.

"Say nothing during the meeting. You may tell me if my suit starts to turn back into the chinchillas from which I magically crafted it," is not contradictory: the second sentence is a clear exception being made to the first's blanket instruction. "You may take no actions. You may make a new saving throw each round as a full-round action," is a similar construction, again creating a clear exception with the second sentence to the first sentence's blanket restriction.



This is quite literally the opposite of what I claimed. I claimed that hold person would require language precisely like what is found in the nerveskitter errata in order for the last sentence to have any meaning under your interpretation.And what I'm telling you is that nerveskitter's clause, under the logic you're applying to say that the "you may take this action" doesn't apply, is also insufficient. It's just a contradictory rule. It says something that is false, just like the line saying that they may make a saving throw as a full-round action is false because they may not make any actions at all.


"The subject may" is not enough. That's exactly the same language found in Iron Heart Surge, which I have previously been told does not function on account of not having language identical to what is found in the nerveskitter errata.Iron Heart Surge doesn't say they can take the standard action necessary to use the Maneuver. It says that, when the maneuver is used, they throw off other effects (as defined in the Maneuver). It has, in its stat block, a requirement that you expend a standard action to use it. If Iron Heart Surge said, "You may take a standard action to throw off any of these effects," it would actually work, because it would expressly allow a (specific) standard action when under those effects as an exception to the rules of those effects which forbid them.

Similarly, nerveskitter is allowed to state that you can take its action even when flat-footed for the same reason that hold person is allowed to state that you can make the full-round saving throw action when under its effects.


As the Spell Compendium errata (and many others state), "Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically."That causes a whole lot of D&D to fall apart, then. Fly, for example, fails, because creatures without fly speeds can't fly, and fly gives them a fly speed, but it can't do that, because it doesn't say, "Unlike other creatures of their type, they now have a fly speed." The exception isn't called out specifically; it's given by simply stating the change applied by the spell.


If something does not explicitly say that it is an exception, then it's an oversight or a contradiction.
And the main problem is that is a contradiction created by a faulty interpretation.Nope. No contradiction, unless you demand explicit note that there is an exception.




Not every single thing that's stated in the D&D 3.5 ruleset is an exception to some other general rule.
Sometimes there are rules that just explain how things are.You...don't understand what I mean when I say "exception-based design," then. I didn't say "every rule is an exception." I said that the rules are set up with broad generalizations, and then more specific rules create exceptions to them to change the way things work.

Regardless, this is largely irrelevant to my point.


Again, I have to stress that this is only an issue that is created with your patently incorrect interpretation of what the hold person spell does. The effects of that spell are that you are paralyzed. Nothing more and nothing less. This is evident as a result of the SRD hyperlinking to the Paralyzed entry in the Condition Summary. The remaining text that exists in that spell is merely a shortened description of the paralyzed condition for the benefit of the player who might not have the DMG in front of him.The PHB has no such hyperlink, nor in-line citation saying to see the description. You can, indeed, use the hyperlink to look to the definition of "paralysis" in D&D's rules...but that doesn't mean that the rest of the rules text in hold person ceases to apply. The spell says, flat out, that you can't take actions. If it said you can't take physical actions, you'd have a leg to stand on, here (though standing might qualify as a physical action :smalleek::smallwink:).

The funny thing is, we're both agreeing that you can make the full-round action to make the saving throw. The reason I think you're still arguing with me is because you also want to make "purely mental actions," which the spell forbids.


In addition to the normal effects of being paralyzed, you are permitted to spend a full-round action on your turn to get a new save against the spell. This is an exception to the general rules on the paralyzed condition.The paralyzed condition forbids taking actions in general? Okay. That doesn't mean hold person doesn't say the same thing. Nor does it change that the last sentence or two of the spell provides an exception that permits making that saving throw as a full-round action as part of being under the effects of hold person.

What are you arguing, again?


You are trying to invent a RAW solution to a problem where there isn't one. Because the rules do not adequately address this specific circumstance: there is nothing in the general rules on what type of action hovering is for creatures with good and perfect maneuverability. The specific nature of how the fly spell functions is not sufficiently explained in the spell text. RAW is utterly silent on what should happen to a paralyzed creature under the effects of the fly spell. All that you have to work with is an article from one of the core designers explaining how he wanted the rules to work.

Ignoring that in favor of something that causes more problems than it solves is a bad call.I'm just reading the RAW. You're the one saying, "no, no, disregard that; it clearly doesn't say what it means," and following it up by saying, "and that would be a problem, because exceptions can't override general statements," which is blatantly against the way D&D 3.5 is written.

I agree that there is no problem. You're trying to argue there's no problem because the RAW say what you imagine they meant to say; I'm saying there is no problem because the RAW work out to the end result desired even if you read them strictly. I'm saying the RAW work as intended, as written. You're saying there's no problem because the RAW don't say what is written in black-and-white but instead mean something else that happens to eliminate the problem.

Honestly, if we agree there's no problem, why are we arguing?


As the previous discussion demonstrates, different people can read these rules and come up with different answers.

Therefore this is a DM judgment call.

If I were the DM, I would rule that "cannot take any actions" includes that the character can't take any move actions. But nothing states that he would fall, so he would stay there motionless until the fly or the hold person spell ended.

But if I were a player, I would ask the DM for his or her ruling.This is generally true in any table. Doing the analysis to pin down exactly what the RAW say is usually a lot harder and a lot less useful than stepping outside the mechanics and asking what the RAW are trying to model, and then applying the DM's idea of what happens with the thing being modeled.

[Doctor Awkward]

No, it does. It does so by saying you can do this. Here, let me demonstrate where you're going wrong with your own quote:

In D&D's exception-based rule design, there is no such thing as an "absolute order" (in the sense that the rules make one). Any "order" - i.e. rule - that applies generally has an inherent and implicit "unless a more specific rule says otherwise." It's how exception-based design works.

"Say nothing during the meeting. You may tell me if my suit starts to turn back into the chinchillas from which I magically crafted it," is not contradictory: the second sentence is a clear exception being made to the first's blanket instruction. "You may take no actions. You may make a new saving throw each round as a full-round action," is a similar construction, again creating a clear exception with the second sentence to the first sentence's blanket restriction.

And what I'm telling you is that nerveskitter's clause, under the logic you're applying to say that the "you may take this action" doesn't apply, is also insufficient. It's just a contradictory rule. It says something that is false, just like the line saying that they may make a saving throw as a full-round action is false because they may not make any actions at all.

If you really believe all that, then explain to me why the text of the Iron Heart Surge maneuver does not create an exception to the general rules for initiating maneuvers.


Iron Heart Surge doesn't say they can take the standard action necessary to use the Maneuver. It says that, when the maneuver is used, they throw off other effects (as defined in the Maneuver). It has, in its stat block, a requirement that you expend a standard action to use it. If Iron Heart Surge said, "You may take a standard action to throw off any of these effects," it would actually work, because it would expressly allow a (specific) standard action when under those effects as an exception to the rules of those effects which forbid them.

This is quite possibly the most pedantic distinction you have attempted to draw thus far. There is no meaningful difference between the language found in Iron Heart Surge and the language found at the end of hold person. If hold person can give itself an exception to your "no actions" interpretation, then so can Iron Heart Surge to the general rules on initiating maneuvers.


That causes a whole lot of D&D to fall apart, then. Fly, for example, fails, because creatures without fly speeds can't fly, and fly gives them a fly speed, but it can't do that, because it doesn't say, "Unlike other creatures of their type, they now have a fly speed." The exception isn't called out specifically; it's given by simply stating the change applied by the spell.


There is no general rule that says creatures with fly speeds are the only creatures capable of flight. There are only general rules that describe movement modes other than walking and running. Among these is a general rules that says creatures with a fly speed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fly) "can move through the air at the indicated speed". The fly spell in turn grants the touched creature a fly speed.

Your assertion only makes sense if you assume that the D&D ruleset is about exceptions to the exclusion of all else. Sometimes rules just explain how things are.


I'm just reading the inventing new RAW.

Fixed that for you.


You're the one saying, "no, no, disregard that; it clearly doesn't say what it means," and following it up by saying, "and that would be a problem, because exceptions can't override general statements," which is blatantly against the way D&D 3.5 is written.


That's definitely not what I said. I said that exceptions to general rules are specifically called out as such. Sometimes this takes the form of the "exception" , such as in the case of Overrun (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#overrun): "In general, you cannot take a standard action during a move; this is an exception." Other times it will use something a little more broad, such as phrases that include the words "normally", such as in the case of the atonement spell, or some other brief explanation of a general rule that you are now allowed to break. Regardless of the form, the rules will always specifically call out exceptions to other rules.

That's at least the third time you've had to straw-man my position into something else that you find easier to argue against. I usually take that as a sign that you know your position is indefensible.



Honestly, if we agree there's no problem, why are we arguing?

Because you think that the hold person spell does something other than paralyze you. It doesn't.
The reason why I know this is because I read the rules and comprehend the style in which they are presented. Every single spell in all of D&D is written in the exact same format. The first sentence is always a brief description of the spells entire effect. Everything the spell does summed up in a single sentence:

Mage Armor: "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC."
Sleep: "A sleep spell causes a magical slumber to come upon 4 Hit Dice of creatures."
Inflict Light Wounds: "When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5)."
Entangle: "Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled."
Earthquake: "an intense but highly localized tremor rips the ground."
Fly: "The subject can fly at a speed of 60 feet (or 40 feet if it wears medium or heavy armor, or if it carries a medium or heavy load)."

And Hold Person: "The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place."


Everything else that is written after that is translating that summary in more specific mechanics as necessary.

If a spell does something besides what is indicated in the initial summary, this is always made blatantly obvious by the spell text, such as in the case of Magic Circle Against Evil: ("This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it."), Eyebite ("Depending on the target’s HD, this attack has as many as three effects."), Protection from Evil ("The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects."), Unhallow ("Unhallow makes a particular site, building, or structure an unholy site. This has three major effects."), Shield of Law (This abjuration has four effects.), Earthquake ("The specific effect of an earthquake spell depends on the nature of the terrain where it is cast.") and so on. Even in cases where additional effects are not spelled out with such specificity, these additional effects are always separated by line breaks in the text (see Balancing Lorecall).

The text of hold person is not explaining additional functions of the spell beyond paralysis. It is explaining to you, mechanically, what being paralyzed means. If any of that disagrees with the Condition Summary definition of paralysis, and the spell text does not indicate that this disagreement is a deliberate exception-- such as by saying, "Unlike normal paralysis, a creature bound by this spell is forbidden from taking any actions, even mental ones"-- then per the primary source rule you defer to the definition of paralysis.

This is how the rules work.

Consider that under your interpretation, hold monster would snatch a dragon out of the sky on a failed save. Because while yes, they are immune to the paralysis, they would not be immune to the "additional effect" of not being able to take any actions. Then ask yourself if you still think your first pass at the spell is the way that it is meant to be read.

[Erloas]

Everything else that is written after that is translating that summary in more specific mechanics as necessary.What you're essentially saying is that all spells are only 1 sentence long and everything after that is just fluff? That is just non-sense and provably wrong over and over again. And with Hold Person specifically, as well as several of your other examples, you have arbitrarily chosen when "the real spell" is defined and "the rest is just non-rule extra." You have in fact removed so much of "earthquakes" rules as to make it meaningless and impossible for a DM to adjudicate, you've "simplified" away all of the actual rules.

[Doctor Awkward]

What you're essentially saying is that all spells are only 1 sentence long and everything after that is just fluff?

I'm pretty sure I said "mechanics."

...I just know I did.

*double checks*

Yep. "Translates the summary into game mechanics as necessary."

Mechanics are not fluff.

If a spell has fluff, then it's in italics.

[Erloas]

I'm pretty sure I said "mechanics."

...I just know I did.

*double checks*

Yep. "Translates the summary into game mechanics as necessary."

Mechanics are not fluff.

If a spell has fluff, then it's in italics.Well then you've pretty much proved your own assertion wrong. Mechanics *are* rules. So for instance "cannot take any actions" as per the other part of Hold Person is a very clear mechanical addition to the summary. You're still essentially saying "only the parts of the rules I say count actually count." Even a silenced, stilled spell is still an action. Even "moving yourself with only your thoughts" is still an action. Even a free action is still an action.

You're right now saying that "all the other parts of the spell are putting those mechanics into practice" when you just before that said "only the first part is really the spell."

[Covenant12]

I'm pretty sure I said "mechanics."

...I just know I did.

*double checks*

Yep. "Translates the summary into game mechanics as necessary."

Mechanics are not fluff.

If a spell has fluff, then it's in italics.No, you have a view of the rules that is fully nonsensical and and makes it hopelessly unplayable. Or we could go with how the rules actual work, consistently applied specific-trumps-general and play the actual game.

*Removed Combat Reflexes straw-man as it was rude and not completely applicable*

No, you simply apply specific-trumps-general.

Hold person says you may take an action each round to break it (one specific allowed action) and says in general, you can take no actions. There is no contradiction. And no, we don't need an unabridged dictionary calling out or declaring each exception and announcing it as such. Specific-trumps-general is a blanket WotC rule.

Also, isn't it better to try to find rulings that make the game playable, and not assume by default everything is a contradiction? Hold person on wingless flight isn't well defined, the final question "Does he fall or not?" I don't think will ever be perfectly clear.

[Segev]

If you really believe all that, then explain to me why the text of the Iron Heart Surge maneuver does not create an exception to the general rules for initiating maneuvers.



This is quite possibly the most pedantic distinction you have attempted to draw thus far. There is no meaningful difference between the language found in Iron Heart Surge and the language found at the end of hold person. If hold person can give itself an exception to your "no actions" interpretation, then so can Iron Heart Surge to the general rules on initiating maneuvers.


"Pedantic" doesn't mean "wrong." And, in fact, is rather definitionally required in detailed examination of the RAW.

I've repeatedly answered your request in the first paragraph I've quoted here; your "that's so pedantic!" rebuttal in the second paragraph is specifically aimed at me doing so.

You make the claim that there's no meaningful difference between the language in Iron HEart Surge and that at the end of hold person. This is fundamentally false.

Hold person spells out two things that are under examination in our debate, here:
The subject may take no actions, and
The subject may make a Will save to free himself each round on his turn as a full-round action
(The rest of "is paralyzed" also applies, but is irrelevant to this discussion, as we both agree that text applies and means what it says it means. I acknowledge your claim that the 'can take no actions' line is just trying - and failing - to summarize what paralysis means mechanically, and thus should be disregarded; that claim, however, is incorrect.)

The relevant in-body text of Iron Heart Surge reads (with emphasis I added): "When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds. That effect ends immediately." Nowhere in Iron Heart Surge does the phrase, "You may do X, which is a Y action." It starts out with the bolded portion, specifying that the rest of it only happens when you use the maneuver. (This is technically redundant, as this is largely true of any maneuver or spell or the like, but it happens to be expressly written out here, which makes this even clearer.)

How do you use Iron Heart Surge? It has the standard format for maneuvers, which includes a line in the header detailing what kind of action it requires: in this case, a standard action. Therefore, to use the maneuver, you must take (and thus be able to take) a standard action. If you can't take the standard action, then you can't use the maneuver, so the clause, "When you use this maneuver..." never is activated.

The language in hold person is notably different. It actively says that the subject may make that will save. Not, "When the subject spends a full-round action on its turn, it may make a new Will save to throw off the effect," but rather, "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.)"

The first requires the subject to have a full-round action to spend, and be allowed to take it. The second expressly states that the subject can do this, and then elaborates that this is a full-round action.

The second - which is a direct quote from hold person's text - is logically equivalent to: "Each round on its turn, the subject may take a full-round action to attempt a new saving throw to end the effect." Which, again, is specifically permitting that full-round action be taken, and trumps the more general rule that a subject of hold person may take no actions at all.


Once again, Iron Heart Surge nowhere specifies that you're allowed to take the standard action necessary to activate it. It only specifies what happens when you activate it, and has header text stating what kind of action is required to activate it. The difference lies there: Iron Heart Surge says "when you activate..." while hold person says "the subject may...." The action enabled by "the subject may..." is a full-round action, but it is enabled by the rules text. Nothing in "when you activate..." gives you permission to activate it, in and of itself.

You can no more use Iron Heart Surge when you cannot take a standard action than you can cast (the un-metamagic'd form of) fly when you cannot take a standard action. Iron Heart Surge would have to say, "When you have this maneuver readied, you may [do its thing] as a standard action on your turn," to work the way hold person's clause about making a new saving throw does.

[Doctor Awkward]

Well then you've pretty much proved your own assertion wrong. Mechanics *are* rules. So for instance "cannot take any actions" as per the other part of Hold Person is a very clear mechanical addition to the summary. You're still essentially saying "only the parts of the rules I say count actually count." Even a silenced, stilled spell is still an action. Even "moving yourself with only your thoughts" is still an action. Even a free action is still an action.

You're right now saying that "all the other parts of the spell are putting those mechanics into practice" when you just before that said "only the first part is really the spell."

I'm also pretty sure I explained in detail why "cannot take actions" is not a separate effect of hold person, but rather the spell's explanation of what being paralyzed means, and why it cannot change the definition of being paralyzed on account of lacking the requisite language to do so.

I'll assume you ignored that because you are aware that I am correct, and move on.



No, you simply apply specific-trumps-general.

No, you apply the primary source rule, and the definition of paralyzed from the condition summary supersedes the one from hold person.

You can keep repeating otherwise as many times as you like, but contrary to popular belief simply repeating an incorrect statement over and over will at not point cause it to start being correct.



I acknowledge your claim that the 'can take no actions' line is just trying - and failing - to summarize what paralysis means mechanically, and thus should be disregarded; that claim, however, is incorrect.

See, again, this is the part where you provide some sort of rebuttal or alternative explanation for why I am incorrect.

Do you have one at all? Or are you not at all interested at arriving at the truth of the matter and instead care more about "winning" an argument?



"Each round on its turn, the subject may take a full-round action to attempt a new saving throw to end the effect." Which, again, is specifically permitting that full-round action be taken

Again, no it doesn't.
You cannot take a full-round action when you are forbidden from taking actions, unless something specifically says you are allowed to. You are confusing a direct exception with an implied exception. Iron Heart Surge very, very strongly implies that it does not follow the normal initiation rules for maneuvers. It implies all day long that the intended function is to immediately end something at the cost of your standard action for the round, even if you are normally forbidden from taking actions.

But it lacks the language that specifically says you can. In exactly the same way that pre-errata nerveskitter does nothing since you cannot cast immediate action spells while you are flat-footed. It implies that you can cast that one by virtue of the spell not doing anything otherwise, but as the errata (and IHS) demonstrates that is not enough, it still required a line of text to specifically state that you are allowed to ignore that general rule regarding immediate action spells.

Likewise, your interpretation of hold person very heavily implies that you are allowed to use a full-round action to attempt a new save, even though you are normally incapable to taking any actions, but like nerveskitter, it lacks the specific language that says you can.
See the difference yet?

[Erloas]

I'm also pretty sure I explained in detail why "cannot take actions" is not a separate effect of hold person, but rather the spell's explanation of what being paralyzed means, and why it cannot change the definition of being paralyzed on account of lacking the requisite language to do so.

I'll assume you ignored that because you are aware that I am correct, and move on.
I didn't ignore it, that was the entire point. Can't take any action is in addition to the normal parts of paralyzed. If it was just "target is paralyzed" then that is what it would say. The fact that they've added "can't take any actions" is in addition to the normal "paralyzed" rule. The "even speech" part is also in addition to the normal paralyzed rule, as it makes no reference to that.
If it was "exactly paralyzed and nothing more and nothing less" it would simply have said "target is paralyzed" and be done. Much like the Daze spell just says "target is dazed" with no additional effects or rules expanding or limiting the normal daze rule. Also true of flare and Dazzle, or Ray of Exhaustion or Ray of Sickening, those simply apply the base condition with no additional modifiers, they also don't "just repeat what the base condition is" like you're asserting.

[Psyren]

The Pathfinder answer is that you will fall. (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9u63) Not sure about 3.5.

[Doctor Awkward]

I didn't ignore it, that was the entire point. Can't take any action is in addition to the normal parts of paralyzed. If it was just "target is paralyzed" then that is what it would say. The fact that they've added "can't take any actions" is in addition to the normal "paralyzed" rule. The "even speech" part is also in addition to the normal paralyzed rule, as it makes no reference to that.
If it was "exactly paralyzed and nothing more and nothing less" it would simply have said "target is paralyzed" and be done. Much like the Daze spell just says "target is dazed" with no additional effects or rules expanding or limiting the normal daze rule. Also true of flare and Dazzle, or Ray of Exhaustion or Ray of Sickening, those simply apply the base condition with no additional modifiers, they also don't "just repeat what the base condition is" like you're asserting.



...
If a spell does something besides what is indicated in the initial summary, this is always made blatantly obvious by the spell text, such as in the case of Magic Circle Against Evil: ("This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it."), Eyebite ("Depending on the target’s HD, this attack has as many as three effects."), Protection from Evil ("The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects."), Unhallow ("Unhallow makes a particular site, building, or structure an unholy site. This has three major effects."), Shield of Law (This abjuration has four effects.), Earthquake ("The specific effect of an earthquake spell depends on the nature of the terrain where it is cast.") and so on. Even in cases where additional effects are not spelled out with such specificity, these additional effects are always separated by line breaks in the text (see Balancing Lorecall).

The text of hold person is not explaining additional functions of the spell beyond paralysis. It is explaining to you, mechanically, what being paralyzed means. If any of that disagrees with the Condition Summary definition of paralysis, and the spell text does not indicate that this disagreement is a deliberate exception-- such as by saying, "Unlike normal paralysis, a creature bound by this spell is forbidden from taking any actions, even mental ones"-- then per the primary source rule you defer to the definition of paralysis.



Also this:

Spell Effects and Conditions: If a spell causes its subject or
subjects to be affected by one or more conditions (such as
blinded, incorporeal, invisible, or stunned), refer to the glossary
for details of how that condition affects the subject. Chapter 8
of the Dungeon Master’s Guide has more information on the
various conditions.