Hold monster versus hold person[]

What defines a Monster as opposed to a Person? -- 12 April 2009

A monster here is any creature (that is any race). Person can pertain to any of the following races: goblinoid, reptillian, monstruous, orc, elf, half-elf, human, dwarf, gnome, halfling, or halforc. WhiZard 16:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Saving throw[]

After testing in game and on a few servers, I noticed that while the save is not made versus anything, Immunity to Mind Affecting spells will still block this spell. Can this be added to the notes section? I was a bit unsure as to whether or not this was the case as a result of the wording on the current note. 05:08, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

  • Your observation is already noted in the article. Mind-affecting immunity will always block paralysis (except death attack paralysis which is hard-coded to bypass mind-affecting immunity). WhiZard (talk) 05:28, April 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • That assumes the player knows this. The fact the save is made versus mind affecting implies that Mind Immunity will block the spell. The notes section specificaly points out how this spell is not made versus mind affecting, which can leave the impression that the bug in the spell isn't just an error in the description, but that there's a bug in the code that makes this spell an exception. 14:11, April 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Read mind-affecting. There are several spells that are not mind-affecting that would cause paralysis (e.g. any of the planar bindings, Evard's). I hardly see the circumstance of this spell as being an exception. Any application of paralysis by script will fail against a creature immune to mind-affecting, whether the spell itself were mind-affecting or not. WhiZard (talk) 14:47, April 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there is some validity to the idea of reminding readers that paralysis is a mind-affecting effect, since the current note is saying that the spell is not mind-affecting. There is a potential for confusion there. --The Krit (talk) 23:33, April 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • I distributed your caveat to hold person and hold animal. I will admit that paralysis is the oddball among the mind-affecting effects; it is blocked by mind-affecting immunity, but there never is a save versus mind-affecting to prevent it. WhiZard (talk) 04:53, April 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. In addition, there are paralysis effects from sources that wouldn't seem mind-affecting at all (e.g. evard's black tentacles, some traps, etc.). It seems likely that many players will not know that immunity from mind-affecting spells is effective against such sources of paralysis. - MrZork (talk) 07:34, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • I did put a note into lesser mind blank and mind blank concerning that paralysis and fear were blocked but not removed. I'm not sure as to how many articles should indicate that paralysis is blocked by mind-affecting immunity, given that other mind-affecting effects would not be receiving the same treatment. WhiZard (talk) 16:32, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
    • I am not proposing that the articles of all paralysis sources have the note. It mostly struck me as a good idea for sources of paralysis (and possibly ofther effects) that aren't immediately identifyable as mind effects. Really, those sources are probably even more worthy of a note than the hold spells, which are at least obviously enchantment spells. - MrZork (talk) 17:24, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • "The sources of paralysis that are not immediately identifiable as mind effects" such as traps, all planar bindings, undead graft, prismatic spray, prismatic dragon breath, paralyzing touch, and paralysis bolt, howl, gaze, and dragon breath, etc. In other words all paralysis articles except the three hold ones ought to include the note. There are no application of paralysis that use a vs. mind-affecting save to prevent it. WhiZard (talk) 19:28, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
    • As I have thought about this a bit more, I am not as concerned with being more explicit about paralysis immunity as regards spells/abilities that are listed with a mind-affecting descriptor. The mind-affecting descriptor so imperfectly corresponds to whether the effect is blocked by immunity to mind-affecting spells that the descriptor isn't relevant for immunity, only saves.
And, to avoid the need for too many notes, I'd be happy to leave noteless the spells whose rationales imply that they may be attacks on the minds/wills of their targets. Obviously, this is a judgement call, but I think most players would find it intuitive that the hold line of spells, the planar bindings, the paralysis gazes, etc. are attacks on the mind of the target and that immunity to mind effects would block such attacks. Where such a conclusion is not intuitive (IMO) is with a spell like Evard's or the paralyzing traps.
However, I am certainly keen to hear better suggestions about how to draw the line. - MrZork (talk) 03:01, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
  • Continuing with this logic, shouldn't notes be made concerning freedom and tough as bone for many paralysis articles? It may not be immediately identifiable that the ability to freely move or having a tough body would prevent certain situations with paralysis. WhiZard (talk) 19:58, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
    • I think I see what you mean here. One might think, "No note is needed, since freedom and tough as bone both explicitly immunize against paralysis." But, so does mind-affecting... Hmm. - MrZork (talk) 03:01, April 7, 2015 (UTC)