Lesser Restoration versus Hold Monster

[Reynard]

Tonight we played a Lair Assault for giggles, during which the villain successfully cast Hold Monster on one of the PCs. A cleric PC then cast Lesser Restoration on the affected PC, removing the paralyzed condition. No problem. That's how the spell is described.

The question became: did it end the spell? By the description of Hold Monster, the spell ends when a character makes a successful save, or when concentration ends. But there is an argument to be made that the paralyzed condition is "cured" and the spell just ends. Alternatively you could still require the hold PC to make their save at the end of their turn and if they fail they return to being paralyzed.

How would (or have) you ruled it? I know that 5e is intended to be open to DM interpretation, so I am not asking for definitive answers, just opinions and experiences.

Thanks.

 

[5ekyu]

i would not rule that with hold person you musr remake saves or get re-affected if the paralysis was removed. the re-save process seems to definitely work "one-way" for that spell - towards escaping the effect not re-establishing the effect.

I have in the past ruled that a spell ends when all of its affects have been ended. So if Hold monster had only one target then LR clearly that target would in my game send the spell.

however, if a caster for some reason actively wanted to continue his "not affecting anyone" concentration spell, i would myself be likely to rule "no" unless there was something else that was still happening. Hold only does one thing - paralyze - so removing that IMO ends the spell. A potential reason to try and keep it up would be say if you have the ability to track or follow magic and so keeping a "no effect spell" going somehow made them trackable. But there is nothing i could see left in this case to track.

May be other exceptions.

Contrast with Freedom of Movement which makes you immune but does not remove the paralysis. In that case the hold is, IMO, still going just unable to overcome the Freedom effect.

That is how i would rule at least - remove effect = ends, immune to effect - doesn't end.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The only effect of Hold Monster is to impose the paralyzed condition.
If Lesser Restoration is cast, then the effect is removed. Whether or not it "ends the spell" is irrelevant; it ends the effect of the spell, and no further save is required.

(I would say)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The spell paralyzes once, when it is first cast. It can't re-paralyse someone who is no longer affected unless the spell is cast again.

To look at it another way, the desciption of Lesser Restoration overrules the description of Hold Monster (just as Dispel Magic does).

 

[Rya.Reisender]

RAW - The condition is cured. It cannot be re-applied without recasting Hold Person. Spell does not end automatically, but voluntarily ending concentration is a free action you can do any time. The saving throw is optional. The PC doesn't even need to do it when he doesn't want to.

You can rule that the spell ends when all its effects have ended, but is there actually a reason when this is relevant? Does keeping concentration give any benefit?

 

[5ekyu]

RAW - The condition is cured. It cannot be re-applied without recasting Hold Person. Spell does not end automatically, but voluntarily ending concentration is a free action you can do any time. The saving throw is optional. The PC doesn't even need to do it when he doesn't want to.

You can rule that the spell ends when all its effects have ended, but is there actually a reason when this is relevant? Does keeping concentration give any benefit?

off the top of my head, as I think i mentioned above, if one asserted that the spell was still in effect on the target, just its condition removed - then arguably a Detect Magic could detect that effect, or provide an aura around the crature or even perhaps some sort of class feature that triggers on dispelling a spell could then be used vs that effect etc etc etc etc.

Its likely a case of how many tarrasque can dance on the head-of-a-pinnery but it is an issue one should consider *for a campaign* general rule sort of thing.

 

[Reynard]

Rereading the hold monster spell it is pretty clear that it only applies the paralyzed condition once, not each round the target fails the save.

I was surprised that hold monster is no more effective than hold person against a humanoid and lesser restoration (a 2nd level spell) has no trouble removing a 5th level paralysis. It makes one wonder why they gave the villain hold monster at all since it already had hold person.

 

[5ekyu]

RAW - The condition is cured. It cannot be re-applied without recasting Hold Person. Spell does not end automatically, but voluntarily ending concentration is a free action you can do any time. The saving throw is optional. The PC doesn't even need to do it when he doesn't want to.

You can rule that the spell ends when all its effects have ended, but is there actually a reason when this is relevant? Does keeping concentration give any benefit?

off the top of my head, as I think i mentioned above, if one asserted that the spell was still in effect on the target, just its condition removed - then arguably a Detect Magic could detect that effect, or provide an aura around the crature or even perhaps some sort of class feature that triggers on dispelling a spell could then be used vs that effect etc etc etc etc.

Its likely a case of how many tarrasque can dance on the head-of-a-pinnery but it is an issue one should consider *for a campaign* general rule sort of thing.

 

[jasper]

Ok what twilight zone have I entered? Not only did I think today was Thursday, I agreeing with everyone in this thread. But everyone is agreeing that Lesser Restore over rides Hold cookie monster.

 

[Fleetwood C. DeVille]

Ok what twilight zone have I entered? Not only did I think today was Thursday, I agreeing with everyone in this thread. But everyone is agreeing that Lesser Restore over rides Hold cookie monster.

Untrue.

You need Greater Restoration to overcome Hold Cookie Monster.