I would have to say that, as the target is paralyzed and incapacitated, this would not be a contested Strength check. The target can't take actions, bonus actions, or reactions, or move, so I don't really see how they would be contesting anything. To me it would be an automatically failed Strength Saving Throw.
Here's a question, though: say you hold your action to cast Hold Person, knowing your adversary is going to jump over a gap in a bridge to get to you. They run, jump, and halfway over the gap you cast Hold Person. Or maybe right after they jump. Would they stay frozen in the air, halfway over the gap until they manage to save, conserving their momentum and completing their jump when they save? That doesn't feel right to me. Would they simply lose control of their body, with their momentum carrying them over the gap, perhaps then falling prone as they land on the other side? I'm not sure. This would assuredly be a case for the DM to make a decision, as I don't think the rules are specific enough to give a RAW answer.
Honestly, with my wording (maybe expanded, it's hardly complete) this thread wouldn't be here. The target is in stasis. You cannot get at the sword.
No with your wording this thread would definitely be here. Because "stasis" isn't a defined term and even with your extra explanations it still doesn't answer the questions it needs to for it to be a workable game mechanic, the text in the condition does (even if it might not give enough RL justifications for your taste).
It's not about game effects - or at least, it's more about clarity. Imagine if Power Word Kill just said: This spell kills you. What does that mean? Propably, you mean 'kills the target'? What does 'kill' mean - do you go straight into death saves, or are you straight up dead right away?
If the spell just said "This spell kills you." then yes that would be a problem as that isn't enough information, but it doesn't. Once again the problem isn't in the actual rule but in your re-write.
I'm not saying it's a 1:1 thing, but clarity matters. When affected by Hold Person, you are clearly not paralyzed. That's not what happens. So what does, then? Without a better word, at least we need a better explanation.
No you clearly ARE Paralyzed, at least as it is defined in the rules. If you don't feel that there is enough real world justification for why the condition works the way it does then that is less of a problem tbh (IMO it works quite well with real world pseudo-paralysis but that might just be me).
This would assuredly be a case for the DM to make a decision, as I don't think the rules are specific enough to give a RAW answer.
This is 100% the answer to this thread, DM would make the decision at table because RAW doesn't cover it, if there were a RAW section on disarming then it'd be different but as there isn't then whatever DM thinks works, works.
See in comparison, having the Unconscious condition makes you go go Prone and drop whatever you’re holding.
I would have to say that, as the target is paralyzed and incapacitated, this would not be a contested Strength check. The target can't take actions, bonus actions, or reactions, or move, so I don't really see how they would be contesting anything. To me it would be an automatically failed Strength Saving Throw.
Here's a question, though: say you hold your action to cast Hold Person, knowing your adversary is going to jump over a gap in a bridge to get to you. They run, jump, and halfway over the gap you cast Hold Person. Or maybe right after they jump. Would they stay frozen in the air, halfway over the gap until they manage to save, conserving their momentum and completing their jump when they save? That doesn't feel right to me. Would they simply lose control of their body, with their momentum carrying them over the gap, perhaps then falling prone as they land on the other side? I'm not sure. This would assuredly be a case for the DM to make a decision, as I don't think the rules are specific enough to give a RAW answer.
No with your wording this thread would definitely be here. Because "stasis" isn't a defined term and even with your extra explanations it still doesn't answer the questions it needs to for it to be a workable game mechanic, the text in the condition does (even if it might not give enough RL justifications for your taste).
If the spell just said "This spell kills you." then yes that would be a problem as that isn't enough information, but it doesn't. Once again the problem isn't in the actual rule but in your re-write.
No you clearly ARE Paralyzed, at least as it is defined in the rules. If you don't feel that there is enough real world justification for why the condition works the way it does then that is less of a problem tbh (IMO it works quite well with real world pseudo-paralysis but that might just be me).
This is 100% the answer to this thread, DM would make the decision at table because RAW doesn't cover it, if there were a RAW section on disarming then it'd be different but as there isn't then whatever DM thinks works, works.