Tonight while playing one of my players cast hold person on another one of our players (they had gone berserk and were about to attack another player) and there was an attempt to remove the sword the held character had equipped. The question became: if the character is paralyzed then they automatically fail any strength or dexterity saving throws. But is attempting to pry something from a paralyzed creature's hand a contested strength check or does the paralyzed creature have to make a strength saving throw (which it fails.) I ultimately ruled, after much discussion at the table, that this was a contested strength check. I want to know how you would rule.

The paralyzed character can't resist, so I can't see any way I would rule it was a contested STR check

Paralyzed also isn't petrified, so it wouldn't be like trying to remove a weapon from the hands of a statue

I agree with Anton and I might add that they pretty much removed contested checks from the 2024 rules set.

I would have rule that the sword is automatically removed without any check required.

Based on the fact the OP mentions contested checks, which aren't part of the 2024 rules, I'm going to assume they're using the 2014 rules and based my answer accordingly.

RAW

There are no rules for prying an object from another creatures grip, the closet we get are the optional disarm rules, so unfortunately from a RAW perspective there's no definitive answer (at least as far as I know)

How I'd Rule

Paralysis can represent two things; stopping a creatures brain from telling some or all of the muscles what to do resulting in them going limp, or the creatures muscles locking up (or being locked up externally), preventing movement. Given that the definition of paralyzed doesn't include the target falling prone, or dropping what they're holding, it seems reasonable to assume that the Paralyzed condition represents the latter, not the former. Based on that assumption, it would subsequently make sense (at least to me) that some form of contested strength-based check would be required to overcome the rigid, paralyzed grip a creature has on any object they're holding. I wouldn't rule the paralyzed creature automatically fails as contested checks aren't saving throws, nor would I impose disadvantage. My rationale being the disadvantage of them not being able to move would be negated by the advantage of the fact their muscles are locked as rigidly as they could possibly be.

Contest, while less commonly referred, are still in 2024 rules such as Hide for exemple. The Dungeon Master Guide 2024 ;

Calculated DCs

For some ability checks and most saving throws, the rules default to the following formula: DC = 8 + ability modifier + Proficiency Bonus

This formula often sets the saving throw DC when a creature is casting a spell or using a special ability, but it can also apply to ability checks that are contests between two creatures. For example, if one creature is holding a door shut, use its Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus to set the DC for opening the door. When another creature tries to force the door open, the creature makes a Strength (Athletics) check against that DC.

Another way to handle similar situations is to have one creature's ability check set the DC for another creature's check. That's how hiding works, for example: a hiding creature's total Dexterity (Stealth) check sets the DC for Wisdom (Perception) checks made to find the hidden creature.

Quote from Davyd >>

How I'd Rule

Paralysis can represent two things; stopping a creatures brain from telling some or all of the muscles what to do resulting in them going limp, or the creatures muscles locking up (or being locked up externally), preventing movement. Given that the definition of paralyzed doesn't include the target falling prone, or dropping what they're holding, it seems reasonable to assume that the Paralyzed condition represents the latter, not the former. Based on that assumption, it would subsequently make sense (at least to me) that some form of contested strength-based check would be required to overcome the rigid, paralyzed grip a creature has on any object they're holding. I wouldn't rule the paralyzed creature automatically fails as contested checks aren't saving throws, nor would I impose disadvantage. My rationale being the disadvantage of them not being able to move would be negated by the advantage of the fact their muscles are locked as rigidly as they could possibly be.

I could maaaaybe see having the character doing the prying make a straight STR check against a set DC, but a contested check requires two people contesting it -- and the paralyzed character cannot do that, by definition

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Davyd >>

How I'd Rule

Paralysis can represent two things; stopping a creatures brain from telling some or all of the muscles what to do resulting in them going limp, or the creatures muscles locking up (or being locked up externally), preventing movement. Given that the definition of paralyzed doesn't include the target falling prone, or dropping what they're holding, it seems reasonable to assume that the Paralyzed condition represents the latter, not the former. Based on that assumption, it would subsequently make sense (at least to me) that some form of contested strength-based check would be required to overcome the rigid, paralyzed grip a creature has on any object they're holding. I wouldn't rule the paralyzed creature automatically fails as contested checks aren't saving throws, nor would I impose disadvantage. My rationale being the disadvantage of them not being able to move would be negated by the advantage of the fact their muscles are locked as rigidly as they could possibly be.

 

I could maaaaybe see having the character doing the prying make a straight STR check against a set DC, but a contested check requires two people contesting it -- and the paralyzed character cannot do that, by definition

 Using Davyd's example above, rather than it being contested at the time the sword is being taken, an Athletics check from the paralyzed character would be to set the DC. In this instance, it would represent how tight their grip was at the time they were paralyzed rather than being an active effort in the moment. Checks to determine a DC can absolutely be done even if the moment has passed if the situation logically calls for it, there's no rule against that.

Ultimately the decision would be up to the DM in charge. I'd likely go with the contested option, and because it's setting a DC, a tie goes to the person trying to take the sword.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Contest, while less commonly referred, are still in 2024 rules such as Hide for exemple. The Dungeon Master Guide 2024 ;

Calculated DCs

For some ability checks and most saving throws, the rules default to the following formula: DC = 8 + ability modifier + Proficiency Bonus

This formula often sets the saving throw DC when a creature is casting a spell or using a special ability, but it can also apply to ability checks that are contests between two creatures. For example, if one creature is holding a door shut, use its Strength modifier and Proficiency Bonus to set the DC for opening the door. When another creature tries to force the door open, the creature makes a Strength (Athletics) check against that DC.

Another way to handle similar situations is to have one creature's ability check set the DC for another creature's check. That's how hiding works, for example: a hiding creature's total Dexterity (Stealth) check sets the DC for Wisdom (Perception) checks made to find the hidden creature.

 Contests are not in the 2024 rules because Contests have two very specific criteria that matter from a mechanical perspective that do not occur in anything similar to them in 2024 rules:

1. In a contest, both sides roll at the same time. This matters for any game feature (such as silvery barbs) that interacts with an ability check. I can silvery barbs a creature in a Contest, I cannot apply it retroactively to a creature that has set a DC earlier.
2. In a contest, a tie results in the situation remaining unchanged, whereas in a non-contest ability check, "meets it beats it".

This is why I specified that Contests do not exist in the 2024 rules. I'm aware that ability checks against DCs set by a creature making a prior role do exist, but they're mechanically distinct. 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Davyd >>

How I'd Rule

Paralysis can represent two things; stopping a creatures brain from telling some or all of the muscles what to do resulting in them going limp, or the creatures muscles locking up (or being locked up externally), preventing movement. Given that the definition of paralyzed doesn't include the target falling prone, or dropping what they're holding, it seems reasonable to assume that the Paralyzed condition represents the latter, not the former. Based on that assumption, it would subsequently make sense (at least to me) that some form of contested strength-based check would be required to overcome the rigid, paralyzed grip a creature has on any object they're holding. I wouldn't rule the paralyzed creature automatically fails as contested checks aren't saving throws, nor would I impose disadvantage. My rationale being the disadvantage of them not being able to move would be negated by the advantage of the fact their muscles are locked as rigidly as they could possibly be.

 

I could maaaaybe see having the character doing the prying make a straight STR check against a set DC, but a contested check requires two people contesting it -- and the paralyzed character cannot do that, by definition

My rationale is they are not choosing to contest it, but are doing so forcibly because they're paralyzed. Also the choice to contest or not is irrelevant, it's simply that the contest mechanics best represent and allow for a plausible resolution of the situation. It's (imo) the best tool for the job.

To me, the real question is: What does the magic do?

You're 'paralysed' - but clearly, you're not! If you were, you'd be lying in a pile of non-functioning limbs, on the ground. It's not paralyzation. What then? To me, if you cast Hold Person on someone running, they stop dead in their tracks, instantly. That tells me that the magic locks the victim in place. However, if they're falling or flying, they're kept from moving their limbs - gravity isn't affected. So .. they will crash. 

To me, based on what the spell actually does, it's a force-field-like effect. Magic force locks your limbs in place, and you cannot move. It get's weird, though, because if you're Held off-balance, you don't fall. But if you're pushed off a cliff, you fall just fine. 

In the final verdict, I'd say the target in the OP example isn't holding the sword. The magic is. Whether it can be pried free at all is open for discussion. If it can, could a strength check against the same DC break the Hold? I guess not, huh? 

Then, I'd say no. The sword is stuck.

Quote from Acromos >>

Magic force locks your limbs in place, and you cannot move. It get's weird, though, because if you're Held off-balance, you don't fall

So you would rule someone affected by Hold Person couldn't be pushed prone?

Quote from AntonSirius >>

So you would rule someone affected by Hold Person couldn't be pushed prone?

 I guess? It's never come up, but yea, I suppose I would.

It's a dumb spell. I mean, thematically it's on point, it's a thing that mages do in movies and books. But they should have put in enough effort to explain how. 

I would say the paralyze condition in D&D is one that stops the target creature moving but it does nothing to stop other creatures from moving it. So if the target is subjected to any effect where they fall prone if they fail a strength or saving throw, they fall prone.

As for how it'd work with disarming a weapon, nothing in the paralyze condition aids with this, since Disarming is not a common activity, however as a paralyzed target automatically fails the strength or dexterity saving throws, a fighter using Disarming Attack could make it non-lethally and automatically disarm the paralyzed target. Overall, Disarm is a relatively rare occurrence in normal play and I suspect there are balance considerations behind why that isn't the case.

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

So you would rule someone affected by Hold Person couldn't be pushed prone?

 I guess? It's never come up, but yea, I suppose I would.

It's a dumb spell. I mean, thematically it's on point, it's a thing that mages do in movies and books. But they should have put in enough effort to explain how. 

Interesting. I had never considered the spell that way

A DM could resolve a contest where a creature attempt to remove an object held by another by making a Strength (Athetics) check againt;

1. DC = 8 + Strength modifier + Proficiency Bonus

2. DC = Strength (Athetics) check by holder.

Wether having the Paralyzed condition have any impact is up to DM, but originally it affect saving throws, not ability checks.

The reason i answered how i would rule it is because i'm not fond of PvP and usually rule in favor of what facilitate a resolution of conflict, this even if it's not all that kosher rule-wise....

Quote from Davyd >>

How I'd Rule

Paralysis can represent two things; stopping a creatures brain from telling some or all of the muscles what to do resulting in them going limp, or the creatures muscles locking up (or being locked up externally), preventing movement. Given that the definition of paralyzed doesn't include the target falling prone, or dropping what they're holding, it seems reasonable to assume that the Paralyzed condition represents the latter, not the former. Based on that assumption, it would subsequently make sense (at least to me) that some form of contested strength-based check would be required to overcome the rigid, paralyzed grip a creature has on any object they're holding. I wouldn't rule the paralyzed creature automatically fails as contested checks aren't saving throws, nor would I impose disadvantage. My rationale being the disadvantage of them not being able to move would be negated by the advantage of the fact their muscles are locked as rigidly as they could possibly be.

I'd say that this is a flawed argument. Paralysis isn't the same as having a seizure, it is the brain not being able to tell the body what to do. It doesn't have to mean that the person falls down into a limp pile on the floor (but it can) as not all form are complete and/or long lasting and this is especially true for the pseudo version (mental stress instead of actual nerve damage). And I'd say that the pseudo version seems a great fit for what a spell would create.

But that is all RL reasoning which while it might be helpful also isn't game mechanics. The Paralyzed condition makes you unable to move or take actions and auto-fail physical saving throws (but doesn't make you go Prone). Nothing in this indicates to me that it makes you into some sort of rock hard statue that's good at withstanding someone physically manipulating/moving you, quite the contrary tbh.

Disarming an opponent isn't a readily available option most of the time but in this case I'd certainly make an exception as the victim can't do anything to resist it. I'd allow it as an automatic side effect of a melee attack (borrowing the Disarming Attack from the Battlemaster) with the weapon ending up on the ground or it being done as its own action with the attacker then having control of the weapon.

If it's really a muscular thing, then we need to consider that muscles without direction from the brain or nervous system don't do anything. If it's muscular, you fall in a mess of uncoordinated limbs. Directed by gravity and material resistance - with no input from the body - all manner of fairly grievous harm is likely. Bones may break, ligaments snap, joints dislocate. 

This, clearly, is not what happens when you fail a save vs Hold Person.

I suppose this is a moot point: RAW there's little ambiguity. You remain upright for some reason, and you automatically fail STR checks - so by RAW, there's no question: You could just pluck the sword, with nary a 'by your leave' or 'thankee kindly'. 

Like I said, I find Hold Person to be an annoying spell. If you cast Hold Person at someone as they are moving - say as a Readied Action - they will be even more likely to do serious damage to themselves when they are no longer a coordinated body running along, but instead a fleshy bag of bones and sinew hurtling along the ground without any control.

I feel Hold Person should state: This spell places you in a temporary form of stasis. You are not protected from harm, and time passes normally, but you are help in place helplessly, until you can overcome the magic and make a saving throw.

Or possibly my interpretation is just as problematic, and I'm just not thinking it through properly. That's absolutely also possible. 

Quote from Acromos >>

Like I said, I find Hold Person to be an annoying spell. If you cast Hold Person at someone as they are moving - say as a Readied Action - they will be even more likely to do serious damage to themselves when they are no longer a coordinated body running along, but instead a fleshy bag of bones and sinew hurtling along the ground without any control.

I don't see why any further explanation is needed really (and I usually think they are too light on explanations in the rules). The rule says all that it needs to do to work mechanically in the game, if you want a RL justification for it then you'd need to do the same for all spells/effects that imposes the Paralyzed condition (and likely for Stunned, Incapacitated and more too). And all that without really adding to the game.

Quote from Acromos >>

I feel Hold Person should state: This spell places you in a temporary form of stasis. You are not protected from harm, and time passes normally, but you are help in place helplessly, until you can overcome the magic and make a saving throw.

Or possibly my interpretation is just as problematic, and I'm just not thinking it through properly. That's absolutely also possible. 

I'm not sure how that helps really, it doesn't add any new information about what the effect does or how it works in game but it does add a new (and unexplained) concept of "stasis". Does that have any rules mechanic effect and how does that interact with other in-game effects?

Quote from Thezzaruz >>

I don't see why any further explanation is needed really (and I usually think they are too light on explanations in the rules). The rule says all that it needs to do to work mechanically in the game, if you want a RL justification for it then you'd need to do the same for all spells/effects that imposes the Paralyzed condition (and likely for Stunned, Incapacitated and more too). And all that without really adding to the game.

I'm not sure how that helps really, it doesn't add any new information about what the effect does or how it works in game but it does add a new (and unexplained) concept of "stasis". Does that have any rules mechanic effect and how does that interact with other in-game effects?

 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. 

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? 

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.

... or so I feel =)