[RPG] Is it impossible to escape the Rod of Lordly Might’s paralysis effect early

conditionsdnd-5emagic-items

On a hit, the Rod of Lordly Might can:

…force the target to make a DC 17 Strength saving throw. On a failure, the target is paralyzed for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on a success.

The paralyzed condition says:

The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.

This seems like a self-fulfilling feedback loop that turns the RoLM paralysis save into a save-or-die effect.

Besides outside intervention, is it possible to end the paralysis effect from the RoLM without waiting out the duration?

Best Answer

RAW, there's no way to escape

Not without a spell, class or racial feature, magic item, or other effect that allows you to bypass Paralysis. If the effect itself is resisted via STR/DEX, and paralysis causes STR/DEX saves to automatically fail, then the character would fail all their attempts to break the effect.

This feels like a situation where an explicit exception should be made.

Consider the text of Rod of Lordly Might, the section on its Paralysis effect:

Paralyze. When you hit a creature with a melee attack using the rod, you can force the target to make a DC 17 Strength saving throw. On a failure, the target is paralyzed for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on a success. This property can't be used again until the next dawn.

—DMG, pg 196

Emphasis mine.

The implication is that the item expects that this effect be resistable. Since there are very few ways for a creature to ignore paralysis (short of having the effect dispelled/removed), my gut instinct is that this should be a "Specific Beats General" situation... Except that none of the wording specifically allows that ruling.

So at my table, I'd allow STR/DEX saving throws exclusive to this effect to be performed as normal, without automatically failing, for the duration of the effect. I don't believe that would be a RAW ruling, though.