|
Okay, so I was looking at this and wondering- Are these separate spells? For instance, does a wizard specifically have to prepare Protection from Evil, and does he have to learn each Protection spell individually, or is it one of those deals like Blindness/Deafness where you can choose upon casting? Is it placed in the spell list how it is to save space?
My main question is there because I am playing a sorcerer and I wanted to learn this spell, but we are not always fighting evil things (we are a decidedly split party, alignment wise- fate has forced a paladin and anti-paladin (for lack of a better word) to coexist). I don't want to have to use 2 of my precious spells known slots for the same spell... They at least seem to me (from a logical standpoint) to be so similar that a modification could be made on the fly. Any clarifications on this?
|
I'm afraid that they are, in fact, different spells. Under the specific spell descriptions, each one is listed separately, and I don't see any entries about counting them as the same spell.
However, that being said, talk to your gm. S(he) might determine that it's acceptable.
The protection spells are powerful though, and personally I think that giving all of them to a sorcerer at the price of one spell known is a bit too cheap.
|
|
Well, I am 8th level. Considering everything else in my armory, it would barely be a bleep on the radar.
But the confusion is because of Blindness/Deafness and the fact that in the spell lists they (the protection spells) are only separated by a slash. It just seems like a confusing way to list spells. That, and for some reason I seem to recall someone referring that the alignment portion of these spells could be decided at the time of casting... But I honestly can't remember if that was just some strange fever dream or not.
|
|
I totally understand where you're coming from. I could have sworn I remembered hearing the same thing about picking the spell when you cast it but that was back in 3.0 and I couldn't find anything about it when I ran through the pathfinder book :(
Still, don't knock immunity to mind control effects. That's pretty powerful stuff :)
You should equalize the parties alignment. You can get a coup de gras against your sleeping party members of the opposing alignment, and then wake up the camp because you saw something moving in the shadows...
Wait, what? You think the players would be mad and try to get revenge on you for killing their old characters? They'd never do that! :P
Or, you know, write a note to the dm before the session starts.
Oof, I think my alignment just shifted to chaotic-antisocial.
|
|
Well, we tend to have a fair number of party fatalities in our games... Just this past session, I found some black moss in a locked box, and we had recently found some green moss that acted like barkskin, so I asked the fighter if he wanted to try it. I expected him to question random moss we found, but instead he said "Sure!" and popped it right into his mouth. We then found out that this moss was an experiment resulting from green slime, and our dear friend the fighter just ate it... After the very, very long time it took the rest of us (GM included) to catch our breath from laughing so hard, he grabbed a new character sheet and started writing up his next character.
But, my character is in the middle-ground of alignment in the party. Meaning, I grab popcorn and wait for hilarity to ensue when the paladin and anti-paladin are yelling at each other. The Anti-Paladin always declares the paladin as one of his Smites for the day, just in case....
EDIT: Oh, the Mind Control preventy-thing is actually what I need it for. Our (recently deceased) fighter had a huge problem with being the target for every Dominate Person spell aimed at the party
In a similar vein, I would like further clarification of the spells. From the text of the spell:
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects). This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.
In our group, we have made the interpretation that "possess or exercise mental control" refers only to spells that allow the caster to specifically dictate the actions of the target. There is however, this phrase: "(including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects)." This phrase could be interpreted to mean that all spells that are enchantment [charm] and enchantment [compulsion] are negated by this spell. Our group feels that a first level spell should not negate an entire school of magic, so we have ruled that spells such as hideous laughter, confusion, sleep, touch of idiocy, etc... are not affected by protection from evil/good/chaos/law. Are we right, or are we house-ruling this to fit our own sense of rightness?
|
|
If it is an enchantment [charm] or [compulsion] spell, you get a second save (or are completely immune if you cast this preemptively). But that is only from whatever alignment you happen to protect from at the time. So, you are house-ruling it to fit your sense of rightness. Which isn't a bad thing, mind you.
Yeah, I thought so. But I think our group will unanimously keep our house rule, as we don't feel it makes sense to make an enchanter or bard nearly powerless with a first level spell. Just recently our group encountered an enchanter who was 4CR above our party's level. It was a good fight, and lots of fun. If we did not use our house rule, it would have been an insta-kill. Not much fun instantly wiping out a BBEG 4 CR above us.
But I think our group will unanimously keep our house rule, as we don't feel it makes sense to make an enchanter or bard nearly powerless with a first level spell.
It doesn't make him nearly powerless, it just *allows* for another saving throw. Think of it as a make "make save again' spell where you get to attempt a second resistance to something, but only in VERY narrow circumstances, like when some caster remembered to study that spell that day.
|
|
It is interesting, actually, that you think an enchanter or bard becomes nearly powerless with a first level spell.
FIrst, let me say that your opponent has to cast the *right* version of the spell. Or possibly several versions to work against all your party members.
This would likely require an alignment detection spell to guess right. By no means does the bbeg get to automatically know your alignment. And there's two spells burned for one effect.
That's, actually, pretty effective of the bard and/or enchanter imo.
The bard specifically is a headache to look at with the class abilities. Sheesh. But here are the abilities I see that would directly be affected:
Facinate: However, doesn't work with combat going on, so the bard wouldn't be using it while the opponent had his shield up anyhow.
Suggestion: Requires character to be facinated first. See prior entry.
Dirge of Doom: This is a shame, since it's a -2 to the opponents attack rolls, saves, and what have you. But not a terrible loss, since the bard should have been able to tell that the opponent was casting Protection, and take other beneficial actions.
Frightening tune: It's a will save anyhow, so it likely wouldn't have worked on the caster -- bad choice vs spellcasters
Deadly Performance: maybe, but it's another will save, so bad choice, especially at lvl 20.
Then all you have left are the bard spells. And there are plenty to choose from there.
So all in all, the bard has maybe three abilities that would be affected by this, and they're not good choices to use vs a caster anyhow.
The enchanter picks two schools of spells he can't use. Even after that, there are a lot of useful spells he has access to. He'll need to put something in those extra spell slots, and a good wizard will be ready to counterspell another wizard, or dispel his buffs, which leaves him open to mind control once again.
If the opponent caster just keeps casting protection and getting it dispelled, then the wizard is doing a great job of keeping him too occupied to damage the party :)
Protection is far more useful for the party vs enemies than for enemies vs the party. Since the party will have a caster, that caster will be able to use the spell against groups that have no opponent spellcaster. But any opponent group will have to deal with dispels.
|
IMHO, sorcerers should make a choice upon learning the spell, dependent upon his bloodline. The sorcerer would get to choose whether the protection is from the bloodline's associated alignment, or against the associated alignment's opposition. If there is more than one associated alignment component, he may choose which type of alignment component when he casts the spell.
For example, if a sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline, then upon learning the spell he should choose whether he's protecting chaotic and/or evil creatures or protecting against them. If he chooses against, then he learns both Protection from Evil and Protection from Chaos. If he chooses to protect CE creatures, then he would learn both Protection from Good and Protection from Law. Alternatively, his alignment at the time of learning the spell could determine the protection, with TN, LE and CG still allowing him to make choice when he learns it. At GM's discretion, an alignment shift could change the options.
Clerics and paladins should logically be limited in protection options by their deity's alignment, but gain a choice when casting if the deity has two alignment components. Since oracles gain their spells from an entire pantheon, they should only be prohibited from casting protection against their own alignment components. True neutral deities would allow for any alignment protection.
Finally, since wizards and witches must prepare ahead of time, they should choose the alignment when preparing the spell, but not be limited by their own alignment.
Granted, this makes the rules way too complicated for a single spell for the sake of realism. It may be better to just make a spellcaster choose and alignment upon learning the spell. Perhaps a multiple choice version of the spell could be made as a second-level spell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure the people from the year 2010 will be grateful for the information.
If it is an enchantment [charm] or [compulsion] spell, you get a second save (or are completely immune if you cast this preemptively). But that is only from whatever alignment you happen to protect from at the time. So, you are house-ruling it to fit your sense of rightness. Which isn't a bad thing, mind you.
Be aware, Protection fron XXXXXX doesnt grant immunity or second saves against ALL enchantment [charm] or [compulsion] spell effects, it only grants immunity (and/or a second saving throw) vs any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control.
There is a big difference:
Dominate Person? YES, target is immune if preemptively cast, or gets a second saving throw with ongoing effects being supressed for the spell duration on a successful roll.
Posession? YES, target is immune if preemptively cast, or gets a second saving throw with ongoing effects being supressed for the spell duration on a successful roll.
Confussion? NO. Confusion does NOT exercise direct mental control
Hold Person? NO. Hold Person does NOT exercise direct mental control.
Fear? NO... same as above
Sleep? NO... same as above (actually, devs mentioned it's on a gray area, but still stated it's not affected)
In case of doubt, this has already been FAQ'ed