Wayfinder + Clear Spindle Ioun Stone = Protection from ALL mind attacks?

[TwilightKnight]

It can just as easily be argued that even spells like Sleep, Confusion, etc exercise mental control, it's just more akin to an immediate effect. For a brief moment, the caster enters your mind and scrambles it up a bit, creating said affect. Thereafter, s/he no longer exerts control. But it was already determined that there is no language indicating "ongoing" control being a requirement.

[Flux Vector]

My reading is that since the spell takes the specific pains of pointing out enchantment [charm] and enchantment [compulsion] as explicitly as it does, it's indicating that it considers all spells tagged as such as mental controls, at least for the purposes of protection from alignment.

Ie, since Sleep is an enchantment compulsion spell, it's definitely protected against, because it's explicitly written that way.

Basically, what I'm saying is, the writing won't win a Pulitzer but on this specific point there's actually little room for interpretation of what the spell says. Whether or not you agree and/or would houserule it in your game is your own decision as a GM; if I were a player in your game I'd respect your call on the matter. But the rules do say what they say.

I myself would certainly houserule the continuous magic item in some manner (for another magic item that kicks cost-vs-effect in the shins, btw, look at a continuous Shield spell item...)

[ZappoHisbane]

Flux Vector wrote:

I myself would certainly houserule the continuous magic item in some manner (for another magic item that kicks cost-vs-effect in the shins, btw, look at a continuous Shield spell item...)

Ah, but the rules do take that into account. You're only supposed to use the generic pricing guidelines for continous use items when there are no other comparable items. Since we already know that a +4 armor bonus (ala Bracers of Armor) costs 16,000, we can extrapolate that a Shield item would cost at least that much, more if you want to include the auto-protection from Magic Missile and other force/incorporeal effects.

Besides, the one that REALLY breaks the game is an always-on True Strike. ;)

The problem with the item in question in this thread (which I'll admit I don't have to look at, I'm just going by what others have posted) is that it's a published item that wildly violates the game's own guidelines. If a player tried to come up with their own always-on Protection From Evil prior to that item being available, it'd be subject to the pricing guidelines. However, now that it's been published it sets a terrible precendent.

[Kaisoku]

In 3.5e, the spell had the specific verbiage of "ongoing control", which neatly removed any doubt as to what spells were affected.

The spell's theme comes from myth and legends of summoning creatures and protecting from creatures that tried to possess or control you in some way.
No where in the theme of the spell do I get the impression that it's to protect against being put to sleep, etc.

Now, if Pathfinder means to make the 1st level spell grant immunities where they took it away from an 8th level spell (Mind Blank), then whatever... I'll believe it when I hear a FAQ on it.

However, the intent behind the spell changes makes me feel it's more a problem with edition carryover.
They tried to add their own wording to grant the +2 bonus to removing a current controlling force, and in the process they screwed up important words in the copy/paste.

It's probably too late for an errata to shove in the word "ongoing", but I'll settle for a FAQ to stop this neverending back and forth.

[William Griffiths]

Kaisoku wrote:

In 3.5e, the spell had the specific verbiage of "ongoing control", which neatly removed any doubt as to what spells were affected.

The spell's theme comes from myth and legends of summoning creatures and protecting from creatures that tried to possess or control you in some way.
No where in the theme of the spell do I get the impression that it's to protect against being put to sleep, etc.

Now, if Pathfinder means to make the 1st level spell grant immunities where they took it away from an 8th level spell (Mind Blank), then whatever... I'll believe it when I hear a FAQ on it.

However, the intent behind the spell changes makes me feel it's more a problem with edition carryover.
They tried to add their own wording to grant the +2 bonus to removing a current controlling force, and in the process they screwed up important words in the copy/paste.

It's probably too late for an errata to shove in the word "ongoing", but I'll settle for a FAQ to stop this neverending back and forth.

Well said. I'd like to add though: I think the wording is fine as it is. What I find humourous is the folks reading the spell and claiming that the rules say you can't sleep someone protected. I believe the spell is worded properly, especially considering one cannot cover every eventuality for every spell in a finitely worded document. The funny part is that we all believe that our position is what is worded in the rules.

To my opponents: I really do not wish to sound haughty, and I do respect your right to an opinion. That being said, and having argued this into the ground through 3 editions of this game now, I can be a bit passionate. One cannot decide that sleep/confusion/hold/anything exercise mental control just because they affect the mind. That's what mind affecting means, and if the spell protected you from all mind affecting effects, it would say so. There's an old saying: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

As for the gentleman pointing out the possibility of TPKs and people not liking when their character is taken out of a fight: This, like any other threat, must be prepared for by not minimizing your will save and having access to the appropriate spells. If a 1st level spell is that much of a game changer, see my above line about things sounding too good to be true.

[Flux Vector]

Except the basis of my opinion is the explicit use of the enchantment [compulsion] and enchantment [charm] spell tags, not mind-affecting or the otherwise vaguely-defined term "mental control."

Enchantment [charm] and enchantment [compulsion], and possession, are the only things that are explicitly mentioned. And sleep, confusion, etcetera are all explicitly tagged as enchantment [compulsion] or enchantment [charm].

In short, because those are some of the only things that are specified quite clearly as being covered, they're what's definitely covered in a narrow reading of the protection from spell, rather than their being the 'overreach' of the interpretation.

The rest of my opinion is that this is a tricky balance issue, with many angles; at low levels you often really can't do much about your saves other than using buffing spells (like protection from X) because you can't afford many magic items.

[Chaosthecold]

Flux Vector wrote:

Except the basis of my opinion is the explicit use of the enchantment [compulsion] and enchantment [charm] spell tags, not mind-affecting or the otherwise vaguely-defined term "mental control."

Enchantment [charm] and enchantment [compulsion], and possession, are the only things that are explicitly mentioned. And sleep, confusion, etcetera are all explicitly tagged as enchantment [compulsion] or enchantment [charm].

In short, because those are some of the only things that are specified quite clearly as being covered, they're what's definitely covered in a narrow reading of the protection from spell, rather than their being the 'overreach' of the interpretation.

The rest of my opinion is that this is a tricky balance issue, with many angles; at low levels you often really can't do much about your saves other than using buffing spells (like protection from X) gic items.

Protection from any spell that possess or exercise mental control (including charms and compulsions).

The fact that it is in parentheses like that means two things. You can remove what is in parentheses and still have a true statement.

OR
you can replace "any spell" with what is in parentheses and also have a true statement.

If you were meant to be immune to all enchantment spells (since they are all either charms or compulsions) it would simply say that.

You keep saying your way is RAW but its just rule-unreasonably-abused-due to misinterpretation.

It seems pretty obvious that this 1st level isn't strictly superior to mind blank especially since they removed the immunities from that and its still 8th level and not 0.

[Flux Vector]

Chaosthecold wrote:

Protection from any spell that possess or exercise mental control (including charms and compulsions).

The fact that it is in parentheses like that means two things. You can remove what is in parentheses and still have a true statement.

OR
you can replace "any spell" with what is in parentheses and also have a true statement.

If you were meant to be immune to all enchantment spells (since they are all either charms or compulsions) it would simply say that.

You keep saying your way is RAW but its just rule-unreasonably-abused-due to misinterpretation.

Except that's what the book says. I'm not making it up. It's there in black and white (actually, black and tan, but whatever!). Parenthetical statements are not parsed as 'optional' in any English I ever learned, they're parsed as clarifications - as in this case or in the case of my previous sentence. Yes, the meaning of either sentence doesn't change if you remove the parenthetical expression, but the parenthetical expression adds detail to the sentence that clarifies said meaning.

The clause in parenthesis that specifically includes enchantment [charm] and enchantment [compulsion] is a clarification on what "exercises mental control" means for the purposes of this spell. It's a better argument, in terms of "what it says" to argue that this is a limitation on what it means as well as an inclusion on what it means, rather than arguing that it doesn't mean what it definitely says because of your opinion on game balance. The game's balance is off and broken in lots of places based on what's written. That doesn't mean that the rules for those things don't mean what they explicitly say either.

There's a situation that clarifies this part of my point: under my reading, the spell Sleep is blocked, while the witch Hex Slumber is technically not. Even though both actually "do" exactly the same sort of thing. The first is tagged as enchantment [compulsion] and the second is a supernatural mind-affecting ability. Protection from X explicitly includes protection against the first category of "exercises mental control" but not the second category thereof.

What you'd like to say is that neither should be blocked, and you seem to think I'm saying both should be blocked, but I'm not. I'm saying that as the rules are written the first definitely is and the second isn't.

Or to put it more succinctly, I'm not arguing about if the rule is good in this section, I'm stating what the rule says.

Quote:

It seems pretty obvious that this 1st level isn't strictly superior to mind blank especially since they removed the immunities from that and its still 8th level and not 0.

It's not strictly superior, since Mind Blank is alignment-irrelevant. But it's certainly a lot lesser as an 8th-level spell without the immunities. And this is the part where I'd argue about if the rule is a good one or not. Certainly for a first level spell, Protection from X is very good, especially when you consider that in the majority of campaigns X is going to be "evil." However, from a balancing POV, consider that most of the time characters with "poor" Will saves will tend to face a 40% to 60% failure rate on their save even if they've not dumped wisdom and are wearing an up-to-date cloak of resistance, going by the creature save DC formula of 10 + 1/2 HD + ability mod.

For example, at level 20 a poor willsave character has a base save of 6 + 5 resistance from a cloak, be generous and give them a 12 base wisdom and assume they're wearing a +6 wis headband for an 18 wis final, and they've got a will save of +15. That gives them a 50% fail rate against a DC 25 will save, which is a common, if not somewhat low, DC for a level 20 character to face. And that's the character doing all the standard things to improve their save, which assumes they don't have lagging wealth-by-level and full access to the gear they want - both being things that many players in many campaigns can't count on. Just look at all the threads about "I don't like Ye Olde Magick Item Shoppe as a GM."

Now in one sense that's "fair" - both the attacker and defender have a 50% chance of winning the roll. But in truth, the saving throw mechanic badly favors NPCs, for several reasons (like PCs having to face many saves, many creatures having a 'layered defense' of spell resist and saves against magic while spell resist is often too expensive for PCs to include as part of their gear, NPCs being less inclined to shepherd and conserve spell-per-day resources compared to PCs, and PCs having a steeper failure penalty for failed saves since a TPK is often game over for them). And there's a nice long parenthetical statement that gives clarification on what I mean ;)

Furthermore on the meta-level, a situation where a fighter has a 50% chance of being hosed in any given will save also serves to exacerbate the existing physical combatant vs caster (aka "low tier vs high tier") balance issues many people around here are concerned about. When the level 20 fighter has a 50% chance of being crippled or KO'd by area spells like Slow or Mass Hold, or worse, turned with all his damage output against the party with Dominate... you've got a situation where many times if the bad guys are playing to win, your noncasters are potentially a liability rather than an asset.

A level 1 spell stopping that is a much smaller issue, in my opinion, than the fact that that situation exists in the first place.

[Majuba]

I think the debate has been clarified, all that is needed now is a determination of the intent of the author.

FAQ-flagged, I suggest everyone else who reads this do the same.

[jjaamm]

Majuba wrote:

I think the debate has been clarified, all that is needed now is a determination of the intent of the author.

FAQ-flagged, I suggest everyone else who reads this do the same.

+1-PLEASE!!!!

[TwilightKnight]

Flux Vector wrote:

Stuff

This is well stated and in the case of Protection from Evil not a big issue, IMO. Since your enemy is not restricted to an evil alignment, there will be numerous occasions where the spell, if used, will be wasted. The bigger issue is that when using a Wayfinder loaded with a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone, the alignment requirement is waived and the item becomes effective against all casters. Under current interpretation of the rules, this seems to be the way it is being adjudicated in society play. The questions become (1) should a single item have the power to effectively neuter a school of magic? Yes, not all enchantment spells are blocked, but the majority are. And (2) if it does work that way, is 4250gp a reasonable value for said item? Even those of us who answer yes to #1, are saying no to #2. Unfortunately, since it is in a published book, the RAW seems to support a 'yes' answer to both #1 & #2. Is this an issue with edition conflict and missing language? Perhaps. But until the developers weigh in, RAW is what it is. You are free to rule as you wish in home-style games, but in organized play, consistency is needed.

[William Griffiths]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Flux Vector wrote:

Stuff

This is well stated and in the case of Protection from Evil not a big issue, IMO. Since your enemy is not restricted to an evil alignment, there will be numerous occasions where the spell, if used, will be wasted. The bigger issue is that when using a Wayfinder loaded with a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone, the alignment requirement is waived and the item becomes effective against all casters. Under current interpretation of the rules, this seems to be the way it is being adjudicated in society play. The questions become (1) should a single item have the power to effectively neuter a school of magic? Yes, not all enchantment spells are blocked, but the majority are. And (2) if it does work that way, is 4250gp a reasonable value for said item? Even those of us who answer yes to #1, are saying no to #2. Unfortunately, since it is in a published book, the RAW seems to support a 'yes' answer to both #1 & #2. Is this an issue with edition conflict and missing language? Perhaps. But until the developers weigh in, RAW is what it is. You are free to rule as you wish in home-style games, but in organized play, consistency is needed.

A request for consistency is fine. However, we all think that the rules support our claims. I believe the rules clearly state that the spell/magic item only prevent dominate and the like effects. We are having a good, strong debate over what the rules support, and it is (hopefully) not a 'yes' answer to the questions.

Not trying to score the last word in the forum, but to clarify: We are not arguing what the rule should be, but what it actually is. People are reading what they want in the rules, but I guess the meaning is unclear. What should be the text of the spell? I guess folks need it to say "against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment[charm] effects and enchantment[compulsion] effects THAT POSSESS OR EXERCISE MENTAL CONTROL OVER THE CREATURE.)

That, or you need a definition of 'control.' That's simple: Dominate uses the word control, and specifies that with the spell, you can control the actions of another. Confusion/Hold/Hideous Laughter do not.

Not to worry: Protection spells are still quite useful, and you are still getting a nice, continuous protection with your cheap ioun stone stuck in a wayfinder. That being said, look forward to your character overcoming challenges besides simple hp damage, and good gaming.

[karlbadmanners]

guys seriously it doesn't protect you from all that jazz, it's a first level spell, sometimes I think with my little brain too, its ok.

[Chaosthecold]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Flux Vector wrote:

Stuff

This is well stated and in the case of Protection from Evil not a big issue, IMO. Since your enemy is not restricted to an evil alignment, there will be numerous occasions where the spell, if used, will be wasted. The bigger issue is that when using a Wayfinder loaded with a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone, the alignment requirement is waived and the item becomes effective against all casters. Under current interpretation of the rules, this seems to be the way it is being adjudicated in society play. The questions become (1) should a single item have the power to effectively neuter a school of magic? Yes, not all enchantment spells are blocked, but the majority are. And (2) if it does work that way, is 4250gp a reasonable value for said item? Even those of us who answer yes to #1, are saying no to #2. Unfortunately, since it is in a published book, the RAW seems to support a 'yes' answer to both #1 & #2. Is this an issue with edition conflict and missing language? Perhaps. But until the developers weigh in, RAW is what it is. You are free to rule as you wish in home-style games, but in organized play, consistency is needed.

After a brief email conversation with Jason bulhman, it appears we are correct in our reading of the spell. I do not want to post it on list but will forward it to you offlist if you contact me under the conditions that you keep it private.

[jjaamm]

As i feared, by moving it to rules, it is getting buried by all the other threads. Will we ever get an answer to this very important question?

[TwilightKnight]

Chaosthecold wrote:

I do not want to post it on list but will forward it to you offlist if you contact me under the conditions that you keep it private

Short of you posting your email, how should we contact you? I do not see anything in your profile and I am interested in what was said.

EDIT--Although, it would be nice if he would answer on the boards or add to the FAQ so his comments are not considered "hearsay." I don't like "winning" a discussion by saying, "I heard this from one of the developers."

[jjaamm]

TwilightKnight wrote:

.

EDIT--Although, it would be nice if he would answer on the boards or add to the FAQ so his comments are not considered "hearsay."

+1

[Chaosthecold]

Yeah, I'm new to this forum. Didn't realize that my email wasn't accessible.

[e-mail]

[vip00]

I wonder how many faq presses does it take to get to the center of a rules question...

[Arnim Thayer]

Since this issue comes up A LOT in PFS, I too hope for a clarification or FAQ. The intent of the writer/developer cannot be so powerful, yet some of the language in the spell description is kind of vague in my opinion.

[jreyst]

vip00 wrote:

I wonder how many faq presses does it take to get to the center of a rules question...

A-wun...

A-two....

A....

Three.

[jjaamm]

vip00 wrote:

I wonder how many faq presses does it take to get to the center of a rules question...

more than 34 maybe

[Sean K Reynolds]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the questions are:

1) Does protection from evil work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or does it just work against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

2) Does the wayfinder[i] + [i]clear spindle ioun stone combo work against all effects from question 1, regardless of alignment? Or does it only work against said effect from an evil source, because the resonant power cites protection from evil?

Correct?

[Carbon D. Metric]

That would be a definite yes to #1 &2.

[William Ronald]

Correct in both cases, Sean.

I have seen protection from evil used creatively in Pathfinder Society Play to give an ally a new save on a charm effect.

My own opinion is that the effects of a 1st level spell should be relatively limited.

[Josh M Foster]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the questions are:

1) Does protection from evil work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or does it just work against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

2) Does the wayfinder[i] + [i]clear spindle ioun stone combo work against all effects from question 1, regardless of alignment? Or does it only work against said effect from an evil source, because the resonant power cites protection from evil?

Correct?

Yes, that's what we're wondering exactly.

[William Ronald]

Sean, thanks for posting on a Sunday night before a holiday. One thing that I like about the staff at Paizo is your dedication to answering the questions and concerns of people on the boards. A lot of businesses could learn something from Paizo when it comes to customer service.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the questions are:

1) Does protection from evil work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or does it just work against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

2) Does the wayfinder[i] + [i]clear spindle ioun stone combo work against all effects from question 1, regardless of alignment? Or does it only work against said effect from an evil source, because the resonant power cites protection from evil?

Correct?

I'll have to talk to Jason about his opinion on question #1, but I am 90% sure that prot. evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target; it shouldn't work on sleep or confusion. I see why the uncertainty is there--there is language in the 3.5 spell that's not in the PF spell. While in general I like "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" features, but a 1st-level spell shouldn't be able to shut down an entire school of attack spells. I'll talk to Jason about this on Tuesday when we're both back in the office.

As for question #2, the stone-wayfinder resonant power only works on said effects from an evil source, because the resonant power specifically cites protection from evil.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I'll have to talk to Jason about his opinion on question #1, but I am 90% sure that prot. evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target; it shouldn't work on sleep or confusion.

I just spoke to Jason, and we are in agreement: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it shouldn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep feels like a border case for this issue, but we feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")

[hogarth]

It's always heartening to see someone working through potential FAQs!

[jjaamm/Keldar]

Thank You!!!! for looking into this, and answering this.

[Austin Morgan]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I'll have to talk to Jason about his opinion on question #1, but I am 90% sure that prot. evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target; it shouldn't work on sleep or confusion.

I just spoke to Jason, and we are in agreement: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it shouldn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep feels like a border case for this issue, but we feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")

Thank you for taking the time to reply. And a double-thank you for listing specific examples of spells that are and are not protected from :)

[Sean K Reynolds]

I've added this to the Core Rulebook FAQ, btw.

[wraithstrike]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I've added this to the Core Rulebook FAQ, btw.

Thanks.

[Chris Mortika]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

As for question #2, the stone-wayfinder resonant power only works on said effects from an evil source, because the resonant power specifically cites protection from evil.

Let me propose a common hypothetical, then.

The party of Pathfinders is being pursued by a cunning gnome sorcerer with suggestion, which for point of this discussion everyone at the table agrees is a spell that exercises control over the target. The adventure has also included a pair of doppelgangers.

The sorcerer casts suggestion at Rikk, the party's ranger, and suggests that the rest of the party has been replaced with doppelgangers, which --given the way the day has been going-- is plausible. Rikk's player notes that the ranger is carrying a clear spindle ioun stone in his wayfinder, and ought to be resistant to such control.

At which point, the GM explains that, although the gnome is cruel and greedy, he registers just on the south side of Chaotic Neutral. The ranger's item only protects him against control from strictly Evil sources, and Rikk turns to regard his companions with suspicion in his eye and his kukri of shapshifter-bane in his off-hand.

So the party summoner anoints the gnome with devil's blood and drops infernal healing on him. The sorcerer now radiates as Evil. Does that allow the ioun stone to kick in?

[wraithstrike]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

As for question #2, the stone-wayfinder resonant power only works on said effects from an evil source, because the resonant power specifically cites protection from evil.

Let me propose a common hypothetical, then.

The party of Pathfinders is being pursued by a cunning gnome sorcerer with suggestion, which for point of this discussion everyone at the table agrees is a spell that exercises control over the target. The adventure has also included a pair of doppelgangers.

The sorcerer casts suggestion at Rikk, the party's ranger, and suggests that the rest of the party has been replaced with doppelgangers, which --given the way the day has been going-- is plausible. Rikk's player notes that the ranger is carrying a clear spindle ioun stone in his wayfinder, and ought to be resistant to such control.

At which point, the GM explains that, although the gnome is cruel and greedy, he registers just on the south side of Chaotic Neutral. The ranger's item only protects him against control from strictly Evil sources, and Rikk turns to regard his companions with suspicion in his eye and his kukri of shapshifter-bane in his off-hand.

So the party summoner anoints the gnome with devil's blood and drops infernal healing on him. The sorcerer now radiates as Evil. Does that allow the ioun stone to kick in?

This was covered in another thread, but you have to actually be an alignment for alignment based things such as spells and smites. Casting an evil spell or having on cast on you does not count since they only have an evil aura.

I will see if I can find it. It was actually a recent thread IIRC.

PS:Infernal Healing which I could not find would need a clause saying it makes you count as actually being evil.

[Sean K Reynolds]

IIRC, infernal healing doesn't actually make you evil, it just makes you detect as having an evil aura.

[Quandary]

Infernal Healing says you DETECT AS Evil, but you aren`t ACTUALLY Evil,
i.e. a Cleric of Good Diety wouldn`t lose their powers.
Protection from Evil applies vs. sources which ARE Evil, not based on Detection as Evil.

Now, an observer who is highly educated in spellcraft and has a Detect Aligment ability running, but somehow missed Infernal Healing being cast, would be highly CONFUSED when things don`t play out how they would expect against an apparently Evil character. Likewise, a Paladin`s DETECT Evil would be fooled by Infernal Healing, and they may choose to use a Smite (wasting it).

I agree that Suggestion would count as `control`, even if it isn`t much, it´s controlling the target`s thought process.

[wraithstrike]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

IIRC, infernal healing doesn't actually make you evil, it just makes you detect as having an evil aura.

<Hi-5's Sean>

[Quandary]

yikes... triple infernal ninjas...

[Diego Rossi]

Quandary wrote:

Infernal Healing says you DETECT AS Evil, but you aren`t ACTUALLY Evil,

i.e. a Cleric of Good Diety wouldn`t lose their powers.
Protection from Evil applies vs. sources which ARE Evil, not based on Detection as Evil.

Now, an observer who is highly educated in spellcraft and has a Detect Aligment ability running, but somehow missed Infernal Healing being cast, would be highly CONFUSED when things don`t play out how they would expect against an apparently Evil character. Likewise, a Paladin`s DETECT Evil would be fooled by Infernal Healing, and they may choose to use a Smite (wasting it).

I agree that Suggestion would count as `control`, even if it isn`t much, it´s controlling the target`s thought process.

Order of the stick Not evil.

[0gre]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I've added this to the Core Rulebook FAQ, btw.

Excellent!

For those who might not know where that is, here is the text:

Quote:

Does protection from evil work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or does it just work against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person, command, and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")

-Link

[wraithstrike]

0gre wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I've added this to the Core Rulebook FAQ, btw.

Excellent!

For those who might not know where that is, here is the text:

Quote:

Does protection from evil work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or does it just work against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person, command, and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")

-Link

Ogre you're breaking protocol. You are supposed to wait for it to come up in the rules section again, let people argue about it for about 5 pages and then post the link. Stop being proactive and stuff.

[Zaister]

Quandary wrote:

Infernal Healing says you DETECT AS Evil, but you aren`t ACTUALLY Evil,

i.e. a Cleric of Good Diety wouldn`t lose their powers.

A cleric of a good deity can't cast infernal healing at all, as this spell has the evil descriptor.

Also, it's deity. Go write that on the blackboard 40 times! :)

[Russ Taylor]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I just spoke to Jason, and we are in agreement: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it shouldn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep feels like a border case for this issue, but we feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")

This post makes me so happy. :)

[ArcTanGentleman]

http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rul ebook#tabs

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051004a
D&D rules of the game.

Now the same language exists in pathfinder and D&D 3.5. There have been NO CHANGES, and what's logical for them to assume

Any type of alteration of thought patterns is a form of control. FROM ALTERING MY PERCEPTION OF YOU (charm) to COMPELLING ME TO FALL ASLEEP (compulsion). EVEN HOLD PERSON IS A MENTAL COMMAND TO FREEZE IN PLACE!

hold person:
enchantment
COMPULSION
com·pul·sion/kəmˈpəlSHən/
Noun:
The action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.
An irresistible urge to behave in a certain way, esp. against one's conscious wishes.

control,

con·trol/kənˈtrōl/
Noun:
The power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.
Verb:
Determine the behavior or supervise the running of.

Look at the definition of the word CONTROL, it's a lot more open than even I thought. So charm is covered because it alters your behavior (control) towards the party in question (you are their friend).

So CHARM IS CLEARLY MENTAL CONTROL, WITHOUT QUESTION.

Sleep, Enchantment, COMPULSION.
IT FORCES YOU, (a force is a type of influence) to go to sleep.

Also, if you look at sleep, it's a very VERY strong spell, you can walk up to someone and coupe-de-grace them while under it's effects.
It is a form of mental control as it influences them to sleep and changes the course of events. (Because of a mental effect, they are no longer fighting you).

It isn't raw until they faq it.
... that sounded wrong. XD
And they did.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rul ebook#tabs
Sorry for thread necro-ing. There should be a way exclude rules threads from searches.

I see the point of the developer if the spell stops the mental commands (other than those cast with the spell it's self) from passing.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rul ebook#tabs

[Talonhawke]

Umm you do realized you necroed a year old thread which has been faq'ed to do what exactly?

[poundpuppy30]

What about Hold Person Spell does the clear spindle in the way finder help you against that and can I get a link stating where it doesn't or does? I'm asking because it's a compulsion spell that is making you to stay in place and do nothing which is a form or restraining a person against their will.

[Claxon]

poundpuppy30 wrote:

What about Hold Person Spell does the clear spindle in the way finder help you against that and can I get a link stating where it doesn't or does? I'm asking because it's a compulsion spell that is making you to stay in place and do nothing which is a form or restraining a person against their will.

I believe the answer is no. The difference being that Hold Person doesn't make you do anything. It just stops you from acting. It is similar to the example of sleep mentioned in the FAQ up the page in my opinion.

[Jiggy]

poundpuppy30 wrote:

What about Hold Person Spell does the clear spindle in the way finder help you against that and can I get a link stating where it doesn't or does? I'm asking because it's a compulsion spell that is making you to stay in place and do nothing which is a form or restraining a person against their will.

"Restraining a person against their will" is not something that protection from evil blocks. What it blocks is "spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature ... such as charm person, command, and dominate person", which is then further clarified in a FAQ to be referring to "effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person".

Does hold person seem like something that could be described as possessing or exercising mental control over the target? If you were trying to list examples of things that work like hold person, would you be listing things like command or dominate person?

Furthermore, the FAQ also lists examples of things that DON'T get blocked by PfE, and those examples are sleep and confusion. Those are also both compulsion spells. Would you say hold person is more like those examples, or more like the other examples?

Also, I'm not sure this 3-year-old thread about a related item was the best place to ask about the effects of protection from evil.