Protection From Evil vs Cause Fear

[zean]

Does Protection From Evil grant complete immunity against fear effects like Cause Fear, or does it fall into the category of stuff like Sleep and Confusion, which apparently Protection from Evil does not grant complete immunity, but just a +2 bonus on the saving throw?

[Gauss]

No it does not. Fear is not mind control.

CRB p327 wrote:

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 such as charm person, command, and dominate person).

Primarily, mental control falls under charm and compulsion.

- Gauss

[David_Bross]

Protection from Evil wrote:

This spell wards a creature from attacks by evil creatures, from mental control, and from summoned creatures. It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects.

First, the subject gains a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves. Both these bonuses apply against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures.

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, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. 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.

Compared to

FAQ wrote:

Protection From Evil: Does this work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or just 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 compulsion 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.")

When you say INCLUDING, it is an inclusive statement. The FAQ states this statement is to clarifying statement of what it should effect, but stating including enchantment (Charm) and enchantment (compulsion), usually means you are including things of X.

[Jiggy]

David_Bross wrote:

When you say INCLUDING, it is an inclusive statement. The FAQ states this statement is to clarifying statement of what it should effect, but stating including enchantment (Charm) and enchantment (compulsion), usually means you are including things of X.

You lost me after about the 4th or 5th "states"/"statement".

What exactly are you trying to say?

[gnomersy]

Jiggy wrote:

David_Bross wrote:

When you say INCLUDING, it is an inclusive statement. The FAQ states this statement is to clarifying statement of what it should effect, but stating including enchantment (Charm) and enchantment (compulsion), usually means you are including things of X.

You lost me after about the 4th or 5th "states"/"statement".

What exactly are you trying to say?

If I had to guess I'd say that he's saying that the use of the word including implies that there must be some other mind controlling effects which are blocked. But the Faq is quite clear prot. from evil is not a cureall to mind/emotion effects.

[Pupsocket]

How is this still a question?

Cause Fear doesn't provide control. No special protection. Command Undead (the spell) provides mental control - protection from evil protects you, even though it's not a compulsion or charm effect. Protection from evil can even protect you from the Command Undead feat - it's not restricted to spells. It is, however, restricted to effects that provide control

[David_Bross]

Jiggy wrote:

David_Bross wrote:

When you say INCLUDING, it is an inclusive statement. The FAQ states this statement is to clarifying statement of what it should effect, but stating including enchantment (Charm) and enchantment (compulsion), usually means you are including things of X.

You lost me after about the 4th or 5th "states"/"statement".

What exactly are you trying to say?

I shouldn't have posted this in 5 minutes, as it was confusing.

Jiggy, I was ignoring the FAQ and stating in the absence of it, the core rule book flatly states that enchantment (compulsion) and enchantment (charm) are included under a definition of "any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature ", because of the way the english language works. When you state that X includes Y, that statement is not limiting the effects count for X. It is including all of Y.

X in the case being "any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature" and

Y being " enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects".

That was my beef with the CRB, because the FAQ states this is not parsed the same way normal statements are. I adjudicated this incorrectly until I saw the FAQ, and still feel they are quite contradictory in statement, if not in spirit.

[Weirdo]

It works fine if you read "such as" in its less common usage meaning "things that are like" rather than "for example."

In this case Y is "charm and compulsions that are like charm person, command, and dominate person (which grant control over the target)" rather than Y as "(all) charms and compulsions, for example charm person, command, and dominate."

In any case it's irrelevant to Cause Fear which isn't a charm or compulsion spell and also doesn't grant control over a subject.

[Jiggy]

David_Bross wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

David_Bross wrote:

When you say INCLUDING, it is an inclusive statement. The FAQ states this statement is to clarifying statement of what it should effect, but stating including enchantment (Charm) and enchantment (compulsion), usually means you are including things of X.

You lost me after about the 4th or 5th "states"/"statement".

What exactly are you trying to say?

I shouldn't have posted this in 5 minutes, as it was confusing.

Jiggy, I was ignoring the FAQ and stating in the absence of it, the core rule book flatly states that enchantment (compulsion) and enchantment (charm) are included under a definition of "any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature ", because of the way the english language works. When you state that X includes Y, that statement is not limiting the effects count for X. It is including all of Y.

X in the case being "any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature" and

Y being " enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects".

That was my beef with the CRB, because the FAQ states this is not parsed the same way normal statements are. I adjudicated this incorrectly until I saw the FAQ, and still feel they are quite contradictory in statement, if not in spirit.

Ah, okay. So you're saying that if "enchantment (charm) and enchantment (compulsion) effects" are "included" in what PfE blocks, then it has to mean all "enchantment (charm) and enchantment (compulsion) effects".

However, that's not the only grammatically valid way to read that sentence.

"...against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person."

Note the parentheses (though there's apparently a typo leaving out the closing parenthesis). That means that the entire clause regarding enchantments is limited to the parameters defined outside the parentheses.

Sort of like if I said "I hate any meal that includes processed chicken (including TV dinners)." No intelligent person would think from that statement that I hate all TV dinners; only the ones that are examples of what I was already talking about: namely, ones that include processed chicken. All I'm doing with the parenthetical clarification is preempting any thoughts you might have that TV dinners would somehow be an exception to my dislike of processed chicken; I'm pointing out that they're not an exception.

In the same way, PfE's parenthetical examples of enchantments only refer to enchantments that qualify as part of the category already mentioned (ones that possess or exercise mental control). Just as my example statement doesn't mean "any meal with processed chicken, and also every TV dinner no matter whether there's chicken in it or not", PfE's statement also does NOT mean "any effect that exercises mental control, and also every enchantment regardless of whether it exercises mental control or not".

In short, no, "X including Y" does not have to include all of Y. Thus, the FAQ is fully in compliance with the spell text.