Lazarus696's page

Thanks, Gjorbjond for that link. I think it upsets me a bit though. The Creative Director post there says that Prot Evil doesn't stop Charm Person which is directly listed in the spell.

If a Creative Director want's this spell to work differently then written they should change the wording on the spell itself. Really, how hard would it be to change some wording on the paizo site.

It seems that Protection from Evil will stay a problem for GM's and players. A spell should not force someone to hunt for FAQ and Question Threads to figure out how it works.

Dear Creative Director,
Please rewrite Protection from Evil so it stops being ambiguous. And, if it doesn't protect against Charm Person please remove it from the spell's description.

Thanks Thelith. I've seen plenty of GMs and players use it that way. The FAQ kind of changes the spell when it changes it from being a "spell or effect" controlling you to a "caster" controlling you. Those are very different things.

For example:
1. The way the spell is says "against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature" would mean that even Confusion would be protected against since it controls what actions you can take.
2. However the FAQ changes that to "against a caster that possess or exercise mental control over the creature" so Confusion would not be protected against as the "caster" isn't the one controlling you.

Both of your responses are fantastic. This spell definitely can be interpreted in many ways. I'd still be interested in knowing how others feel it works. Maybe we can inspire each other into new ways of looking at it.

Thank's for your response Gjorbjond. That's an interesting take on it.
If the spell was written as only effecting "language-dependent enchantments" that would be very clear. I'm disappointed that Protection from Evil isn't written a bit better.

I've searched other topics on Prot Evil and read the FAQ, but didn't find an answer to my question so here's a new topic. Hopefully someone can clear this up.

My question is about the second part 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, 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."

So this spell protects against a Command spell where an evil caster forces you to do a single action against your will. So would it protect you from spells like Irresistible Dance, Hideous laughter and Hold Person.
1. They are all Mind-Affecting Compulsions that involve will saves.
2. Each is also similar to a Command Spell in that they dictate a single type of action you're forced to do against your will.

As a GM and a player I would say that Protection from Evil absolutely protects someone from those effects.

What I'd like to know is:
1. How would you rule on Irresistible Dance, Hideous laughter, and Hold Person?
2. Or do you think Prot Evil should only protect against spells that give puppet like control like Dominate?

Thank You in advance for responding.

The 2 of you hit exactly on the confuse I feel. As I understand it the DM is allowing him to skip the Monstrous Companion feat. Thus allowing him to have the followers and griffon from the Leadership Feat. I guess he didn't want to over tax him on feats. DM's call there.

I don't think the intent was to give him class levels and bonded mount progression. Or maybe it was. I'll ask him later today.

Which of the 2 would be better or more appropriate in your opinion?

Thanks for the links Loren. Fuzzy, that's some amazing math. You're my hero. I really appreciate the both of you responding so quickly.

I have 2 different groups I play with weekly. My Thursday Roll20 group has one female of 5 players. My weekend rl group has 2 females of 6 players. One is a role player and the other is a rules lawyer.

And yes, the are all shown the respect they deserve. LOL...

Hello all,

A player in my gaming group is a 10th level Paladin. He recently took the leadership feat and the DM allowed him to have a Griffon as his cohort and is willing to let him use it as his bonded mount.

There is a bit of confusion as to what it's stats would be. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hello everyone,

My gaming group has a Portable Hole and 2 shovels. When they came across a fair size horde of coins (pp, gp, sp, and cp) my players asked me how many coins they could fit in their Portable Hole and how long it would take to fill.
I honestly had no idea. Luckily for me it was the end of the game session. I told them I'd give them an answer the next time we play (48 hours from this post).

The Portable Hole is a 6 foot diameter circle that's 10 feet deep. Not really sure about coin sizes. Let's assume all coins have an average size of a rl quarter.

I'm really hoping some math wizards out there can give me an idea about this. I don't expect a perfect answer but some smart guesses would be greatly appreciated.