Okay, I like Protection from evil, and I like Magic Circle Against Evil (and chaos, law, good). They're nice, iconic effects and staples of alignment-based magic.
I can even handle the +2 to attacks and saves at first level. In fact, I would even be for changing the bonus types or having them scale so they're still good spells at higher levels.
But making the subject completely immune to one school of magic and the majority of another is a bit much. This has been called the most broken spell in 3.5, and I was surprised that 3.P did nothing to address it.
Any thoughts?
|
I can understand the sentiment here, but I've always felt that most (not all, mind you) mind affecting spells were about as close to save or die spells without actually being save or die.
What I mean is, if a character or monster fails a save against a mind affecting spell, that person may not be dead, but that person is effectively out of the fight. Charm Person, Suggestion, Dominate, and Fear are all good examples of this. I think the protection from alignment spells are the best early defenses against these spells, especially since, unlike save or die spells, mind affecting spells are available from first level on.
I don't think a nerf of these spells is particularly required, but neither would it be completely uncalled for. If a nerf does happen, I hope it is done in moderation, perhaps scaling the spell back so that it only protects against charms and compulsions.
I wouldn't liken them to save-or-die.
Save-or-sink, yes. But unlike save-or-die, they can be dispelled. Yea, you can't dispel before 5th level, but the thing is that all the good save-or-sink spells before that aren't [MA] anyway (Prot. from evil doesn't block Sleep, Color Spray or fear spells).
I don't think that there shouldn't be defenses against enchantments (or summons, for that matter). Heck, I'm actually quite displeased with the way Pathfinder essentially did away with all-day protective spells. But we shouldn't have a 1st level spell blocking a whole subschool of magic (all the way to 9th level), nor a 3rd level spell doing the same for the whole party.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Remember, prot vs. evil is a touch spell. If someone is charmed, dominated, etc, you then need to touch them still to counter the effect, which might not be something a caster wants to, or is easily able to do.
Sure, you might have this spell active before the mind effecting ability gets you, but is the whole party? That would effectively tie up all first level spells for one caster.
|
|
I agree with you that save-or-sink is probably a better description for these spells other than save-or-die. That said, it might be worthy to remember that the protection spells only suppress the effects of mind-affecting and compulsion spells, they do not end them, nor do they prevent them from taking hold. In the case of the magic circle, when affected characters could be moving in and out of the protected area, they could find themselves still fairly hindered in combat.
Also, as Joel stated, these spells are touch only. This makes the use of these spells a further logistical challenge. I think this, along with the fact that the spells only suppress, and do not end the spells in question, make the spells, for the most part (see below), fair a valid, especially when considering they usually only succeed stalling a spell's effect and not ending it. For example, even the 10 min/level duration of magic circle pales in comparison to the hours/level or days/level of spells like dominate or suggestion, which will take back control over the protected person when the duration expires. They could have the spell cast on them again, I suppose, but then you run into a serious resource depletion issue.
And on another point, since protection from evil protects anyone from having "mental control exerted over them", it does block sleep, fear, and likely even color spray, although the latter would admittedly be debateable.
This was actually talked about extensively by WoTC's sage advice column, although it was more than a little vague, and probably won't make you like the spell any more:
Q: Dear Sage
What exactly does the second effect of protection from evil do, anyway?
--Too many questioners to listA: The Sage feels your pain. While the first and third effects of protection from evil are relatively straightforward, the second is less clear.
The key phrase that defines this particular effect of the spell is as follows: “…the barrier blocks any attempt to… exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject…).”
(The spell also blocks attempts to possess the creature, but effects that accomplish this are so few as to barely be worth mentioning.)
The first part of this phrase describes the basic criteria by which the DM should judge protection from evil’s effect: If the incoming effect attempts to exercise mental control over the creature, protection from evil likely suppresses that effect.
The parenthetical portion of the phrase provides two specific examples (pointed, obviously, at rules elements of the Player’s Handbook) to help judge what exactly is meant by that:
1.Enchantment (charm) effects. Simple enough--protection from evil automatically suppresses any enchantment (charm) effect, such as charm person or enthrall.
2.Enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. This is where adjudication gets trickier, because you have to decided what “ongoing control” means. The Sage recommends a broad definition, which includes any non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions.
Examples would include the obvious (such as command or dominate person), but also the less obvious, such as daze, sleep, and Tasha’s hideous laughter. Such effects would be suppressed for as long as protection from evil lasts on the target.
There are still plenty of enchantment (compulsion) effects that don’t grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. Heroism, crushing despair, mind fog, power word blind, rage, and touch of idiocy are examples. Protection from evil has no effect on such spells.
Ultimately, I would say that I think that the protection from alignment spells require a revision, not a nerf. I hope the Paizo team better defines this spell, perhaps narrowing its scope somewhat and making it easier to understand and implement. I think a defense against these save-or-sink spells are needed, but I do not think it should require such a long explanation from the developers themselves just to understand how the spells properly work.
I note that it "suppresses" those effects; it doesn't dispel them. That helps ameliorate things a bit. Beyond that, a bit of clarification of the wording probably wouldn't hurt.
|
I agree the charm protection part of protection from evil is problematic. My players have constantly had potions of protection from evil, crafted rings of protection from evil, and so on.
I think the easiest 'nerf' is to change the immunity to a +5 resistance bonus to save vs. charm and compulsion effects ...
Remember, prot vs. evil is a touch spell. If someone is charmed, dominated, etc, you then need to touch them still to counter the effect, which might not be something a caster wants to, or is easily able to do.
Sure, you might have this spell active before the mind effecting ability gets you, but is the whole party? That would effectively tie up all first level spells for one caster.
Not would, does. Trust me. If the players are smart this is where first level cleric spells (and often second-level spells, if they see another big fight coming) go, at least once they reach the point in the game where summoned creatures and charms really become a threat.
Circle vs. is the one you use to negate effects on party members that do get through for some reason. You just cast it on yourself or another front-line party member and have them approach the dominated character. You can take care of the spell effect permanently after the fight is over.
I note that it "suppresses" those effects; it doesn't dispel them.
Doens't matter. Those spells don't help the badguy win, they're effectively negated. The PCs can deal with them later.
Also, as Joel stated, these spells are touch only. This makes the use of these spells a further logistical challenge. I think this, along with the fact that the spells only suppress, and do not end the spells in question, make the spells, for the most part ...
Not even close to inconvenient enough.
I can't think of any drawbacks that would justify a 1st level spell completely negating Dominate Monster, Gate, Summin IX, and arguably (by "the sage"s ruling)* Mass Hold Monster, all 9th level spells.Players like this spell because it's so convenient, and because DMs so rarely use it. But if you start making common use of Protection/circle vs. Good against enchanters or summoners, your players will get very angry very quickly.
.
* Not that I would ever use that ruling (there's a reason I stopped reading that column). Sleep spells don't grant the caster "ongoing control". Neither do Tasha's Hideous Laughter or daze effects.
If casters capable of using 9th level spells can't get around a simple Protection from Evil they just aren't doing it right. Dispel Magic. Greater Dispel Magic. Etc.
|
|
I'm going to agree that the sage is wrong on the 'broader definition'. Sometimes he starts making up rules, and sometimes he isn't clear about what he's doing. In this case, when he says 'suggest' he is saying 'this is how I houserule it'.
But, I digress. Protection from Evil is a spell that is 'too powerful' in many senses of the word. My group had decided that True Strike was too powerful in 3.0 to allow the 1st level spell formula (even though WotC did not). We didn't allow a 2000 gp item to allow a +20 attack bonus and negate cover. And we quickly found that a Helm of Protection from Evil was far too powerful for the cost as determined by the rules. Maybe it was 2500 gp?
At that price, you'd be crazy not to have one. Even if you don't need teh deflection bonus, the 'hedging control' is such an amazingly good effect. If you have any kind of martial character (low will save) you don't want them getting controlled and attacking your casters. The wizard in the party could either dominate his barbarian friends, or make sure he's protected with Protection from Evil. The second choice is more palatable for most players.
So, I think it is a powerful effect. For a 1st level spell it is among the best. Some form of limitation is probably good. Expanding the powers to include things like 'sleep' (which don't provide ongoing control) would be a major mistake.
As far as suggestions - the idea of it giving a bonus on saving throws is a good one. I suggest granting a significant bonus - perhaps equal to the caster level of the person casting the spell. Thus, if your 15th level cleric cast the spell on you, you would have a +15 bonus on charm and compulsion effects. Not quite as powerful at 1st level, but it would scale well.
My group had decided that True Strike was too powerful in 3.0 to allow the 1st level spell formula (even though WotC did not). We didn't allow a 2000 gp item to allow a +20 attack bonus and negate cover.
At first we assumed it gave a +1 attack/caster level, so a +20 insight to attack item would be 40,000 gp x 8 (duration instantaneous --> continuous) = 320,000 gp.
Then we looked and saw the "other bonus" pricing, and found that it was perfect: +20 insight bonus ^ 2 = 400 * 2500 gp = 1,000,000 gp. This made more sense, too, because the "by bonus" pricing always supercedes the "by spell" pricing for existing items.
For a helm of protection from evil , price it as +2 deflection (8000 gp), +2 resistance (4000 gp), adding for multiple abilities, but giving a * 0.5 because the bonuses are contingent (vs. evil) rather than constant. Then use 2,000 gp (1st level spell) * 2 (1 min/lvl) = 4,000 gp additional for the mental defense issues. You end up with a 12,000 gp helm, if my quick mental math is correct.
If casters capable of using 9th level spells can't get around a simple Protection from Evil they just aren't doing it right. Dispel Magic. Greater Dispel Magic. Etc.Or simply meteor swarm or weird....
It's not an unbeatable defensive spell.
It is too good a defensive spell to be first level.As far as suggestions - the idea of it giving a bonus on saving throws is a good one. I suggest granting a significant bonus - perhaps equal to the caster level of the person casting the spell. Thus, if your 15th level cleric cast the spell on you, you would have a +15 bonus on charm and compulsion effects. Not quite as powerful at 1st level, but it would scale well.
Level 1 spells can't/shouldn't scale past 10th level.
Arguably, they shouldn't give any sort of lasting bonus at a +1/level rate, but as I've said Prot. from Evil is a pretty iconic spell, so I guess I could get behind this. Assuming the prohibition on summoned creatures was either reigned in to a better (but non-scaling) AC bonus or nixed completely.A +10 bonus to saves vs. enchantment/domination/possession would still make this spell a really big deal at high levels.
Normally, if a 15th level wiz is still wand-casting a specific 1st level spell on the whole part before every fight with a caster, I'd say there was still a problem. But, iconic spell, always been in the system, etc. etc. I remember this spell still being on my buff list at the end of Baulder's Gate II, when you're like 16th level. I can handle it.
But it's telling that you can strip that much away and still have a debatably overpowered spell.
|
|
Possible tweaks;
For Summoning -
1) Allow Summoned creatures to get a save to bypass the Protection.
2) Summoned creatures are not completely barred, but get a -2 to hit and damage the Protected creature(s). Protected creatures also get +2 to save against any attacks from Summoned creatures.
For Enchantment effects -
1) A creature within a Protection from X spell gains an additional +4 to resist Enchantment effects.
These tweaks, IMO, would make the spells remain useful (particularly against low-level Summons), without being 'all or nothing.'
There could also be a 'Greater Circle of Protection' or whatever that doubles these bonuses.
What I don't like about the "keep out summoned creatures" part is that it applies to neutral creatures as well. Protection from Evil keeps out summoned creatures, and good creatures are immune to this effect. That makes it more like Protection from Non-Good. I dont like that. Protection from Evil should protect from evil, and from nothing else.
What I don't like about the "keep out summoned creatures" part is that it applies to neutral creatures as well. Protection from Evil keeps out summoned creatures, and good creatures are immune to this effect. That makes it more like Protection from Non-Good. I dont like that. Protection from Evil should protect from evil, and from nothing else.
If we did this, though, then neutral summoned creatures would become considerably more powerful than all the others.
My gut tells me that Neutral Nature's Ally creatures don't come with celestial or fiendish templates, so in some cases they are less powerful than the equivalent Summoned Monsters (but I'd have to check that).
They don't get the template, but you typically get them a level earlier (III instead of IV, for example).