The +2 to AC and saves seems fine, as does the protection from summoned creatures, but this seems a little odd to me:
"Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject."
Is it a little unbalanced that a first level scroll can cancel out a 9th level spell like Dominate Monster?
It also grants immunity to all variations of Charm, Command, Suggestion, and aspects of Hypnotism. That is one hell of a first level spell!
Should the spell scale in some way, such as +1/caster level to will saves vs {the compulsion spells}?
Note: This is not the thread to discuss relative overall strength of melee vs casters, 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th edition rules, why saves break at 30th level, or any unrelated crap. Please keep it focused on Protection from Evil. I'm starting a thread to discuss the power of Dominate spells, so keep altering the Enchantment spells to a different thread - Thank You!
The fine print:
"Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature
(by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over
the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment
[compulsion] effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the
subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such
effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the
effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection
from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does,
the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the
controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life
force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast. This
second effect works regardless of alignment."
Yes, this can be quite 'over the top', but currently is the only remedy to the powerful effects of most enchantment spells (Charm and Dominate do not allow a save every round in order to the victim to free himself); even Mind Blank now doesn't give immunity to mind-affecting spells anymore, but merely a +8 to the Saving Throws to avoid being affected (see page 250).
However, since the description of Protection from (Good/Evil/Chaos/Law) states that block any attempt to 'exercise mental control', it could be a reasonable house-rule (as I'm doing at the moment) to allow Enchantment spells that DO NOT allow a direct mind control of the victim (like Hideous Laughter and Confusion, for example) to have their full control over the Protected creature. An 'in-game' explanation could be that Protection from Evil simply 'cuts off' the link between the caster of the Charm/Compulsion spell and the victim, allowing the victim to simply ignore the direct suggestion of the caster, while spells like Hideous Laughter and Confusion do not clearly create such a link (the caster has no direct control over his victim; he cannot choose the effects of the Confusion, or order his victim to stop laughing, for example).
Of course, these are merely 'patches' to the effects of a spell that has a REAL good potential (but a low duration, luckily).
I don't consider Tasha's Hideous laughter and such to be a direct mental control. I only think about charm, dominate and majic jar.
Charm isn't real control, it's just an adjustment to attitude towards the caster and shouldn't be effected by Protection from [add alignment]. I further would like to see a consumable protection against control:
"3. As a swift action the warded creature can end the other benefits of this spell but use the spells energy to block any attempt to possess or to take control of the recipients mind for the rest of the duration of Protection from Evil. If this spell is cast after the creature is being effected by such an effect, the warded creature can make an immediate save against the dominating to use this blocking effect.
A new casting of Protection From Evil ends any previous casting of Protection from Alignment spells."
Well the wording needs some clean up, I admit.
I don't consider Tasha's Hideous laughter and such to be a direct mental control. I only think about charm, dominate and majic jar.
I definitely agree that Pathfinder should clarify this!
The 3.0 FAQ said one thing (i.e. Sleep and Hideous Laughter are not "mental control"), and then the Sage changed his mind and reversed his decision (i.e. Sleep and Hideous Laughter are "mental control").
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Charm isn't real control, it's just an adjustment to attitude towards the caster and shouldn't be effected by Protection from [add alignment]. I further would like to see a consumable protection against control:
"3. As a swift action the warded creature can end the other benefits of this spell but use the spells energy to block any attempt to possess or to take control of the recipients mind for the rest of the duration of Protection from Evil. If this spell is cast after the creature is being effected by such an effect, the warded creature can make an immediate save against the dominating to use this blocking effect.
A new casting of Protection From Evil ends any previous casting of Protection from Alignment spells."
Well the wording needs some clean up, I admit.
Instead of this, I'd rather see that the "protection from mental control" aspect of this spell kicks in automatically, without needing a swift action, but once this happens, the duration changes to 1 round/level.
Instead of this, I'd rather see that the "protection from mental control" aspect of this spell kicks in automatically, without needing a swift action, but once this happens, the duration changes to 1 round/level.Charm isn't real control, it's just an adjustment to attitude towards the caster and shouldn't be effected by Protection from [add alignment]. I further would like to see a consumable protection against control:
"3. As a swift action the warded creature can end the other benefits of this spell but use the spells energy to block any attempt to possess or to take control of the recipients mind for the rest of the duration of Protection from Evil. If this spell is cast after the creature is being effected by such an effect, the warded creature can make an immediate save against the dominating to use this blocking effect.
A new casting of Protection From Evil ends any previous casting of Protection from Alignment spells."
Well the wording needs some clean up, I admit.
I can go with that too... however I would point out that PoE isn't the only way to break these spells it's just the easiest and most likely in battle (or long term buff) solution. Dispel Magic (and greater) break enchantment, and several other spells either directly counter the dominate line of spells, or offer direct protection from it.
When I first started this post, I thought Charm was excluded as well, but a rereading of the text indicates that it does indeed allow a degree of control.
"The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it
were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most
favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win
an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t
ordinarily do."
Protection from Evil does not end controlling enchantment, merely suppress them for the duration of the spell. In many cases this would allow a party to take actions to neutralize the compulsion, but it could be difficult in cases such as Dominate Person that lasts well over a week, or when no one can make a sense motive or spellcraft check to realize what is happening.
I never read the Sage Advice (or listen to anyone's advice for that matter...), but I concluded the definition of "exercise mental control" to mean influence choices or decisions, not merely afflict with a condition such as confused, asleep or laughing. I think if you apply PoE to anything that affects the creatures mind, then it become the single most powerful, must-have spell in the game - which isn't right for a first level spell.
I think if you apply PoE to anything that affects the creatures mind, then it become the single most powerful, must-have spell in the game - which isn't right for a first level spell.
Problem is that those spells, even from an early level will completely shut down a player. confusion is bad enough. Stuff where a good role-player will try his darnedest to keep his fellow party members from harming Evil Prince Bastardulla? Worse, stuff where EPB makes the player work against his own team? No bloody fun, plain and simple.
Trivial availability of a spell for PCs to stop the agony is a Good Thing. It's that or nerf the compulsion spells, which also limits the player from being able to influence bartenders, or guards, or any other Joe Schmoe NPCs they feel the need to interfere with but not harm.
I won't expand on how many characters I've lost due to one bad save against a compulsion. I've had TPKs inflicted upon me because the party member who could really shine in an encounter and win the day... changed sides. No thanks. Leave PfE alone.
Trivial availability of a spell for PCs to stop the agony is a Good Thing. It's that or nerf the compulsion spells, which also limits the player from being able to influence bartenders, or guards, or any other Joe Schmoe NPCs they feel the need to interfere with but not harm.
I suggested nerfing compulsion spells in another thread in such a way that they would grant Recovery Saves any time an Enchanted character was "in combat". This would allow PCs to use Enchantment [Compulsion] spells on NPCs in social situations unfettered, but would prevent both PCs and Team Monster from being able to use Dominated creatures against each other like bludgeons.
I suppose you could nerf Protection from Evil so that it only grants a +8 save against Dominate effects instead of total immunity. Maybe do both? I don't know.
It also grants immunity to all variations of Charm, Command, Suggestion, and aspects of Hypnotism. That is one hell of a first level spell!
The fine print:
"Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast. This second effect works regardless of alignment."
*emphasis mine*
This part seems to suggest that a wizard or vampire CAN attempt to charm or dominate the user of a protection from evil, only, its effects would become active only at the end of the spell.
The spell does not say that the user is immune, only that the effects are blocked and suppressed. I guess one could argue about the "blocking" part...
But as for immunizing careful and well-prepared low level characters against powerful spells that can easily break the game; personally, I'm all for that.
'findel
However with the length of time that PoE lasts either the party will have defeated the challenge and has time to fix the spell, or the party is defeated and it doesn't matter so much now.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The 3.0 FAQ said one thing (i.e. Sleep and Hideous Laughter are not "mental control"), and then the Sage changed his mind and reversed his decision (i.e. Sleep and Hideous Laughter are "mental control").
The FAQ was wrong (different sage making the ruling, btw). Ongoing mental control is defined under the Enchantment section of the Magic chapter, and hold person (for example) fits into one of the two other groups, not ongoing control.
However with the length of time that PoE lasts either the party will have defeated the challenge and has time to fix the spell, or the party is defeated and it doesn't matter so much now.
what is worse if you meet an NPC who is "charmed or dominated" by a vampire/ lamia or whatever and you happen to have magic circle vs evil up the effect is supressed.
Rise of the Runelords spoiler
this would almost inadvertently alter any encounter with Justice Ironbriar in the Skinsaw murders
Charmed isn't a problem as it doesn't establish control... dominate and the PC's should be making sense motive checks (the DC is only a 15!) to figure out something isn't right anyways.
It could require a little creative thinking on the DM's behalf but if you are the DM you should be able to figure away around it alright (even if it changes the "storyline" a little... it's your game and it is ok to stray from the straight and narrow some!).
I don't see why the PC's doing something unforseen is such a huge deal to everyone. The reason you have PC's is because they do the unforeseeable, think quickly and move on.
The thing about a first level spell countering all those charm and compulsion effects, is that the first level spell can be countered with another first level spell. It gives an enchanter a very good reason to take the protection evil/chaos/good/law spells. To counter those spells when used against him.
|
This part seems to suggest that a wizard or vampire CAN attempt to charm or dominate the user of a protection from evil, only, its effects would become active only at the end of the spell.The spell does not say that the user is immune, only that the effects are blocked and suppressed. I guess one could argue about the "blocking" part...
But as for immunizing careful and well-prepared low level characters against powerful spells that can easily break the game; personally, I'm all for that.
'findel
What this means is that if your vampire had already Dominated the PC, P.o.E. makes it not function while the spell is active, and any further attempts during the spell are blocked, and never take any effect. The previous Dominate(s), however, will kick right back in once the spell is over.
I wouldn't worry about this low level spell blocking all spells. Earlier on, the caster is not likely to 1.) have enough for everyone, or 2.) last long enough to completly bypass the threats, and at higher levels, likely have more important spells they need. A good Sorcerer/Wizard/Etc. . . will cast it on the tank or the rogue, not themselves. A good Cleric will cast it on themselves and have a spare for whoever gets hit and can hurt everyone else the most.
Also, with spells like Dominate, Charm, etc. . . the caster knows if the targets save or not, and if the spell is "blocked", though not how so, normally. It is not a hard question to guess, even for a monster, about how effective a PC is, just wait until the buff runs out.
This part seems to suggest that a wizard or vampire CAN attempt to charm or dominate the user of a protection from evil, only, its effects would become active only at the end of the spell.The spell does not say that the user is immune, only that the effects are blocked and suppressed. I guess one could argue about the "blocking" part...
But as for immunizing careful and well-prepared low level characters against powerful spells that can easily break the game; personally, I'm all for that.
'findel
What this means is that if your vampire had already Dominated the PC, P.o.E. makes it not function while the spell is active, and any further attempts during the spell are blocked, and never take any effect. The previous Dominate(s), however, will kick right back in once the spell is over.
Not exactly. The spell says:
"The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature."Basically, even if you have Protection from Evil active on you, a Vampire can still Dominate you, then fly away, and after some minutes come back and give you his orders (for example).
Also, the potion version only has a caster level of 1. So it's DC for a Dispel check (like on an Area dispel), is only 12.
That's easily beatable even by a standard Dispel Magic (with a max of +10).
But if they dominated you first they and then try and dispell the potion they could end up dispelling the dominate too.
Charmed isn't a problem as it doesn't establish control... dominate and the PC's should be making sense motive checks (the DC is only a 15!) to figure out something isn't right anyways.
not sure I agree with the interpretation but I will go with it for the sake of the discussion.
-the fact that this spell is worded in such a loose manner is a problem too.OK so you say it doesnt effect charmed becasue you are not in control- for the sake of argument can you list what spells it the PHB (or pathfinder book) it does effect?
But if they dominated you first they and then try and dispell the potion they could end up dispelling the dominate too.
Yeah, it'd be kinda boneheaded to try and debuff the group with an area spell after laying down your control spell.
Usually, I see spellcasters lay down the area dispel first then try to dominate people. If the Fighter is occupied with someone in front of him, he might not want to provoke the AoO and down a potion.
Then again.. by higher levels, there's usually a Magic Circle up to fallback on.
Charmed isn't a problem as it doesn't establish control... dominate and the PC's should be making sense motive checks (the DC is only a 15!) to figure out something isn't right anyways.
not sure I agree with the interpretation but I will go with it for the sake of the discussion.
-the fact that this spell is worded in such a loose manner is a problem too.OK so you say it doesnt effect charmed becasue you are not in control- for the sake of argument can you list what spells it the PHB (or pathfinder book) it does effect?
Charmed changes your view of the character/creature/whatever that charmed you... it doesn't give them control of you, just like your best friend doesn't control you, but it does make you think of them as a friend. Your mind is still your own.
Dominate specifically states that they have control of you, and it also states that you are operating on such a low level that it is fairly easy to see you are not yourself (the afore mentioned sense motive check).
The question is control. If I cast the spell and give you a direct order do you have to follow it? With charm the answer is no. You can still make your own decision, you might give my order some attention becuase I'm your new bestest best buddy, but that's all. With Dominate the answer is yes you must follow it out (you might get a new save throw if "it's against your nature")
A suggestion spell would be stopped becuase you are compelled to follow through on the suggestion until it is completed. You have no choice in the matter.
So for my personal list on what is affected by PoE:
Dominate (in all its forms)
Suggestion
Command (and greater command)
Demand (just the suggestion part)
geas/quest
But if they dominated you first they and then try and dispell the potion they could end up dispelling the dominate too.Yeah, it'd be kinda boneheaded to try and debuff the group with an area spell after laying down your control spell.
Usually, I see spellcasters lay down the area dispel first then try to dominate people. If the Fighter is occupied with someone in front of him, he might not want to provoke the AoO and down a potion.
Then again.. by higher levels, there's usually a Magic Circle up to fallback on.
Yes well odder things have happened. Magic Circle also has less duration that a PoE, so that might be a little consideration too.
Charmed isn't a problem as it doesn't establish control... dominate and the PC's should be making sense motive checks (the DC is only a 15!) to figure out something isn't right anyways.
If you go by RAW, the description of the spell includes: "(including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person).
It could require a little creative thinking on the DM's behalf but if you are the DM you should be able to figure away around it alright (even if it changes the "storyline" a little... it's your game and it is ok to stray from the straight and narrow some!).
Absolutely, and I agree that the various charm spells do not grant control over its subject, and thus could be excluded from the Protection from Evil spell.
In a more "Harry Potter-ish" interpretation of Protection from Evil as the Defense Against the Black Arts 101, it would make sense that Protection from Evil would immunize the user (rather than merely suppressing the effects) against any mind-affecting enchantment spells, including charms and compulsory effects.
'findel
Charmed isn't a problem as it doesn't establish control... dominate and the PC's should be making sense motive checks (the DC is only a 15!) to figure out something isn't right anyways.
If you go by RAW, the description of the spell includes: "(including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person).
'findel
Last part... "Ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person."
Now that is the important part... if it was just e(charm) and e(compulsion) then a lot more effects would be hedged out...
However the charm spell is quite specific:
"The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person"
so you do not have on going control.
It's one of those under the radar things... they are still themselves, it just that their view of someone else (the charmer) is bent... almost like their memory had been modified.
"Last part... "Ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person.""
"Second, the barrier blocks attempt to possess the warded creature or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject."
Please note the "including" before before the part about ongoing control...
As for Charm Person-
It is worded in a strange way, but charm is pretty clearly control.
"The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it
were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most
favorable way.
If that was it, I would say Protection from Evil might not apply, however:
"You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win
an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t
ordinarily do."
That to me is a clear form of mental control.
I think we should change protection from evil to say that it suppresses Enchantment (compulsion) spells and effects. However, we also need to redefine Enchantment spells such as hold person and feeblemind into another category so they are no longer "compulsions." I'm not sure what you'd call that category, but you know what I'm referring to: spells that impose a condition or disability on the target, but don't actually allow the caster to control the target's actions.
Also, I know that Sean K. Reynolds once wrote an article criticizing protection from evil's protection against possession. Basically, he said it was absurd that a 1st level spell could stop the Devil himself from possessing you. A solution to that could be allowing spell resistance to overcome the protection. If you're going to, say, the Dreaming Gulf in the Abyss, you'd need some more powerful protection to keep all those loumaras from taking you over.