|
From the Pathfinder SRD (emphasis mine):
"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). 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."
Well, I didn't look through EVERY enchantment spell (to the best of my knowledge) but I did click through every wizard spell of the enchantment school, and they are ALL of the enchantment[charm] or enchantment[compulsion] subschools.
So if I'm reading this correctly, a first level spell can make a creature completely immune to an entire school of magic. Is that REALLY the intent of the spell? I know it says the effect only functions for spells and effects created by evil sources, but it still seems WAY too powerful to me.
While yes that may seem powerful, enchantment has always had a switch built into it, making it either brutally good, or painfully bad. It switches back and forth with little to no reasoning other than, it could be a useful spell at times.
This portion of the protection spells was also problematic in 3.5, where the language was slightly different (the 3.5 version's relevant text(s) are "(including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). " and "This second effect works regardless of alignment.")
Soooo...does anyone allow this level of global immunity? While we were playing with the Beta game over the summer (and then using the core rules when released) we were still learning many of the details of spells and such. I had the party facing a vampire bard, and protection from evil basically made the foe worthless as a spellcaster, since her best spells were things like hideous laughter and confusion and such.
I don't know about you, but I absolutely hated how Hideous laughter was essentially hold person minus free coupe de grace, and anytime I lose control of my character to confusion I want to destroy a puppy. Perhaps you should be asking why nerfing enchantment is necessary in the first place, rather than why is protection from evil spells so strong.
I thought the 3.5 version of the spell was fine with respect to this second feature, except that it was ambiguous. Now it seems that we're being treated to a version that for the sake of expediency was given short shrift. The way this spell should have been fixed was to take the time to determine exactly what other spells it would protect against and compile a list. At any rate, that is how it will work in my games, and I'm going to limit the list to spells that can lead to the caster having direct influence over the subject's actions (like charm, suggestion, domination) and NOT things that simply cause the subject to lose control (hideous laughter, confusion, symbols). Also, the alignment limitation will be removed.
Anyone else have any experience with/thoughts about this?
Fair enough, its your game, do what you will. I just find it justified when you can dominate a person for the rest of their life by saying quite simply "Fail your next will save please..."
If you were playing with a vampire bard, you also have access to dispel magic, and could easily do an area effect dispel or target dispel on the protection.
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does not grant total immunity to enchantments; it grants immunity to mental control. DIRECT mental control and possession. Basically, that means the dominate spells, and spells like demand. Spells like charm person or suggestion do not excercise actual mental control; they're influences and compulsions.
Protection from evil/good/etc. basically grants immunity to something using you like a puppet and directly controlling your actions with its mind or voice. So again... that basically means things like a ghost's malevolence, the magic jar spell, and dominate effects.
Otherwise, yeah. It'd be WAY too good for a 1st level spell to effectively shut down an entire school of magic.
We tried to make this more clear in Pathfinder, but I don't think we accomplished that, alas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/dons asbestos underpants, suit, mask, helmet, gloves, etc.
I am going to say.. Huzzah for 100% total blanket immunity.
I am a player.
The ONE thing worse than death is to have the DM take your character from you and play it for awhile.
I would rather die. Yes, die. At least then I can reroll a character.
When the DM is controlling my PC however I can't even do that. I'm stuck sitting there, having suddenly become a spectator to a game I was playing only moments before.
Protection from Evil is the players cure for this. Sure, the PC's don't always have it cast.. so the DM occasionally gets to have his fun.. but if it happens too often the PC's get to start stopping it- permanently if need be. And it should be that way.
Don't take your PC's from your PC's and they won't have to lay down the Protections against it.
Now pardon me while I step into my fireproof chamber. :)
-S
The ONE thing worse than death is to have the DM take your character from you and play it for awhile.
I am 100% with you on this. I'm seriously surprised to read James' take on charm and suggestion spells. I can tell you my very least favorite part of the Rise of the Runelords AP that I've experienced yet was heavy with those two spells. It was oh-so fun to watch a conflict that was already questionable to start with go south as a participant not only went idle (as say... unconscious or running away from a fear effect) but actively defend the bad guy.
Simply put, anything that changes character behavior is TPK in a box. It might not happen every time, but what else at those spell levels are so deadly?
dispel magic shouldn't be the answer to everything. bane and bless work nicely. If protection from evil doesn't help against a charm or suggestion then we need a new 1st-level spell called give me my character's mind back.
And no, I'm not the balance-breaking guy who uses those spells against the bad guys either. Sure, charm a palace guard into letting you in, or a prison guard into letting you out. But a 4-on-4 fight that suddenly becomes 5-on-3 is verging on broken.
I don't know where James' ruling comes from, but I strongly wish he'd reconsider. If making you think your enemies aren't your friends isn't a form of control... I dunno.
|
A few things I would suggest here. As is, the spell is kind of week.
1.) Remove the "DM's Discretion" section. While I think many DM's are not affected by it, statements like that as an actual mechanical rule do nohing but incouracge bad DMing. That is to say competitive DM (DM vs Players). Rather, certain effects might not be specifically negated through the Protection Spells.
2.) The part that says Only Evil creatures or Items, would be much better as Non-Good. Mechanically speaking, Neutrals are the best choice, because most alignment effects either have no or minor effects. Now I can understand a Good aligned Ward not protecting against an angel's command, but this essentually makes opponents with Neutral components a lot more powerful if their most evil mind controls and possesion effects can't be protected against (until much higher level and then what's the point).
3.) I was innitially against any change to Protection From _______, because it has been the sole reason that I have not been in many TPK's. Some other effects that might help make the spell much more useful are A.) even on a failed save, the target can act normaly for 1 round, B.) they can make a new Save every other round (no bonus, or maybe even a penulty), C.) return the spell to the SRD version as the very short duration is actually not at all game breaking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to say.. Huzzah for 100% total blanket immunity.
I am a player.
The ONE thing worse than death is to have the DM take your character from you and play it for awhile.
To be entirely honest, I'm surprised that so many people in this thread are so against the use of staple enchantment spells. It seems to me that those spells are just part of the game and give me the opportunity to think out of the box as a PC. When my DM uses one of those spells on me, he allows me to continue playing my charmed/dominated character. That way there is no need for me to whine about my character being taken from me. He relies on the fact that I can role play even when roll playing. Anyway, I relish the opportunity to kick the crud out of my friends sometimes. It can be really fun!
Simply put, anything that changes character behavior is TPK in a box. It might not happen every time, but what else at those spell levels are so deadly?
dispel magic shouldn't be the answer to everything. bane and bless work nicely. If protection from evil doesn't help against a charm or suggestion then we need a new 1st-level spell called give me my character's mind back.
And no, I'm not the balance-breaking guy who uses those spells against the bad guys either. Sure, charm a palace guard into letting you in, or a prison guard into letting you out. But a 4-on-4 fight that suddenly becomes 5-on-3 is verging on broken.
I don't know where James' ruling comes from, but I strongly wish he'd reconsider. If making you think your enemies aren't your friends isn't a form of control... I dunno.
I couldn't disagree more with this. While I understand the importance of balance in any kind of game for it to function properly, consistent balance can also lead to boredom and formulaic combat encounters that become akin to the fights in the old JRPGs. All you had to do was to keep pressing the attack button without paying any attention to what was happening because you had fought the same monster 50 times before and the monster was limited in its actions by the programing.
Bah humbug I say! Throw a wrench in the works. It breaks up monotonous combat encounters and adds a touch of realism. It also allows the players to try new strategies and often provides the opportunity for a very memorable session. In addition, characters who normally don't get the spotlight in combat like healbots (clerics) or bards often end up saving the day because they are forced to step up to the plate rather than stay in the roles they are most comfortable with. I thoroughly enjoy the use of enchantment magic at my gaming table. Oh and thanks for the clarification on Proc Evil James.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Necro-ing this thread. This came up in a game I was running recently, where some party members were confused (enchantment[compulsion]) and someone wanted to break them out of it with protection from evil, citing the spell's reference to "including blah blah blah". I let it work at the time, but it seems off.
It seems that upthread, JJ agrees that confusion isn't the type of thing PfE guards against. On the other hand, that was 3 years ago, and I've heard other conflicting statements on charm person and suggestion, which JJ says aren't stopped by PfE.
Has there been any new discussion on this that I haven't found? Do we know for sure whether things like confusion interact with PfE?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necro-ing this thread. This came up in a game I was running recently, where some party members were confused (enchantment[compulsion]) and someone wanted to break them out of it with protection from evil, citing the spell's reference to "including blah blah blah". I let it work at the time, but it seems off.
This was FAQed over a year ago
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.")
It does not work with confusion.
|
|
The FAQ and Protection From X text says that Charm Person is stopped by the Protection effect, which overrides James Jacob's post back in 2009. I'm fine with that and all, but what about where he said that Suggestion was not stopped by Protection From X? Suggestion seems to give even more direct control than Charm Person... so shouldn't the protection apply to it?
That last line (bolded by me) would, to me at least, point it protecting against suggestion. Since the Suggestion spell pretty much overrides your resistance to commands from others.
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.")
|
I don't know about you, but I absolutely hated how Hideous laughter was essentially hold person minus free coupe de grace, and anytime I lose control of my character to confusion I want to destroy a puppy. Perhaps you should be asking why nerfing enchantment is necessary in the first place, rather than why is protection from evil spells so strong.Well, the hideous laughter and hold person allow saves (and more than one in fact) whereas the protection is a guarantee of immunity. I understand your sentiment completely - it's because of seeing my characters subjected to these types of effects when I'm a player that I want to use them in kind when I'm a DM. A no-good, lowdown, rat bastard DM. ;)
Thank you for the clarification James. I have to say, though, that the wording in the PFRPG, for me at least, makes the situation less clear than in 3.5. Perhaps some errata could be useful.It does not grant total immunity to enchantments; it grants immunity to mental control. DIRECT mental control and possession. Basically, that means the dominate spells, and spells like demand. Spells like charm person or suggestion do not excercise actual mental control; they're influences and compulsions.
Protection from evil/good/etc. basically grants immunity to something using you like a puppet and directly controlling your actions with its mind or voice. So again... that basically means things like a ghost's malevolence, the magic jar spell, and dominate effects.
Otherwise, yeah. It'd be WAY too good for a 1st level spell to effectively shut down an entire school of magic.
We tried to make this more clear in Pathfinder, but I don't think we accomplished that, alas.
.