Wayfinder + Clear Spindle Ioun Stone = Protection from ALL mind attacks?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

I'm asking for clarification on an ability.

At a recent convention, several players said I needed to load a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone into my Wayfinder as it would prevent mind affecting attacks such as "Confusion" from affecting my character.

I mentioned this last night with my gaming group, and they flat out told me that the players that said this were vastly confused in the matter, stating that the Resonate effect of a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone in a Wayfinder would only prevent Mind Control and possession attempts (ie. Dominate, etc.).

Can I get an official ruling from someone w/ Paizo on what the Resonate affect of a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone in a Wayfinder does and doesn't do for the person carrying said Wayfinder?

Tarrintino

Grand Lodge

Tarrintino wrote:

I'm asking for clarification on an ability.

At a recent convention, several players said I needed to load a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone into my Wayfinder as it would prevent mind affecting attacks such as "Confusion" from affecting my character.

I mentioned this last night with my gaming group, and they flat out told me that the players that said this were vastly confused in the matter, stating that the Resonate effect of a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone in a Wayfinder would only prevent Mind Control and possession attempts (ie. Dominate, etc.).

Can I get an official ruling from someone w/ Paizo on what the Resonate affect of a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone in a Wayfinder does and doesn't do for the person carrying said Wayfinder?

Tarrintino

The resonant power works like Protection from Evil the Spell except it is not conditioned on alignment. Hope that helps.

Nathan
NYC

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Natertot wrote:
Tarrintino wrote:

I'm asking for clarification on an ability.

At a recent convention, several players said I needed to load a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone into my Wayfinder as it would prevent mind affecting attacks such as "Confusion" from affecting my character.

I mentioned this last night with my gaming group, and they flat out told me that the players that said this were vastly confused in the matter, stating that the Resonate effect of a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone in a Wayfinder would only prevent Mind Control and possession attempts (ie. Dominate, etc.).

Can I get an official ruling from someone w/ Paizo on what the Resonate affect of a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone in a Wayfinder does and doesn't do for the person carrying said Wayfinder?

Tarrintino

The resonant power works like Protection from Evil the Spell except it is not conditioned on alignment. Hope that helps.

Nathan
NYC

That is actually where the arguement begins for most people. It has been a long and tedious battle against Protection from evil being equivalent to an 8th level spell.

Prot. Evil protects you from enchantment spells and effects that grant on-going control. The problem is, people say spells like Confusion, Hold Person, and even Charm Person (Which grants NO control) are shut out by this Super-ultra-mega first level spell. While some of these spells may influence your actions... They grant no degree of control over them.

Grand Lodge

Yes and people don't go through and actually read the whole spell.

Paraphrasing Protection from Evil:

The target gets a new saving throw at +2 (if one was allowed initially) and if the save is successful then the spell is supressed for the duration of the Protection Spell. This save is only against spells and effects that posses or excercise mental control [including Charm effects and enchantment Compulsion effects].

I think the confusion, pun intended, comes from the original 3.5 version where I believe there was an automatic supression for the duration of the Protection Spell, not just a new saving throw.

Nathan
NYC


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Protection from Evil imbues upon its target immunity to any new compulsion or charm effects regardless of the alignment of the effect's creator. By extension this broken (a term I don't use lightly) combination prevents the owner from being affected by spells like Confusion, Hold Person, and sleep.

This combination doesn't require any slots, is permanent, and only costs 4,250 gp. For that minor cost, you completely negate an entire school of magic.

Why bother with Iron Will, and Improved Iron Will, when you can just spend a few gp and get this?

Why does an item that allows you to live w/o food and water grant a resonant power that protects you vs. mind-affecting effects?

Grand Lodge

Kyle Baird wrote:
Why does an item that allows you to live w/o food and water grant a resonant power that protects you vs. mind-affecting effects?

Because it's awesome?


Natertot wrote:
I think the confusion, pun intended, comes from the original 3.5 version where I believe there was an automatic supression for the duration of the Protection Spell, not just a new saving throw.

No, the confusion comes from the wishy-washy term "mental control".

The Exchange

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm probably wrong, but I've applied it as immunity to any spell with the descriptors of Charm or Compulsion. I've also applied it as if it was the protection from evil spell itself, meaning only applying it to evil casters/evil spells.

Personally I just wish it was the reroll with +2 bonus, because it is far too powerful for the current price.


WHY aren´t I seeing a FAQ button in this thread?

I CANsee how people would interpret the Prot/Evil wording either way,
though since it used the word ´including...´ rather than ´such as Charm and Compulsion effects´,
I interpret that as a reminder that Charm/Compulsions MAY qualify as mind-controlling,
NOT that ALL Charm/Compulsions are automatically affected by the spell... And the description is otherwise very clear of it´s intent: ¨ONLY against spells and effects that posses or excercise mental control¨. The in-passage mention of Charm/Compulsion doesn´t bypass that ONLY restriction, IMHO.

But it´s not ideal wording, and deserves at least a FAQ, if not Errata to tighten up the wording.
So why isn´t there a FAQ button!? Has Paizo thrown in the towl on doing more Errata!? :-)


Per the CRB:

"...any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects)."

and

"This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion."

So that means your non-evil Succubus, Vampire, or BBEG NPC can still affect the PC! yay?

Grand Lodge

Obviously this requires some developer feedback. Although, this is mostly a PFS issue, the material is in a book (Seeker of Secrets) and can be used along with the Faction Guide for all manner of game. Being one of the "offenders" that uses the wayfinder/Clea Spindle to protect against things like Dominate Person, Hideous Laughter, and Confusion, I'd like to hear an official ruling. If it works as most are using it, then scenario writers should just ignore the enchantment school at mid/high tiers, since most PC's will have one by then.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
Protection from Evil imbues upon its target immunity to any new compulsion or charm effects regardless of the alignment of the effect's creator.

Nope.

PRD 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)...This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.

Grand Lodge

TwilightKnight wrote:
Obviously this requires some developer feedback. Although, this is mostly a PFS issue, the material is in a book (Seeker of Secrets) and can be used along with the Faction Guide for all manner of game. Being one of the "offenders" that uses the wayfinder/Clea Spindle to protect against things like Dominate Person, Hideous Laughter, and Confusion, I'd like to hear an official ruling. If it works as most are using it, then scenario writers should just ignore the enchantment school at mid/high tiers, since most PC's will have one by then.

Looks like some enemies of the Pathfinder Society in the know might start targeting Wayfinders for Sundering or Disintegration or maybe wait for them to be used as light sources, then start to use the mind-affecting spells.....


TwilightKnight wrote:
Being one of the "offenders" that uses the wayfinder/Clea Spindle to protect against things like Dominate Person, Hideous Laughter, and Confusion, I'd like to hear an official ruling.

For the record, I imagine everyone thinks it would work against a Dominate Person effect from an evil source.

Grand Lodge

hogarth wrote:
For the record, I imagine everyone thinks it would work against a Dominate Person effect from an evil source.

By using "thinks" are you alluding that it would not work? Dominate is clearly a compulsion/mental control spell and since the resonant power is not restricted by alignment, yes it would block it.


TwilightKnight wrote:
If it works as most are using it, then scenario writers should just ignore the enchantment school at mid/high tiers, since most PC's will have one by then.

This, to me, is a red flag that even if it's intended to work this way, it's a terrible idea.

Mostly I think Team Paizo does a great job with design but now and again there's something that really leaves me puzzled.


TwilightKnight wrote:
hogarth wrote:
For the record, I imagine everyone thinks it would work against a Dominate Person effect from an evil source.
By using "thinks" are you alluding that it would not work? Dominate is clearly a compulsion/mental control spell and since the resonant power is not restricted by alignment, yes it would block it.

When I say "everyone thinks it would work", I mean "everyone agrees it would work". I'm not subtle enough to allude to something different. :-)

Liberty's Edge

Seekers fo Secrets, page 52 wrote:
Clear spindle: Protection from possession and mental control (as protection from evil).
Pathfinder Core Rules, pages 327-328, edited to just the relevant parts wrote:

Protection from Evil

This spell wards a creature from mental control. It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject.

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.

To be honest, RAW would only allow it to work against "spells and effects created by evil creatures", but I suspect that they meant it worked in a similar way to Protection from Evil, not that it was Protection from Evil, rather that that is where the generic effect is defined, and that it is non-aligned, and should be a more generic effect, Protection from Mental Control.

made-up, IMO only wrote:
While under the effects of this resonance, the bearer is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the bearer. This resonance does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the bearer.

Fairly powerful, but still limited.

Liberty's Edge

Callarek wrote:
Seekers fo Secrets, page 52 wrote:
Clear spindle: Protection from possession and mental control (as protection from evil).
Pathfinder Core Rules, pages 327-328, edited to just the relevant parts wrote:

Protection from Evil

This spell wards a creature from mental control. It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject.

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.

To be honest, RAW would only allow it to work against "spells and effects created by evil creatures", but I suspect that they meant it worked in a similar way to Protection from Evil, not that it was Protection from Evil, rather that that is where the generic effect is defined, and that it is non-aligned, and should be a more generic effect, Protection from Mental Control.

made-up, IMO only wrote:
While under the effects of this resonance, the bearer is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the bearer. This resonance does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the bearer.
Fairly powerful, but still limited.

This discussion is going off on the wrong way. The question wasn't in the alignment.

"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 is the sentence that is being assaulted.

Some Enchantment [charm] and [compulsion] effects do exercise mental control. MOST do not. The spell is just saying that it protects you against those that do.

It is actually worded properly.

What should set you off to the correct answer is Mind Blank. The 8th level spell doesn't even make you immune to Mind-Effecting spells and effects. What makes you think a 1st level spell does?


Callarek wrote:
To be honest, RAW would only allow it to work against "spells and effects created by evil creatures", but I suspect that they meant it worked in a similar way to Protection from Evil, not that it was Protection from Evil, rather that that is where the generic effect is defined, and that it is non-aligned, and should be a more generic effect, Protection from Mental Control.

Obviously they were still thinking in 3e terms, where the entire mind control part was not dependent on alignment period. The problem is of course they were wrong in doing so, creating a hard to adjudicate effect ... pure DM call in my opinion if it's alignment independent.

As for protection from evil protecting against confusion and hold person ... I doubt many DMs will agree with that. Of course it would have been easier if the old sentence from 3e was still in ("effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject" which was removed in the PF version).

Grand Lodge

So to recap, there are two independent aspects to this topic:
(1) The impact of alignment on Protection from Evil vs. a loaded Wayfinder
(2) Whether or not the spell affects all mental compulsions/charms or just ones that direct, ongoing control by the caster over the subject.

For the first case, it is clear by RAW in Seeker of Secrets, that the alignment of the mind-controller is not relevant in regards to the Wayfinder/Ioun Stone combination. This part should not be in question.

However, for part II, it is an interpretation of the language. Herein lies the problem. In a home game, it is easy to adjudicate this, but in organized play, it is never a good idea to leave such an overly impacting rule to be up to the table GM. Since the cost of the combo is roughly equivalent to a +2 suit of light armor, it is a relatively large investment for the owner. I know that I would be rather peeved, if I spent that much on a item only to have a table GM nerf it. Especially, after using it prior, without issue. Not to mention that if I assume the combo protects against those effects, I will not invest other resources into blocking them. When the GM says no in the middle of a mod, it could easily result in PC death. Clearly this is a polarizing rule and the community will not reach a consensus. We need developer assistance. However, I do not think it will happen since, as I said, in regular PRPG play, the GM can make his/her own decision. By moving this topic from the PFS boards to the rules boards, I do not know if itwill be seen by Hyrum/Mark, who need to weigh in.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Mind affecting is not the same descriptor as compulsion and control.

Dominate and Charm are compulsions, Confusion, Fear effects, and Sleep are not. Nor are the bulk of illusions.

Grand Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Mind affecting is not the same descriptor as compulsion and control.

I used "mind-controler" as a general term to describe the caster. I was not trying to indicate that all spells/effects with the "mind-effecting" descriptor are handled the same.

LazarX wrote:
Dominate and Charm are compulsions, Confusion, Fear effects, and Sleep are not. Nor are the bulk of illusions.

According to my CRB, Confusion and Sleep are both compulsions and therefore affected by Protection from Evil.


TwilightKnight wrote:
According to my CRB, Confusion and Sleep are both compulsions and therefore affected by Protection from Evil.

That depends on what you think constitutes mental control ... if I were your DM you would be wrong.


Pinky's Brain wrote:
TwilightKnight wrote:
According to my CRB, Confusion and Sleep are both compulsions and therefore affected by Protection from Evil.
That depends on what you think constitutes mental control ... if I were your DM you would be wrong.

Compulsion in this case is a spell tag, like Fire or Evil. It's part of the spell description, and unless you're houseruling away spell tags, the Sleep and Confusion spells in the Core RuleBook are indeed Compulsion tagged, and would, according to the Rules As Written, be affected by Protection from Alignment.

Grand Lodge

Pinky's Brain wrote:
if I were your DM you would be wrong.

Exactly my point. Both sides on this topic are polarized. I disagree. By my interpretation Charm and Compulsion are clarifications of what the developers meant by "mental control." Since I see nothing specifically regarding ongoing effects (other than a bonus save), I assume there is no such restriction. Charm/compulsions by their very nature constitute mental control, however brief. IMO, Protection from Evil works on those and therefore, the Wayfinder/Ioun Stone would as well.

Liberty's Edge

Flux Vector wrote:
Pinky's Brain wrote:
TwilightKnight wrote:
According to my CRB, Confusion and Sleep are both compulsions and therefore affected by Protection from Evil.
That depends on what you think constitutes mental control ... if I were your DM you would be wrong.
Compulsion in this case is a spell tag, like Fire or Evil. It's part of the spell description, and unless you're houseruling away spell tags, the Sleep and Confusion spells in the Core RuleBook are indeed Compulsion tagged, and would, according to the Rules As Written, be affected by Protection from Alignment.

No one is ruling out descriptors.

The spell says "any spell or effect that possesses or exercises mental control (including charm and compulsion effects)"

If it excercises mental control and has the descriptor....you are protected. This first level spell does not complety nullify an entire school of magic...

Liberty's Edge

TwilightKnight wrote:
Pinky's Brain wrote:
if I were your DM you would be wrong.
Exactly my point. Both sides on this topic are polarized. I disagree. By my interpretation Charm and Compulsion are clarifications of what the developers meant by "mental control." Since I see nothing specifically regarding ongoing effects (other than a bonus save), I assume there is no such restriction. Charm/compulsions by their very nature constitute mental control, however brief. IMO, Protection from Evil works on those and therefore, the Wayfinder/Ioun Stone would as well.

Most charms/compulsions influence your actions not control them. If I cast confusion on you...no one is in control....I can charm you into thinking I'm your ally but I can't make you kill your friends.

Liberty's Edge

Page 210 in the Core Rulebook

Enchantment
Enchantment spells affect the mind of others, influencing or controlling their behavior.
All enchantments are mind-affecting spells. Two subschools of enchantment spells grant you influence over a subject creature.

Charm: A Charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend.
Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.

The description further breaks down the descriptors. Only one of the possibilities is any kind of control. Protection from evil protects you against (charms) and (compulsions) that possess or exercise mental control.

For some reason I feel that this will not even help the cause. If you take a step back, do you actually think that it only costs 4,250 gold to negate a school of magic?

Grand Lodge

Chaosthecold wrote:
If you take a step back, do you actually think that it only costs 4,250 gold to negate a school of magic?

There are numerous rules that do necessarily make logical sense to all readers. This is the essence of the issue. Obviously, most of those on either side of this issue are firmly planted and will not budge. I guess I am one of them. To continue spinning the broken record, this is why I think it is imperative that we get some feedback from Hyrum or Mark on this issue, specifically for organized play. The problem with that is Seeker of Secrets is not a PFS specific publication. Any rule they make may be interpreted as being an FAQ-like ruling for all PRPG. They may not be prepared to make that decision.

Dark Archive

TwilightKnight wrote:
Chaosthecold wrote:
If you take a step back, do you actually think that it only costs 4,250 gold to negate a school of magic?
There are numerous rules that do necessarily make logical sense to all readers. This is the essence of the issue. Obviously, most of those on either side of this issue are firmly planted and will not budge. I guess I am one of them. To continue spinning the broken record, this is why I think it is imperative that we get some feedback from Hyrum or Mark on this issue, specifically for organized play. The problem with that is Seeker of Secrets is not a PFS specific publication. Any rule they make may be interpreted as being an FAQ-like ruling for all PRPG. They may not be prepared to make that decision.

Frankly, this is a very old argument. And as a long time convention player and judge, for years I have been on the side of reason, in my opinion. Honestly, one cannot expect a person with a 1st level spell up to be immune to the entire spellcasting ability of a 12th level Bard. Nor should a 4000 gp magic item make you immune to these effects. And Hideous Laughter, Confusion, and Hold Person are not prevented by such a spell. If that were the case, then enchanters are not viable, which is bad for the game. It's bad for the players and bad guys, and some of us don't want to show if the only type of Wizard that makes sense is one with Fireball.

Prot. Alignment is already powerful for its bonuses as well as protection from ongoing control effects. It stopped a Vampire from getting me Tuesday night. I also got some good use out of the deflection bonus to AC at the same time. Even if it were only protection from the dominate effect, that is worth 4000 bucks in a slotless wayfinder. Anything more is (and not trying to start a flame war here) silly.

It should protect from Dominate. It should protect from charm if that still has the line about the charisma check. And now it even gives a save if you're already affected! But to claim it replaces the need for a Will save is, for lack of a better word, ridiculous.

This is not a Pathfinder Society question, it is a rules question for the entire role playing game. And Twilight Knight is right: My post is not going to convince anyone in the other camp, and they won't convince me. Assuming I understand the rule, I'm going to create another Bard/Enchanter type guy, unless the bad guys prot. good defeats me entirely.


Question, where is the RAW for wayfinder. I found it in the campaign setting, but where is the info about it's reactions with ioun stones. Where are you pulling this from?

Shadow Lodge

mrofmist wrote:
Question, where is the RAW for wayfinder. I found it in the campaign setting, but where is the info about it's reactions with ioun stones. Where are you pulling this from?

There are additional rules in the "Seeker of Secrets" book which grant resonant benefits if you use Wayfinders with Ioun Stones loaded into them.

In this case it gives a sort of permanent Protection from Evil effect but all of them have resonance effects.

Grand Lodge

William Griffiths wrote:
This is not a Pathfinder Society question, it is a rules question for the entire role playing game

While I think that this is partially true, in a non-organized play scenario, the GM can just make their own decision. We have done that for years. Heck if I want all the Drow in my world to be good instead of evil, I can. Honestly, I do not need a developer to chime in on a ruling that I make in my home game. If my players are okay with it, then what someone else says means little to me.

My issue with this, and other disputed rules, is that in OP, it is expected to be consistent for all players. You can probably have more control in your own local market, but when it comes to convention settings or playing in other regions, you must have consistency. Whether it be Wayfinders, Hide in Plain Sight, Stealth, etc., no one wants a major resource or a key ability to be nerfed by the GM because their interpretation of a ruling differs from the previous GM's they have played with. I feel like I keep repeating the same issue, but it seems like no one "gets" what I am saying. I guess I need to just let it go, but without some feedback from the developers, this issue could result in a table conflict at a convention like PaizoCon or GenCon. I hope it doesn't, but having experienced player over-reaction in the past, it wouldn't shock me. There are a number of experienced and knowledgeable GM's, whose opinion I respect, that believe the combo works against all charms and compulsions and I will continue to use mine (and allow others to use theirs), until an official ruling comes out to the contrary.


Flux Vector wrote:


Compulsion in this case is a spell tag, like Fire or Evil. It's part of the spell description, and unless you're houseruling away spell tags, the Sleep and Confusion spells in the Core RuleBook are indeed Compulsion tagged, and would, according to the Rules As Written, be affected by Protection from Alignment.

No, as I read them the rules as written contradict themselves and as such all that remains is a DM call. To fix them I can do two things, I can amend the rules to read :

Quote:
spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (also all enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects even when they do not)

Or I can go back to the 3e version, which was better written ... this is the option I would chose.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Text of the spell for the viewing public: Noted bolded areas

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). 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.

Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by evil summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Summoned creatures that are not evil are immune to this effect. The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell Resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature.

This spell does NOT shut down a school or subtype of magic. The only thing it does is provide a bonus on saves or a retried save if the subject was affected before the protection was put into effect.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To further clarify the spell does not block effects which do not put the subject under direct mental control. Charm Person for instance does not make you the controller of the target, it changes the target's view of you. Sleep, likewise is mind affecting but not a control or posession spell.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
To further clarify the spell does not block effects which do not put the subject under direct mental control. Charm Person for instance does not make you the controller of the target, it changes the target's view of you. Sleep, likewise is mind affecting but not a control or posession spell.

Its not gonna work. Further posting in this thread is just causing both sides to beat their heads into a wall.

I doubt Paizo is ever going to errata this... WotC never did in 3.5 and there was the same problem.

Liberty's Edge

TwilightKnight wrote:
I feel like I keep repeating the same issue, but it seems like no one "gets" what I am saying. I guess I need to just let it go,.

I just want to say thamk you, for putting into well written words what ive been trying to. please dont give up on this. it is a very inportant ? for PFS.


TwilightKnight wrote:
I feel like I keep repeating the same issue, but it seems like no one "gets" what I am saying.

No, I totally understand; the language is undeniably ambiguous.

Liberty's Edge

For those of you that are going to continue to use it in the fashion that makes you immune to charms and compulsions. Make sure you are excluded from all Bless, Aid, Heroism and the other Compulsion buff spells too since you're immune to them.

Liberty's Edge

Reginald Roscoe Watkins wrote:
For those of you that are going to continue to use it in the fashion that makes you immune to charms and compulsions. Make sure you are excluded from all Bless, Aid, Heroism and the other Compulsion buff spells too since you're immune to them.

now Sir, you really make my head hurt. will have to look them up mow.


Personally another thing to look at in this whole mess is how we are defining the control in the phrase "exercise mental control over the target".

Are we talking about complete control or degrees of control. If I have the ability to make you confused or fall asleep. I am exerting mental control over you. If I can make you like me, that is a form of limited control.

Thus depending on how narrowly we define control, we can have issues beyond the ones of the listed sub-schools.


Reginald Roscoe Watkins wrote:
For those of you that are going to continue to use it in the fashion that makes you immune to charms and compulsions. Make sure you are excluded from all Bless, Aid, Heroism and the other Compulsion buff spells too since you're immune to them.

This would only apply to the version that isn't restricted to alignment of course. Assuming your fellow party members aren't of an alignment you'd need protection from.

I'll add my voice to those that believe that a) the spell is poorly worded and b) that it's not intended to negate spells that don't exercise direct mental control.

That said, even if I'm wrong I don't think the issue is with the spell itself, but rather the magic item. I can definitely see the use of someone casting a spell, even a low-level one, to grant new saves against sleep or confusion. I can even see it being used as a pre-buff, if you know you're going up against something that could potentially cause those effects. Where it gets broken is when you have an always-on magic item that no longer requires the expenditure of resources beyond the initial purchase price, and that goes beyond the limits of the spell (no alignment restriction).

I think perhaps it would be properly balanced if it was priced as not just a Protection from Evil effect, but also included Protection from Good, Law & Chaos. And of course, it still wouldn't protect you from Neutral creatures.

Let's look at the pricing guidelines in fact. Base is 1 (spell level) x 1 (caster level) x 2000. Double for being a 1 min/lvl duration, double again for being slotless. That's at least 6000 GP right there, possibly 8000 depending on how you interpret two doubles in this case (as a triple, or two separate doublings). And that still only protects you against Evil. To add additional similar abilities to an item that doesn't take space on the body, it's an additional 75% for the 1st, and 50% for each additional. We'll go with the 6000 base for now, and even then that adds up to a total of 16,500 for all four spells to be included.

So yeah... it's not the spell that's the problem. The item is simply WAY underpriced.

Liberty's Edge

thepuregamer wrote:

Personally another thing to look at in this whole mess is how we are defining the control in the phrase "exercise mental control over the target".

Are we talking about complete control or degrees of control. If I have the ability to make you confused or fall asleep. I am exerting mental control over you. If I can make you like me, that is a form of limited control.

Thus depending on how narrowly we define control, we can have issues beyond the ones of the listed sub-schools.

If you look at compulsions it defines it for you. If you choose an action at the time of casting like sleep, hold person and even command. It's not control.


Reginald Roscoe Watkins wrote:
thepuregamer wrote:

Personally another thing to look at in this whole mess is how we are defining the control in the phrase "exercise mental control over the target".

Are we talking about complete control or degrees of control. If I have the ability to make you confused or fall asleep. I am exerting mental control over you. If I can make you like me, that is a form of limited control.

Thus depending on how narrowly we define control, we can have issues beyond the ones of the listed sub-schools.

If you look at compulsions it defines it for you. If you choose an action at the time of casting like sleep, hold person and even command. It's not control.

it does mention "ongoing control". there is another more direct mention of mental control.

Spoiler:

Multiple Mental Control Effects

Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as spells that remove the subject's ability to act. Mental controls that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other.


apparently in that section mental control includes magical effects that remove a subjects ability to act. That includes sleep and hold person. Like I said before, even the part of protection from evil mentioning mental control is not entirely clear.

Shadow Lodge

I have no doubt how the spell should work but it's pretty pointless weighing in on a debate where everyone has long since decided how they feel.

Unfortunately I can only flag an issue for the FAQ once.

Grand Lodge

Reginald Roscoe Watkins wrote:
For those of you that are going to continue to use it in the fashion that makes you immune to charms and compulsions. Make sure you are excluded from all Bless, Aid, Heroism and the other Compulsion buff spells too since you're immune to them.

Very good point. One I hadn't thought about, but will begin pointing out to my players.


Quote:

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.

Italics and bolds added.

It seems clear to me in the spell's wording that it's referring to all attempts to exercise mental control by a creature of the protected alignment, specifically including the Enchantment school's Charm and Compulsion effect spells, which it explicitly is using in the sense of spell descriptor tags since the words are in brackets, but it's not explicitly limited to just them, either.

And not only does it grant an extra save with a bonus against existing mental control effects, but it explicitly makes you immune to any new mental control effects from the protected alignment - which were just stated two sentences previous to explicitly include Enchantment Charm and Compulsion.

So, RAW, if the spell has the charm or compulsion descriptor on it and is cast by a caster of the protected alignment, the character's protected from it.

It could perhaps be written more clearly, but the words are actually there supporting the "yes, enchanters are screwed" interpretation.

Now is this a balance issue? I guess it depends on your game a bit. Certainly if enemies are running around with Protection from Good on all the time, it sort of spikes the players' tires when it comes to a lot of spells, ruins a wizard specialization, kicks witches in the shins, and reduces the variety of viable tactics available to your gaming group.

But for the player-characters... I'm not so sure. Yes, it's a very low level spell for the effect, but at those same low levels a single enemy Sleep spell could potentially turn into a TPK. Adding to the issue, nobody really likes their character being knocked out of a fight that easily, or worse, turned against their partymates. Which are, themselves, both things that can cascade into TPKs if it's a serious fight. And IMO, challenging your players shouldn't be luck-based like that. It's okay to me if they're able to get immunity to a subset of 'save or lose' spells with a low-level pre-usable buff spell.

As a magic item it's trickier, since for the effect it has a staggeringly low cost even if crafted normally and not gained as an effect of other items. Considering an item that grants +2 ac and +2 saves alone would cost 12,000 gp - and that's without the mind and possession immunity. Whereas a continuous protection from evil seemingly would cost 4,000 gp (level 1 spell x level 1 caster x 2 duration factor). Juuust a bit of a difference there.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Mind affecting spells are not in and of themselves mental control.

Mental control spells are the ones where the BBG goes "I am the Master Obey!" and your eyes glaze over and you do what he tells you, Vampiric charm being a good example. Many mind affecting spells are not of this variety including Charm Person. What they do is they change your mental framework so your doing what it seems you want to do... only in a skewed perspective.

While all mind control spells are mind affecting... the reverse is not true.

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Wayfinder + Clear Spindle Ioun Stone = Protection from ALL mind attacks? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.