| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So please let it mean what i think it means, that the clear spindles resonate ability no longer protects from all possesion and mental control?
From Seeker of secrets, Clear spindle (resonate power): Protection from possession and mental control (as protection from evil).
From the FAQ, Protection From Evil: Does the "protection against possession and mental control" aspect work against non-evil controlling spells and effects?
No. The spell says "This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects." So if a chaotic neutral enemy casts charm person on you, protection from evil doesn't have any effect because neither the spell nor the caster is evil.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
Im pleased that they finaly FAQ'ed this horribly over powered first level spell. And im hopping that it has the additional consequence that it limits the resonate ability of the clear spindle.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Naturally, an ability that functions "as protection from evil" will be affected by rulings on protection from evil.
Also, the FAQ doesn't change anything; the relevant text was already in the spell description. The FAQ is basically just saying "No really, we didn't write that by accident; we really do mean it."
Interesting how many FAQs say that, come to think of it...
|
|
I think we're going to need a campaign leadership ruling on this, guys, because I can't speak for anywhere else, but in San Diego the "Pathfinder diet" is considered the resonant effect that any serious Pathfinder will get ASAP. If it was only ever intended to protect against Evil possession/control, then I personally bought it for several characters who wouldn't waste their money on it.
I don't think it was intended to do that, though, because then I think there would have been other Ioun options for Good/Law/Chaos, but there weren't.
But since this is going to immediately become a table variation war, let's just save ourselves a lot of trouble and ask for the input of the big guys.
If you read the second part of the spell it has been commonly interprited to affect all spells of the charm/compulsion school regardless of the alignment of the caster. This interpritation is further granted to the resonate power of the ioun stone. A number of judges have tried their darndest to work around that and insist that it is only against evil casters. But the spell as written doesnt exspresly state that like it does in the first and third part.
|
What input do we need? The FAQ is an official rules source and PFS recognizes it. The clear spindle ioun stone still provides the effect of protection from evil, that has not changed. Paizo has just clarified it has no effect vs. charms/enchantments from a non-evil source. Seems like a done deal to me.
|
I think we're going to need a campaign leadership ruling on this, guys, because I can't speak for anywhere else, but in San Diego the "Pathfinder diet" is considered the resonant effect that any serious Pathfinder will get ASAP. If it was only ever intended to protect against Evil possession/control, then I personally bought it for several characters who wouldn't waste their money on it.
I don't think it was intended to do that, though, because then I think there would have been other Ioun options for Good/Law/Chaos, but there weren't.
But since this is going to immediately become a table variation war, let's just save ourselves a lot of trouble and ask for the input of the big guys.
I believe the FAQ makes the clarification official. The Pathfinder Diet is still really good; it still blocks possession/mental control from any evil creature.
"This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects."
Most creatures that have tried to mentally control PCs in PFS are evil, making the Pathfinder Diet still very valuable.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Bob on this, nothing needs to be "ruled" on.
Some people combined the lack of certain items with a sloppy/incomplete reading of a spell in order to form an assumption about how an item worked. Now we have FAQ verifying that said assumption has been incorrect all along.
What's unclear?
I followed your link, and read the second part (as you directed) which ends with the line - " This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion."...
and am wondering how you can say "...it has been commonly interprited to affect all spells of the charm/compulsion school regardless of the alignment of the caster" when it clearly says it only funtions vs. spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects.What am I missing?
The second part has multiple effects that its trying to prevent. The line refer to this full part of the end of the 2nd ability of the spell.
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.
|
|
If enough people were confused enough that we needed a FAQ, then it's entirely possible the developer who made this item was also confused. If the spindle were a stone that cast protection from evil, the transferral of FAQ from spell to item would be automatic. It's not, however--it's an item that does one thing which is referred to another thing for its source. The other thing has been clarified; now we need to know if that clarification extends to the item, or if the item now needs to be described differently.
Also, we aren't just talking about "people" in general when we say a lot of people were confused, we're talking about well-established GMs and at least one of my venture-officers, because the device was recommended to me by said folks with the understanding that it was a blanket protection from domination. If it's not, cool, but I think a misunderstanding so widespread as to involve, as noted, experienced GMs and VOs, which needed a FAQ to clarify, should involve a refund option if the item no longer works the way it was originally perceived to by, again, so many, and so many who are so experienced.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The second part has multiple effects that its trying to prevent. The line refer to this full part of the end of the 2nd ability of the spell.
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.
Broaden your scope. The spell starts off by saying it has "three major effects".
It then goes on to describe, three different effects, each with its own paragraph. The paragraph describing the first effect says "First, [stuff]". The paragraph describing the second effect says "Second, [stuff]". The paragraph describing the third effect says "Third, [stuff]".
At the end of the second paragraph (the one which begins by listing itself as the second of the "three major effects" that the introductory paragraph set you up for) comes the line about "this second effect".
It's practically a bulleted list, people. It tells you how many effects there are, lists them, the second effect is sandwiched between "Second, the subject..." and "This second effect...", and people didn't realize what it was talking about?
If I remember my history correctly, the original author of the Ioun stones portion of Seeker of Secrets was Russ Taylor, but after turning it over, Sean did a major overhaul of that region. Russ is known for his great mechanical skills, and Sean is on the design team...so I doubt they were confused.
Personally, I rank that resonance power, with the interpretation that it gave you complete immunity to the most powerful spells in the game, at the same level as pistolero's "double Gun Training stacking" and Bracers of Falcon's Aim in that it's way too good for what the cost is such that tiny little red flags should've popped up.
so you are saying that "The second part" they are refering to is the second part of the part they label "Second" - in other words, "the second part of the second part"so they split "Protection from Evil" into three sections (paragraphs) each started "First", "Second" and "Third". They then use the term "The second part" to refer to a sub-section of the paragraph headed "second", without refering to the first part of the paragraph headed "Second"? I don't think so.
And the biggest reason I don't think so - is the rest of that paragraph (minus the last line) is word for word from 3.5 rules (I think), and PFS added the line "This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.". I think this line was added to Prot Evil to clear up the fact that people were using the second paragraph to ban control by Non-evil creatures and spells....
Yes, but that is using the current writing of the spell. The last time I had an argument with people about this spell, (BTW Im in the camp of it should only effect spells and abilities from evil people, look back to the original post) I believe the text of this spell was missing the part about evil in the "2nd paragraph". Everything I have currently at hand is identicle to the link. At the time of the last argument I had about this spell we had at hand a first or second printing of the Core book and I dont believe it had the evil line in the second part. And all online text pointed to the same text word for word.
As Cheapy points out the old 3.5 Prot Evil did lack that last statement and actualy effects all charm/compulsion. I could be wrong, but despite that this was the argument they put forth to believe it worked that way.edit- I just went through all the old change errata from the various printings, and found no change adding the line about the evil line being added to the "2nd paragraph". So as best i can tell this has been the argument used by those reading the spell as blocking all possesion.
|
|
Bah! Useless FAQ to explain a spell that needed no explanation. Moving on....nothing to see here.
As a whole I have been disappointed in some of the recent FAQ's. Useless FAQ stated above, a Titan Mauler FAQ that is also useless, a Half-race archetype FAQ that is literally the opposite of another FAQ post and an entire section of the ARG. Sigh....
|
From my CRB.
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if
one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess
or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment
[charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects such as charm
person, command, and dominate person). This saving throw is made
with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect.
If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this
spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires.
While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any
new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or
spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling
the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects
created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.
Clearly... Only against Evil Creatures or objects. There is not enough reason in my opinion to refund the cost of the item to people who failed to properly research an item before buying it. It still does exactly what it has always done and it does it for a very affordable price.
|
|
You know, I had a bit of a think, and this is my conclusion:
I already knew PoE only worked against Evil creatures. I mean ... it's Protection from Evil, not "Evil and several assorted effects." So the FAQ doesn't affect my reading of the spell.
As a consequence, it doesn't affect my reading of the item. I don't think the item referencing PoE as a mechanic source means it only works against Evil. I think it ("only") works against mental domination, regardless of source. They referenced PoE because they were writing a side note in a splatbook, and didn't want to get in to details that had been covered elsewhere.
Which means I still think we need a clarification from The Big Guys ... it's just a clarification we should have been after for a while now, rather than a new one. There's a divide between the obvious function of PoE, and the function-as-understood of the Clear Spindle Ioun Stone. The FAQ is irrelevant to that.
|
|
You know, I had a bit of a think, and this is my conclusion:
I already knew PoE only worked against Evil creatures. I mean ... it's Protection from Evil, not "Evil and several assorted effects." So the FAQ doesn't affect my reading of the spell.
As a consequence, it doesn't affect my reading of the item. I don't think the item referencing PoE as a mechanic source means it only works against Evil. I think it ("only") works against mental domination, regardless of source. They referenced PoE because they were writing a side note in a splatbook, and didn't want to get in to details that had been covered elsewhere.
Which means I still think we need a clarification from The Big Guys ... it's just a clarification we should have been after for a while now, rather than a new one. There's a divide between the obvious function of PoE, and the function-as-understood of the Clear Spindle Ioun Stone. The FAQ is irrelevant to that.
<blink> huh?!
The FAQ explicitly states it works exactly like protection from evil not that the reference to the spell was to indicate how it worked for all such spells regardless of the alignment of the caster.
How does this need further clarification. The clarification given in the FAQ is quite explicit.
The fact you are still "confused" I think is more due to the fact you don't want the FAQ to have said what it says, than actually still being confused.
|
I personally think there is some ambiguity, but I've yet to see a neutral domination character so I think this is ultimately a moot point. Especially since both of my paladins are 8th level. :P
I see both sides of the argument. I always assumed the clear spindle was looking at strictly the mechanics of mind control protection, not so much the "evil" part. Outside of the clear spindle I've no question and agree with the FAQ, always have.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Alexandria
|
I think we're going to need a campaign leadership ruling on this, guys, because I can't speak for anywhere else, but in San Diego the "Pathfinder diet" is considered the resonant effect that any serious Pathfinder will get ASAP. If it was only ever intended to protect against Evil possession/control, then I personally bought it for several characters who wouldn't waste their money on it.
I don't think it was intended to do that, though, because then I think there would have been other Ioun options for Good/Law/Chaos, but there weren't.
But since this is going to immediately become a table variation war, let's just save ourselves a lot of trouble and ask for the input of the big guys.
Hey Patrick, it's Sean (Atash, Gregor etc.) I can't speak for others in San Diego, but I totally personally and have always played (and judged) it's *ONLY* a protection from evil, not neutral or good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The current wording is clear. Only evil casters and such.
I wonder, though, the author of the resonant powers, at the time he wrote them, how did HE think Prot from Evil worked?
-j
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't think the item referencing PoE as a mechanic source means it only works against Evil. I think it ("only") works against mental domination, regardless of source. They referenced PoE because they were writing a side note in a splatbook, and didn't want to get in to details that had been covered elsewhere.
Okay, I can see how that idea could pop up. Protection from evil's section on mental control is a rather bulky paragraph.
On the other hand, if they meant it to be generic, there are lots of ways they could have referenced that "template" (for lack of a better term) without connecting it to an alignment-dependent effect. For instance, they could have added a parenthetical "(but against enemies and effects of any alignment)" or some such.
Too many words? Well, I'm looking at my PDF of Seekers of Secrets, and there's plenty of room for them to have written "protection from evil/chaos/good/law" if they wanted the effect to be generic. There's plenty of precedent for that type of wording, so why didn't they do that?
The idea that the power's effect references a spell but only uses part of the spell's rules doesn't stand up to the "If that was the goal, they could have done X" test.
|
|
I hear what you're saying, Jiggy, and now I'm just kind of holding out hope that I was right, even though I don't think so. Still, it wouldn't hurt to have a final word on this matter; since I didn't start this thread and (as far as I know) I don't know the OP, that means it's not just me/my area that has (or had) this confusion.
|
|
I'm with Jiggy on this one.
The item says that it works like protection from evil. Protection from evil only works on evil things, or to phrase that differently does not work on good or neutral things.
Let me offer up an ability that uses similar language that I think everyone will agree with its interpretation.
The witches slumber hex says that it "can cause a creature within 30 feet
to fall into a deep, magical sleep, as per the spell sleep."
This language is extremely similar to the phrasing for the clear spindle resonate power. "Protection from possession and mental
control (as protection from evil)."
Now I could take the argument that many people are making that the resonate power is not limited in its effects by what limits protection from evil. But were I to do that then I should also be able to make the claim that the slumber hex is not limited by the same limiters that slumber hex is. I think everyone will agree that the very idea of a slumber hex working on things that are immune to mind effecting is simply ludicrous.
The point I am trying to make is that when Paizo uses the language "as per the ..." or "as ..." what they are saying is that this ability works like this other ability except in the specific ways we have said here that it is different.
Although if you disagree with me I will happily take my level 10 witch to your table and start putting vermin/undead/constructs to sleep.
|
|
Too many words? Well, I'm looking at my PDF of Seekers of Secrets, and there's plenty of room for them to have written "protection from evil/chaos/good/law" if they wanted the effect to be generic. There's plenty of precedent for that type of wording, so why didn't they do that?
There's also precedent to just referring to Protection from Evil to save space.
If they'd referred to any of the other Protection spells, I would have assumed it meant that specific spell. But Protection from Evil is the exemplar for the others, which I believe does allow for Patrick's interpretation.
|
|
...the FAQ doesn't affect my reading of the spell.
As a consequence, it doesn't affect my reading of the item. I don't think the item referencing PoE as a mechanic source means it only works against Evil
Okay, let me try to understand.
You claim the basis for the original ambiguity stems from the the spell description lacking a specific reference to "evil" in the paragraph regarding how it interacts with effects that "possess or exercise mental control." I have the CRB 1st printing and it does reference, "only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or object." I'll ignore the 2nd part for the moment and grant you ambiguity.
In Seeker of Secrets it designates that the resonant power of a wayfinder loaded with a clear spindle grants "protection from possession and mental control (as protection from evil). Given any ambiguity from above, it would apply to the item as well.
There are a lot of us who have asserted that the evil requirement applies to the entire application of PfE and always has. With the FAQ entry, it eliminates any supposed ambiguity entirely.
So, you are either in the camp that thought it did and now know otherwise, or you are one of those who believed that all along. Either way, there is no longer any ambiguity. To claim that the evil requirement somehow does not apply to the item is ridiculous.
Why is it that when a rule that even has the possibility of ambiguity receives official clarification, there are those who disagree with the ruling and refuse to accept the clarification, even saying they will ignore it? I just don't get it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You claim the basis for the original ambiguity stems from the the spell description [...] So, you are either in the camp that thought it did and now know otherwise, or you are one of those who believed that all along.
False. The spell description is quite clear: Protection from Evil protects from evil.
My read of the item description is now, as it has been, that they're referring to PoE as a reference to the mechanics of being immune to domination--which is a fairly complicated little block of rules that they didn't want to reprint--rather than meaning that the stone itself protects only against evil.
There are two ways of looking at the stone:
1. The stone functions as a continuous Protection from Evil, except you only get one of the three normal benefits.
2. The stone functions as a continuous protection from domination, the mechanics of which are discussed in PoE so we won't rehash them here.
I believe that option 2 makes more sense from the way the item is (brusquely) described. As such, I am in a camp you did not name: The one that says the clarification of the spell is irrelevant to the question of the stone. I thought I stated this pretty clearly.
Why is it that when a rule that even has the possibility of ambiguity receives official clarification, there are those who disagree with the ruling and refuse to accept the clarification, even saying they will ignore it? I just don't get it.
How does "Can we get a ruling, I think there's some question here, here's my interpretation, I admit I might be wrong" become "YOUR CLARIFICATION IS INVALID AND I WILL IGNORE YOU LA LALALALA" in your mind, Bob? Because it's definitely not what I said.
|
|
The listing in Seeker declares what it does, it protects the wearer from possession and mental control. It then goes on the specify what that means, as protection from evil. So, it only provides the protection from paragraph two of the PfE spell. Regardless of where we all fell on the side of that paragraph having any ambiguity, with the FAQ, there is none. I fail to see where there is any confusion here.
I am usually one to grant ambiguity, but I'm sorry, in this case, it just doesn't exist.
|
|
I bought one after I heard what Kyle Baird did to Bob. :)If you mean killing my paladin 3-1/2 times, then yeah he's a $#&#^@^$%. Of course, that didn't have anything to do with charms and a clear spindle wouldn't have helped me. :-P
Oh, the way I heard it, he dominated you, and you killed members of your party, and they killed you.
|
Venture-Captain, Texas—Waco
|
| 27 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Patrick on this, mainly because I point-blank asked Sean about this a few months ago after one of these debates, and it's already been established that he worked on this section of the book before it was published.
As he told me, the reference to Protection from Evil is a reference to the mechanic. You all know that Prot Chaos/Good/Law all start with the same seven words, "This spell functions like protection from evil,..." setting that same precedent that they didn't want to completely rehash the same spell four times with only the alignment being different. Sean also pointed out to me that if the Resonant Power was intended to only function against evil casters then they would have written in three other Resonant Powers to emulate the alignment restriction of protection against chaos/good/law as well.
Sean could get overruled on this interpretation, but that's the closest to an official answer I've received. I only regret I didn't get it in writing...
|
|
Im pleased that they finaly FAQ'ed this horribly over powered first level spell. And im hopping that it has the additional consequence that it limits the resonate ability of the clear spindle.
It has always worked like that. And because of that, sometimes bosses in scenarios and modules are created as CN to deal with it (saying that the NPC is 'crazy', which is an old alignment definition), when they clearly should be CE.
To be clear, I agree with you that the wording is ambiguous, which is why it needed clarification. However, this has been one ruling that almost 100% of GMs I've spoken to agree on.
Personally I wish they would just remove the spindle (even though one of my PCs owns one) and the spell Prot Evil/Good. In my home adventure path, I've created house rules around Prot Evil, completely eliminating the control aspect of the spell and increasing duration. The game is better if immunities don't exist at low levels.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm with Patrick on this, mainly because I point-blank asked Sean about this a few months ago after one of these debates, and it's already been established that he worked on this section of the book before it was published.
As he told me, the reference to Protection from Evil is a reference to the mechanic. You all know that Prot Chaos/Good/Law all start with the same seven words, "This spell functions like protection from evil,..." setting that same precedent that they didn't want to completely rehash the same spell four times with only the alignment being different. Sean also pointed out to me that if the Resonant Power was intended to only function against evil casters then they would have written in three other Resonant Powers to emulate the alignment restriction of protection against chaos/good/law as well.
Sean could get overruled on this interpretation, but that's the closest to an official answer I've received. I only regret I didn't get it in writing...
Well that's certainly interesting! Clicked FAQ on your post, I'd definitely like to hear a final resolution on this; it has the potential to materially affect the mindset with which I interpret rules, and I find that rather exciting. :)
|
|
I FAQ'd Daniel's post as well. I was with Bob on this until Daniel chimed in. Definitely looks at it from a different perspective.
I will have to say that if this is the case and the resonance power does prevent from all mind control and domination then the item is underpriced for the benefits recieved. BTW I have 4 out of 12 characters with this item. Its a standard issue item for all my fighter types. So it's not like I'm looking to get it banned but it is pretty sweet for just 4k.
|
|
I FAQ'd Daniel's post as well. I was with Bob on this until Daniel chimed in. Definitely looks at it from a different perspective.
I will have to say that if this is the case and the resonance power does prevent from all mind control and domination then the item is underpriced for the benefits recieved. BTW I have 4 out of 12 characters with this item. Its a standard issue item for all my fighter types. So it's not like I'm looking to get it banned but it is pretty sweet for just 4k.
Gives June a discerning look. You're talking about me, right? Because that was my argument from the beginning! Other wise, I'm going to make you drink again next time we meet!
Different perspective my patootie...
;)
|
|
Gives June a discerning look. You're talking about me, right? Because that was my argument from the beginning! Other wise, I'm going to make you drink again next time we meet!Different perspective my patootie...
;)
Lol. I somehow missed that post from you! But the other Dna's post was more descriptive and got my attention. But you did say the same thing. Mea Culpa.