|
This is actually a good discussion so that the GM’s out there paying attention can come to an informed decision on ambiguity.
While the FAQ clears up some things, and lists two specific effects that are not protected against by protection from evil, it still leaves ambiguity out there.
We just have to accept table variation based on a GM’s interpretation of how the FAQ clarifies protection from evil and what constitutes “ongoing influence and puppet-like control.”
I can guarantee you, I will allow some conversation of this at a table I am running, but expect a player to abide by whatever ultimate decision I make.
As of yet, I’m leaning more towards Jiggy’s interpretation than not, but I haven’t made a decision yet on how I would rule in this case.
|
Andrew,
I agree. It's a good discussion and not the normal "I'm right, you're wrong" of the boards. I'm perfectly happy to be convinced my interpretation is wrong, if that ends up being the way it goes.
Since semantics become overly important in a RAW discussion, I do feel like I need to point out that the phrase in the FAQ is "ongoing influence or puppet-like control." That one little difference is actually huge. Even if it can be argued that it doesn't exert puppet-like control, it's already been agreed that it exerts ongoing influence, and the way I read that full sentence:
...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)?...
is that ongoing influence or puppet-like control are two separate examples of what constitutes exercising control. "Puppet-like" is also very open for interpretation.
I would, of course, abide by whatever decision is made at the table. If mine or another character's death was in the balance, I might debate it a little more than usual or ask the gm to confer with other gms at the event, but I'd go with whatever the gm's decision was.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In a word, yes. Any area effect ability can affect targets the source is unaware of, unless it specifically says the source has to be aware of them. Would an aura of Fear or an aura of Confusion not affect someone just because the source doesn't see them coming? Would a Fireball or Stinking Cloud? Maybe there's something in the rules somewhere I'm not aware of that says that's not true for mind-affecting effects. If so, I'll change my answer....
The harpy doesn't even have to be aware of the victim. I could be going in as a decoy while my whole party is invisible, and the harpy's song (intended only for me) would affect everyone. Do you really think it can be "exercising control" over creatures it's not even aware of?
What in the name of fresh bird food are you talking about? How did you read that part of my post and come to the conclusion that I thought AoE's don't affect creatures you're unaware of? I explicitly stated that the Song would affect creatures the harpy didn't know were there. I even used that fact as a premise of a subsequent argument. You seem to have confused "X is true, therefore Y is untrue" with "X is untrue".
Let me set it up in a more structured format this time:
Premise: Harpy's song affects nearby creatures even if the harpy doesn't know they exist (and it has the exact same effect).
Premise: You can't really "control" something you're not aware of.
Conclusion: Harpies don't "control" the victims of their songs.
Relatedly, after reading your and others' cases, it seems that the whole argument centers around what it means to "control" something. Thus, I ask:
What does it mean to "exercise control over" a victim, as pertains to the issue of Protection spells?
But remember one thing: your answer has to be such that sleep and confusion would naturally and consequently not constitute "control". If your definition of "control" would include them, making their explicit mention in the FAQ the only reason they aren't blocked by Protection, then your definition is wrong.
If someone does come up with a feasible definition of control which would naturally lead to excluding sleep/confusion but including Captivating Song, that would push me very far toward changing my mind. But so far, people have implied definitions of control that would *include* confusion (for instance, "it's control because they're COMPELLED" is wrong because confusion is a compulsion effect but isn't "control").
So! I look forward to such definitions (actually kind of hoping a good one gets presented; that would be exciting to me).
|
|
This is actually a good discussion so that the GM’s out there paying attention can come to an informed decision on ambiguity.
Oh, I think we've all decided there's ambiguity. :)
First, a majority of enchantment effects make you do something you don't want to do, and/or are mind-affecting. There are such spells on both sides, so neither is an argument.
Duration isn't much for evidence either, as command is short, & sleep has duration. (You can't wake up to sounds of combat like you would if it just put you to sleep and had no further effect.)
Here's another way to look at it: Effect vs. Caster (caster's input)
With confusion & sleep, the effect hits the target, and does its job without the caster's input.
If a trap or non-sentient source causes the effect, the effect remains the same.
With charm & dominate, the effect hits the target, and the effect determines nothing about the target's actions. Nothing happens unless the caster exerts control (or tries to via Cha check). It needs caster input.
If a trap or non-sentient source causes the effect, nothing happens. Both effects give control to another agency (much like possession gives control to another agency.) But the effect takes no control itself.
Command (and its cousin Murderous Command) are messy, unfortunately.
With command, the caster is exerting control as she casts. It requires caster input to function.
With murderous command the effect is exerting control and a non-intelligent source would yield the same results. No caster input is required.
So, though they are practically the same, I'd say the 'choice' allowed by command lets PfE block it, and the lack of choice disallows PfE from blocking murderous command.
As for harpy songs, the effect could as easily come from a box on the ground, and it would have exactly the same effect. The harpy gives it no direction and has no input except whether to continue it or not. Yes, a smart harpy can manipulate it to the detriment of the target, but that's not input into what the harpy song does to the target.
So, IMO, harpy songs are not blocked by PfE.
Look at Scarecrows (Bestiary 2), which have a very similar effect, but from a non-sentient creature. It wouldn't even know how to exert control. It just launches its effect and then goes smashing.
So, after all that...
I think the core question re: PfE working or not is:
Is the effect granting control to another agency (PfE works) or taking control itself without input from originator (PfE doesn't work)?
If somebody has a different core question (or checklist) that would give the same results as the FAQ, please present.
Cheers, JMK
|
|
What in the name of fresh bird food are you talking about? How did you read that part of my post and come to the conclusion that I thought AoE's don't affect creatures you're unaware of? I explicitly stated that the Song would affect creatures the harpy didn't know were there. I even used that fact as a premise of a subsequent argument. You seem to have confused "X is true, therefore Y is untrue" with "X is untrue".In a word, yes. Any area effect ability can affect targets the source is unaware of, unless it specifically says the source has to be aware of them. Would an aura of Fear or an aura of Confusion not affect someone just because the source doesn't see them coming? Would a Fireball or Stinking Cloud? Maybe there's something in the rules somewhere I'm not aware of that says that's not true for mind-affecting effects. If so, I'll change my answer....
The harpy doesn't even have to be aware of the victim. I could be going in as a decoy while my whole party is invisible, and the harpy's song (intended only for me) would affect everyone. Do you really think it can be "exercising control" over creatures it's not even aware of?
Slow down a little Jiggy. He wasn't saying that being unaware of the creatures would make them immune to the AoE effect. He was saying it WOULD affect them, and therefore be under the mind-affecting effect. At least that's how I read it.
Let me set it up in a more structured format this time:Premise: Harpy's song affects nearby creatures even if the harpy doesn't know they exist (and it has the exact same effect).
Premise: You can't really "control" something you're not aware of.
Conclusion: Harpies don't "control" the victims of their songs.
I think a big part of the disagreement is the second "premise" you're inserting here, along with what "control" constitutes.
If someone does come up with a feasible definition of control which would naturally lead to excluding sleep/confusion but including Captivating Song, that would push me very far toward changing my mind. But so far, people have implied definitions of control that would *include* confusion (for instance, "it's control because they're COMPELLED" is wrong because confusion is a compulsion effect but isn't "control").
One, confusion doesn't truly compel anyone to do anything. It removes everyone's ability to control the actions of the person. Sleep doesn't compel the person to perform an action. It shuts down the sleep centers of the mind or whatever the language is in the FAQ. So, COMPELLING or FORCING someone to do something, against their will, is different than confusing them or sleeping them.
All this said, I think it's going to boil down to a table variance issue, and that's fine with me too.
|
|
As long as players understand its a table variance issue based on GM interpretation of the above topics, I don't have a problem with it either.
What I do have a problem with is a combative player who refuses to allow me to interpret ambiguous things differently then them, and be right while I'm the GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Slow down a little Jiggy. He wasn't saying that being unaware of the creatures would make them immune to the AoE effect. He was saying it WOULD affect them, and therefore be under the mind-affecting effect. At least that's how I read it.
Yes, I know. I said it too. Let's recap:
Me: X is true.Him: Actually, I'm pretty sure X is true.
Me: Yes, I know X is true. I said X is true.
You: Actually, I'm pretty sure he was saying X is true.
Me: *twitch*
One, confusion doesn't truly compel anyone to do anything.
...Um, were you unaware that "compulsion" is just the noun form of "compel"? Confusion is a compulsion spell, therefore by definition it compels the affected creatures.
Feel free to have another go at it, though. I was serious when I said the prospect of being convinced to change my mind would be exciting. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What I do have a problem with is a combative player who refuses to allow me to interpret ambiguous things differently then them, and be right while I'm the GM.
And herein lies the beauty of the messageboards: no one here is the GM or the player, so we can fully explore ambiguous issues without one person needing to defer to another person for the sake of game flow. :)
|
|
As long as players understand its a table variance issue based on GM interpretation of the above topics, I don't have a problem with it either.
What I do have a problem with is a combative player who refuses to allow me to interpret ambiguous things differently then them, and be right while I'm the GM.
Definitely. If I'm behind the screen, it's my interpretation that will hold sway over what happens. If it's at your table, that's your right and responsibility to make the call based on how you read the rule, and that's what goes.
I may toss a quick question reflexively, but I will not argue a point at the table. That's discourteous to the other players and rude to the GM.
|
|
One, confusion doesn't truly compel anyone to do anything....Um, were you unaware that "compulsion" is just the noun form of "compel"? Confusion is a compulsion spell, therefore by definition it compels the affected creatures.
Feel free to have another go at it, though. I was serious when I said the prospect of being convinced to change my mind would be exciting. :)
No, I was not unaware. However, in relation to this discussion, not all [Compulsion] spells are considered to "compel" a creature to do anything in terms of controlling their action by definition in the FAQ.
I'm not really interested in a linguistic discourse. I've stated how I view the situation, you've stated how you view situation, neither side is really making any grounds in dissuading the other, so I think I've had my say on the subject.
|
|
What in the name of fresh bird food are you talking about? How did you read that part of my post and come to the conclusion that I thought AoE's don't affect creatures you're unaware of? I explicitly stated that the Song would affect creatures the harpy didn't know were there. I even used that fact as a premise of a subsequent argument. You seem to have confused "X is true, therefore Y is untrue" with "X is untrue".
My apologies. That's not what I meant to imply. I was merely saying that it effects them, and that, in my opinion, whether or not they are aware of them does not change whether or not they can, consciously or subconsciously, control them. Meaning...
Premise: You can't really "control" something you're not aware of.
This is the premise with which I disagree. The Harpy's song essentially controls anyone who can hear it, regardless of whether or not the Harpy is aware of them. I don't see any problem with that, and I don't see anything in the text of PfE or the FAQ that states otherwise.
Relatedly, after reading your and others' cases, it seems that the whole argument centers around what it means to "control" something. Thus, I ask:
What does it mean to "exercise control over" a victim, as pertains to the issue of Protection spells?
2 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over
b : to have power over(irrelevant definitions omitted)
A harpy's song has the power to infect the minds of those that hear it, calling them to the harpy's side.
Sounds like "directing influence" to me. Emphasis mine again.
I don't really know if that clears things up, though we did have earlier agreement on the "influence" part of the FAQ.
But remember one thing: your answer has to be such that sleep and confusion would naturally and consequently not constitute "control". If your definition of "control" would include them, making their explicit mention in the FAQ the only reason they aren't blocked by Protection, then your definition is wrong.
The reason sleep is not blocked is included, and it has nothing to do with control: "(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.")" In other words, the FAQ seems to acknowledge that Sleep could be interpreted as controlling someone, but the means by which it does it does not fall into the same category that Protection from Evil protects against.
The reasons Confusion is not blocked are less clear, since they aren't spelled out as specifically as with Sleep. Which brings it back to "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others." Confusion doesn't do that, since it's very difficult to interpret the spell as the equivalent of a command.
If you believe, as I do, that a Harpy's song is essentially a command to come to the Harpy, then Protection from Evil would appear to work against it. If you don't believe that it is a command, then PfE doesn't work against it. Which is why it will stay ambiguous no matter how many times we go around the same phrasing. If "control" were defined as a game term, there wouldn't be any question.
I can certainly understand either interpretation, and as I've said, I would accept whatever was decided at the table, but this does appear to be a situation where the FAQ needs an FAQ.
As for harpy songs, the effect could as easily come from a box on the ground, and it would have exactly the same effect. The harpy gives it no direction and has no input except whether to continue it or not. Yes, a smart harpy can manipulate it to the detriment of the target, but that's not input into what the harpy song does to the target.
So, IMO, harpy songs are not blocked by PfE.
Yes, the effect could come from a box on the ground, and, per the FAQ, if that box were evil in nature, Protection From Evil would protect against it:
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.
Emphasis mine. So looking at that, it is possible for an object to create a spell or effect that could be blocked by Protection from Evil. Does that help any or just muddle things further?
|
|
Okay, an 'evil' box on the ground. :)
"Non-directing force" is what I was aiming for.
Common trait of things affected by PfE:
Caster has input on what type of control happens; input on effect.
Common trait of things not affected by PfE:
Caster has no input on what type of control happens; no input on effect.
I think it's pretty clear cut.
Harpies have no input on what type of control happens with harpy song; no input on effect. Harpy songs fall in the latter group and are not affected by PfE.
If you find a different common trait that keeps the FAQ intact and lands harpy song on the other side, share it.
If you can't, your ruling is reasoned, but somewhat arbitrary too, and it'll be difficult for players to determine what you will or won't judge in any given situation.
Awkward...
Cheers, JMK
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, an 'evil' box on the ground. :)
"Non-directing force" is what I was aiming for.Common trait of things affected by PfE:
Caster has input on what type of control happens; input on effect.Common trait of things not affected by PfE:
Caster has no input on what type of control happens; no input on effect.I think it's pretty clear cut.
Harpies have no input on what type of control happens with harpy song; no input on effect. Harpy songs fall in the latter group and are not affected by PfE.If you find a different common trait that keeps the FAQ intact and lands harpy song on the other side, share it.
If you can't, your ruling is reasoned, but somewhat arbitrary too, and it'll be difficult for players to determine what you will or won't judge in any given situation.
Awkward...Cheers, JMK
I just draw the line somewhere else. Does the effect direct the target to do something? Yes? Then it's protected against by Protection from Evil. It doesn't matter if the effect can only direct you to do one thing. Explain to me why being able to force you to do one thing and being able to force you to do one of several different things should affect your ability to resist (or the spell's ability to block) being forced to do anything. That's where it breaks down logically for me. If Command is blocked and Murderous Command is not, that means PfE can stop you from sitting down, but it can't stop you from attacking your best friend, and that just doesn't make sense, simply because the spell that directs you to attack can't also direct you to sit down. It's reading something into the FAQ clarification that just isn't there from what I can see.
Sleep is a specific exception called out by the developers, because they decided that it doesn't direct/command/control/whatever you to go to sleep. Instead it overrides the brain's sleep centers, and they decided that was not covered. All of that is in the FAQ, so it's very easy to see their reasoning.
Confusion is an exception because it doesn't direct you to do anything. You just get confused. (This is my interpretation and less clear from the FAQ, but I certainly don't think it breaks the FAQ).
Command directs you to Approach, Drop, Fall, Flee, or Halt.
Murderous Command directs you to attack your nearest friend.
The Harpy song directs you to come to the Harpy. I'll point again to the "Calling them to the Harpy's side" phrasing if you want a source for the interpretation that it is a command. I just don't see a Harpy's song as a "non-directing" force when it's causing you to take a very specific action and preventing you from doing anything else (except defend yourself against anyone but the Harpy). Again, just because it can't also order you to Fall doesn't mean it isn't controlling you.
I don't understand why, suddenly, when I'm able to give someone multiple commands, it's easier for them to resist me than when I can only give them one command from two spells that are the same level. It's actually easier for me to see the argument against the Harpy song being blocked based on semantics than it is Murderous Command, which has "command" right in the name of the spell and has phrasing like "which it obeys to the best of its ability" in the spell description.
Anyway, I've made the best case I've got. If I haven't changed anyone's mind, maybe I'm wrong. Either way, it's going to be left for GM interpretation barring another clarification from Paizo.
|
|
Okay, an 'evil' box on the ground. :)
"Non-directing force" is what I was aiming for.Common trait of things affected by PfE:
Caster has input on what type of control happens; input on effect.Common trait of things not affected by PfE:
Caster has no input on what type of control happens; no input on effect.I think it's pretty clear cut.
Harpies have no input on what type of control happens with harpy song; no input on effect. Harpy songs fall in the latter group and are not affected by PfE.If you find a different common trait that keeps the FAQ intact and lands harpy song on the other side, share it.
If you can't, your ruling is reasoned, but somewhat arbitrary too, and it'll be difficult for players to determine what you will or won't judge in any given situation.
Awkward...Cheers, JMK
That cinches it for me. I'm ruling with Jiggy.
|
|
That cinches it for me. I'm ruling with Jiggy.
That settles it, then. My next character is going to be a cleric who boosts the DC of Murderous Command as high as he can get it, because it's clearly a more powerful spell than Dominate Person. ;-)
Thanks for the debate. I still can't say I completely agree, but clearly I wasn't convincing, and I know when I'm beaten.
|
|
Sorry, unless Jiggy comes up with a better justification than, :You can't control someone you don't know you have controlled." I am ruling against Jiggy.
Cast Charm Person. Do you know whether you actually have the target controlled? Mo.
Cast Hypnotic Pattern. If you make a suggestion to the people who failed their save, whether you know who failed or not, do you have them under your control? Heck, it is a 10' radius spread, so it can go around a corner, or affect someone behind a tree/wall.
Just because a Charm-like effect has no options for what the target does, does not mean that they are not being controlled.
So, overall, the Harpy's suggestion/fascination effect is charm-like in the terms of Protection from Evil.
Again, just to point this out: Just because you don't know that someone is in your areas of effect does NOT mean that what you are casting is NOT a charm-like effect.
Also, if you read up on the Harpy's Captivating Song, you will see, in the description: "This is a sonic mind-affecting charm effect."
Mind-affecting charm effect. Where's the debate? Just because the Charm effect only allows one of two responses, it is still a Charm effect. The player is no longer in control of his PC's actions, the Harpy is. Repeat: The Harpy is in charge of the PC's actions.
Again, are you saying a Charm effect is NOT a Charm effect? When do you determine if it is a Charm effect or a Charm effect?
Sorry, but I can only disagree with anyone who says that a Protection from Evil or a Protection from Chaos spell would not protect the recipient from the effects of a Harpy's Captivating Song.
|
|
Sorry, unless Jiggy comes up with a better justification than, :You can't control someone you don't know you have controlled." I am ruling against Jiggy.
Cast Charm Person. Do you know whether you actually have the target controlled? Mo.
Cast Hypnotic Pattern. If you make a suggestion to the people who failed their save, whether you know who failed or not, do you have them under your control? Heck, it is a 10' radius spread, so it can go around a corner, or affect someone behind a tree/wall.
Just because a Charm-like effect has no options for what the target does, does not mean that they are not being controlled.
So, overall, the Harpy's suggestion/fascination effect is charm-like in the terms of Protection from Evil.
Again, just to point this out: Just because you don't know that someone is in your areas of effect does NOT mean that what you are casting is NOT a charm-like effect.
Also, if you read up on the Harpy's Captivating Song, you will see, in the description: "This is a sonic mind-affecting charm effect."
Mind-affecting charm effect. Where's the debate? Just because the Charm effect only allows one of two responses, it is still a Charm effect. The player is no longer in control of his PC's actions, the Harpy is. Repeat: The Harpy is in charge of the PC's actions.
Again, are you saying a Charm effect is NOT a Charm effect? When do you determine if it is a Charm effect or a Charm effect?
Sorry, but I can only disagree with anyone who says that a Protection from Evil or a Protection from Chaos spell would not protect the recipient from the effects of a Harpy's Captivating Song.
Reviewing your evidence against the Jigmeister, Mr. K:
Trying to add a lighter tone, as textual debate is not as friendly as I'm trying to present this. Add smiley face tone. :)There's a post from years ago that says casters can tell whether a charm or dominate took effect or not (but bystanders can't, it's not visual). I couldn't find it if you paid me, but there's even a class ability that allows you to fake being affected, so the caster gets a false positive.
So, nope, you can tell.
Hypnotic Pattern is an illusion, and therefore not affected by PfE. Bad example.
"Mind-Affecting" does not support your case. The spells listed as NOT working are also mind-affecting, as are tons of non-enchantment effects that PfE does not work against because...
Whether or not an effect is Enchantment (charm) or Enchantment (compulsion) is important, as only those can be affected (and possession effects).
But, the FAQ spells that are NOT affected are also among them, so it's not a blanket statement that PfE affects ALL of them.
and
Nobody's arguing harpy songs aren't charming/compelling. We're arguing not all charming/compelling effects are blocked by PfE because the FAQ gives examples demonstrating so. Some are blocked, some aren't.
So we need a clearer separation than whether it's charming/compelling.
"Not seeing" is secondary.
This is primary, and gives clearer separation:
-Common trait of things affected by PfE:
Caster has input on what type of control happens; input on effect.
-Common trait of things not affected by PfE:
Caster has no input on what type of control happens; no input on effect.
This is based on the spells listed in the FAQ as working/not working.
This also makes for a useful rule of thumb for players.
IMO, this is important, as nobody wants a rules debate in their 4-hour slot regarding every esoteric charm/compulsion effect.
Kinevon, you have to find a definition or rule of thumb that keeps the FAQ's division of spells intact.
As it is, you are using traits common to both sides of the FAQ's division, which is not good evidence for either side. You're even including spells definitely not affected to make your point.
Take a step back. Reconsider your stance.
After you work out your rule of thumb, or longer method of determination if you prefer, then we can apply it to the FAQ to see if it matches. Then we can apply it to harpy song and see where that lands.
Until then,
Cheers,
JMK
(Probably ninja'ed as I've been running around.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be very clear if the designers added another simple spell descriptor, "control." If the spell is tagged as a controlling spell, the ProtEvil would block it. If no tag, doesn't work. Even if that descriptor did not extend to monster stat blocks, at least we would have a thorough list of included/excluded spells to reference to adjudicate supernatural/spell-like abilities.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
Suppress charms and compulsions
2nd level bard, cleric, oracle, paladin, sorcerer/wizard spell.
I think I've used this spell to prevent combats going horribly wrong in PFS games around 25 times.
Number of times I saw anyone else cast this spell: 0 times.
|
|
@Castilliano: Might want to read PfE again. Hypnotic Pattern would be blocked. No where does it say it wouldn't affect non-Enchantment effects, so HP would, indeed, be protected against if from an Evil caster.
Again, as nosig said, the Harpy's song forces the target to move in a certain way. If the Harpy moves, so does the target. That, my friend, is the essence of a compulsion, and therefore, again, it would be blockable by PfE.
@Eric: Would be nice if the GMs knew that rule. (Or if it were actually referenced in the spells it affects.) My Sorcerer (undead bloodline) could have bypassed some of the problems we had with a certain Ghoul in a scenario I played him in.
ig difference in not knowing the Ghoul had made its save. "It saved. Kill it. Now." Would have made a difference to a couple of dead party members later.
|
Suppress charms and compulsions
2nd level bard, cleric, oracle, paladin, sorcerer/wizard spell.
I think I've used this spell to prevent combats going horribly wrong in PFS games around 25 times.
Number of times I saw anyone else cast this spell: 0 times.
Yeah, but who would bother to own that splat book? I mean, really, Andoran?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Again, just to point this out: Just because you don't know that someone is in your areas of effect does NOT mean that what you are casting is NOT a charm-like effect.
Also, if you read up on the Harpy's Captivating Song, you will see, in the description: "This is a sonic mind-affecting charm effect."
Mind-affecting charm effect. Where's the debate? Just because the Charm effect only allows one of two responses, it is still a Charm effect. The player is no longer in control of his PC's actions, the Harpy is. Repeat: The Harpy is in charge of the PC's actions.
Again, are you saying a Charm effect is NOT a Charm effect? When do you determine if it is a Charm effect or a Charm effect?
That which you're arguing against is quite different from what I've said.
I never said anything wasn't a charm (or "charm-like effect").
Never denied (and have even acknowledged, if memory serves) that Captivating Song is a mind-affecting charm effect. Never said or implied any different.
About the only thing you're talking about that I *did* say was that I'd rule the Song as not blocked by Protection. But apparently that's all you truly and fully read, and you made assumptions of how I must have arrived at that conclusion instead of taking the time to really read and understand what I wrote. You replaced my reasoning with your own assumptions instead of what I took the time to write.
And seeing as you're about the third or fourth person to do so, I'm done repeating myself. If you can't be bothered to read closely enough to tell the difference between "not all charms are blocked" and "this isn't a charm", even when it's been pointed out multiple times, then there's nothing more to be done.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
@Castilliano: Might want to read PfE again. Hypnotic Pattern would be blocked. No where does it say it wouldn't affect non-Enchantment effects, so HP would, indeed, be protected against if from an Evil caster.
Nowhere does it say it would, and all the spell description and FAQ do mention are Enchantment effects, so why assume other schools are covered?
Just saying.You're likely giving PfE more breadth because 'exercising control' is a very loose wording. IMO, confusion & sleep DO exercise control over the target.
But they aren't affected.
Why is that?
Since the wording of the spell is leading to several 'valid' interpretations, I've been focusing on the FAQ.
(BTW, there's a thread from years ago where many regular posters came to a similar conclusion as mine. And many didn't.)
I think when the spell is doing the control, PfE doesn't work.
When the spell allows the caster to do the controlling, PfE does work.
How else do you explain how confusion & sleep aren't blocked?
No, really, how?
In the end, what I really want is a ruling. Or a (control) tag on spells so we can always know.
Until then...
Cheers, JMK
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly feel that while clear spindle ioun stone is very good, there should be more items which can be purchased to avoid your character being taken over by hostile forces.
Even if you purchase a +5 cloak of resistance, a character who doesn't CAST with Wisdom gets ruined by a halfway decent caster who can control him.
When the DCs start getting into or higher than 20, your +6 +1 (stat) and +4 from cloak, +1 morale (other ioun stone) = 12 is a 40% chance to lose against a DC20 willsave after spending 20k on saves (which is a decent chunk at level 12). A level 5 spell + a 20 attribute = 20.
And losing means murdering your party.
I think if you're going to take clear spindle ioun stone away, I would strongly advise printing a cleaner (more clear) item which does a +5 circumstance bonus for 8,000 gc against compulsion, charm, domination effects and possession effects. Without a cloak of resist, you will still lose against these types of saves without a good will save. Perhaps a minor and major version - with the Minor version being 2k gold for +2 circumstance bonus.
Such an item would still miss things that would make you afraid, sad, stunned, confusion, insanity ect...
Being taken over by other characters is not fun. Killing your party members is not fun. And building a fighter or weak willsaved character who can make these types of saves is not feasible.
You're going to love the seducer's bane, found in the wrists section of Ultimate Equipment!
|
:( Doesn't work, since it's a resistance bonus. If it were a circumstance bonus, or a sacred bonus, or a competence bonus, I would definitely consider. Although ~10k is a bit high to consider in addition to your normal cloak...
I would recommend a Lucky Horseshoe. It gives a +1 Luck bonus to all saves and a 1/day +4 luck bonus on one save for scary situations. Bonus points if you have Fate's favored.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'll bite.
It's good that the Spindle is (probably) going. It was bad for the game.
The risk of being "taken over" is part of the game. It's a key ability for various schools of magic and classes that use them. It's also a key ability of several classic monsters.
The Ioun Stone is forcing authors to put in questionable choices in adventures to circumvent it; labelling something which is obviously a possession effect as a "curse" just to get around it, or "can't believe he's not Evil" chaotic neutral villains.
If you're worried that you'll one-shot other PCs if possessed, maybe it's a moment to reflect on the soundness of your character building style. Maybe you've put so much trust in your spindlefinder that you thought you could get away with focusing all-out on attack, instead of a more healthy balance between attack and defense?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you've put so much trust in your spindlefinder that you thought you could get away with focusing all-out on attack, instead of a more healthy balance between attack and defense?
As they've pointed out, the game makes it really hard for defense to be effective. Not only is there only 1 offense to pour your resources into vs 99 ways to say you died, but offense can be inconstant and still be effective while defense cannot. Hitting 2 out of 3 times is still going to drop the monster eventually. Saving is not.
The game has a lot of rather cheesey surprise rounds, haunts (that replaced traps in the "i want to do bad things to the player without letting them do anything about it" niche) Stuns, confusions, and controls that limit how much time you can actually play the game in the game.
Of course, if you're really worried about it, you could be liberty's edge and go for the faction cards and get the daily double reroll. If you can fail the will save 3 times the dice gods have spoken.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, question: If defenses against mental attacks are being nerfed, does it make playing characters with low Will saves illegal?
Alternatively, does it fall into the 'Don't be a Jerk'/'Just playin' my character' guideline for Community standards, and therefore no longer recommended?
Through no fault of their own save money and rules mechanics (not being casters with awesome Will saves) a good chunk of my characters would run the risk of being under compulsions/etc.
This removes agency of the character, so if it comes up enough (which is why there is such a demand for such an item) a character should be able to get *some* form of valid focused defense against such an attack that is a lasting defense -- armor doesn't typically vanish after one hit, for example?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, if you're really worried about it, you could be liberty's edge and go for the faction cards and get the daily double reroll. If you can fail the will save 3 times the dice gods have spoken.
Unrelated tale: I watched a rogue natural-1 a Reflex save, then natural-1 the reroll. Ended up frying his cloak of resistance +2. 2-3 times during the remainder of the scenario, he failed saving throws by 1. It was crushing.
Am I missing something? I thought they only sustained you without food and water.
I must be missing something.