My interpretation of protection from evil is that it provides blanket immunity over charm and compulsion effects (from evil casters) where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person.
Not that it gives a +2 to saves against that, but that it gives a blanket immunity.
I would base my understanding on this recent source from the developper John Compton:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pl9q&page=2?Prot-Evil-FAQ-ruling-and-reson ant-Clear#62
Although, this source from James Jacob in 2010 seems to say the opposite.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kl0d?Protection-from-Evil-v-Dominate-Person#6
So.. to all you experts out there, can I ask you confirm if a protection from evil potion, drank before a fight would prevent (no save required)a succubus from dominating Valeros?
Or.. the spell hits (Valeros rolls a save and fail), but the succubus can't actually order Valeros to do anything during the potion of protection from evil duration.
Thanks
EDIT: Not sure why my links don't work
|
My interpretation of protection from evil is that it provides blanket immunity over charm and compulsion effects (from evil casters) where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person.
Not that it gives a +2 to saves against that, but that it gives a blanket immunity.
I would base my understanding on this recent source from the developper John Compton:
ComptonAlthough, this source from James Jacob in 2010 seems to say the opposite.
James JacobsSo.. to all you experts out there, can I ask you confirm if a protection from evil potion, drank before a fight would prevent (no save required)a succubus from dominating Valeros?
Or.. the spell hits (Valeros rolls a save and fail), but the succubus can't actually order Valeros to do anything during the potion of protection from evil duration.
Thanks
EDIT: Not sure why my links don't work
JJ post if from 2010, Compton post is a bit more recent (Mar 20, 2013), the FAQs are 2011 and 2013.
The interpretation has changed with time.Edit: URL )I am substituting the square brackets with circular brackets to keep it readable)
You have written (url=)address with the address outside the square brackets, so the address is the name of the url, but the address space is empty, that will return you to the thread from which you started.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
If it's a vote, put me in the "no" group. It's called Protection from Evil, not Immunity to Evil.
It seems, however, that a black and white ruling is sought that will allow this 1st level spell to trump any and all higher level spells that step on its proverbial toes. Is that really what John said? I'd be pretty disappointed if that were the case.
|
|
If it's a vote, put me in the "no" group. It's called Protection from Evil, not Immunity to Evil.
It seems, however, that a black and white ruling is sought that will allow this 1st level spell to trump any and all higher level spells that step on its proverbial toes. Is that really what John said? I'd be pretty disappointed if that were the case.
SKR actually.
Protection From Evil: Does this work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or just against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person, command, and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?
The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")
—Sean K Reynolds, 05/31/11
Here is a thread I have started about the advantage of being a neutral enchanter. It is less than 8 hours old, today it must be the Protection from Evil day. :P
If it's a vote, put me in the "no" group. It's called Protection from Evil, not Immunity to Evil.
It seems, however, that a black and white ruling is sought that will allow this 1st level spell to trump any and all higher level spells that step on its proverbial toes. Is that really what John said? I'd be pretty disappointed if that were the case.
It clearly states "immune" in the spell description. That is about as black and white as it gets. Also the ruling has been made rather then someone seeking a ruling.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Before this becomes a dog-pile on me, I guess I should go a step further with my statements:
If a player has it up before entering combat, I treat it as immunity. That is what the spell says, afterall.
Like Jiggy, however, I am confused by what was being asked and thought it was an invitation to discussion. Thus, I was discussing it.
@Jiggy, this is not a question of which spells are under the scope of the Protection from evil. We know dominate person is in scope.
I am asking if Valeros should roll a save when the succubus attempts to dominate him, or if he automatically succeeds.
Thanks
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Jiggy, this is not a question of which spells are under the scope of the Protection from evil. We know dominate person is in scope.
I am asking if Valeros should roll a save when the succubus attempts to dominate him, or if he automatically succeeds.
Thanks
Then shouldn't this be in the rules section?
But anyway, your answer is in the spell:
While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
That seems pretty clear to me; it even uses the word "immune". Where's the uncertainty coming from?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The uncertainty comes from the 2010 post by James Jacob. I tried to link it in my first post.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kl0d?Protection-from-Evil-v-Dominate-Person#4
"The PC would still need to make the save to avoid being dominated. If he fails, even though the dominate person spell affects him, the dominator wouldn't be able to control him. If the dominate person spell effect lasts longer than the protection from evil effect, though, then the dominator can immediately start controlling the PC."
Although, as this is old, and seemed like it was contradicted recently when John Compton talked about blanket immunity, I have to assume there was a change.
Indeed.
But as I wanted to check my understanding (I always thought we had immunity under protection from evil) I stumbled upon his post.
I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page on that.
Thanks everyone.
|
I'm pretty sure that all effects are suppressed, as you are warded, there is no talk of immunity anymore in PfE to any effect's, however if the bad guy makes good his escape, and your protection from evil run's out - if his dominate is still going, than it's time to make some saves.
According to the prd, there is no mention of immunity with Protection from Evil, only suppression. You get a second save if you fail the first with a +2 bonus, if you fail both, and the bad guy gets away you're dominated, you just don't know it yet.
Good luck!
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/protectionFromEvil.html#_protecti on-from-evil
|
|
Jiggy, I just linked it, immunity isn't in there anymore. Go look for yourself. Or here.
Protection from Evil
School abjuration [good]; Level cleric 1, paladin 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance no; see text
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, 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.
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.
On side note, the writing of the spell can be confusing.
It seems like the immunity to charms and compulsion is embedded in the second aspect of the spell.
It makes it seem like this immunity is conditional upon being affected by an evil spellcaster charm or compulsion spell first.
It starts by saying you immediately gain a second save, which means you are affected by a spell at that time. Like some kind of exorcism (although it does just temporarily shuts the spell off for a time).
So, what I am saying is that this aspect of the spell seems conditional.
Although the general agreement is that it is not.
And it does says, that the target is immune to new attempts, which seems to gives strength to the argument that the immunity is conditional upon already being affected by a "controlling" spell.
Or.. the spell hits (Valeros rolls a save and fail), but the succubus can't actually order Valeros to do anything during the potion of protection from evil duration.
This is the line jumping out at me in that instance
While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
So the dominate just flat out fails if it was cast ahead of time. I would have listed this first. The way its written right now makes it confusing.
If Valeros was dominated and then got the spell he gets a new save at +2 to avoid the domination working for the duration of the spell.
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.
Making a new saving throw is completely at odds with being immune to the spell to begin with, so i think they're totally different clauses for whether you're casting PFE retroactively or preemptively.
If valeros were POSSESSED instead, it would auto suppress.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as a player of enchanters... the spell confers "practical", not "actual", immunity from compulsion.
Here's what the spell explicitly says about charm and compulsion: "While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target."
So the target isn't immune to the spell, but he is immune to the spell effect. In other words, he still need to save (at +2 resistance) versus, say, dominate person, and he might well fail this save, but the caster (succubus, vampire, etc) won't actually be able to exercise control.
It's an important distinction since dominate person has a longer duration than protection from evil, and it also addresses the problem of a 1st level abjuration trumping a 5th level enchantment - it's really a temporary suppression.
So a succubus accompanied by a babau demon (I can think of at least one PFS scneario offhand with such an arrangement) might dominate a fighter, realize she can't actually exert control, order the babau to target protection from evil with a dispel magic, thus gaining control if the protection is indeed dispelled.
It's still a terrific abjurant for hard-hitting BDFs, though!
Well, we can say that the fact that the reference to immunity being between the 3 phrases here.. does give the impression we're just talking about the "exorcism" function of the spell.
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.
I'm just saying that the way it is written, can be confusing as to the intent of the writer on this.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, as a player of enchanters... the spell confers "practical", not "actual", immunity from compulsion.
Here's what the spell explicitly says about charm and compulsion: "While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target."
So the target isn't immune to the spell, but he is immune to the spell effect. In other words, he still need to save (at +2 resistance) versus, say, dominate person, and he might well fail this save, but the caster (succubus, vampire, etc) won't actually be able to exercise control.
It's an important distinction since dominate person has a longer duration than protection from evil, and it also addresses the problem of a 1st level abjuration trumping a 5th level enchantment - it's really a temporary suppression.
So a succubus accompanied by a babau demon (I can think of at least one PFS scneario offhand with such an arrangement) might dominate a fighter, realize she can't actually exert control, order the babau to target protection from evil with a dispel magic, thus gaining control if the protection is indeed dispelled.
It's still a terrific abjurant for hard-hitting BDFs, though!
If you read the sentence in question in context instead of a vacuum, this interpretation falls apart.
The sentences right before the line about immunity say "If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires."
Now, the very next sentence says "the target is immune to any new attempts". It does not say "new effects are similarly suppressed for the duration of the spell".
If they had meant for it to work the same as what they had just said, they'd have made a continuation of it. Instead, they chose to make a new statement that says something else entirely and makes no reference to duration at all. There was no reason for them to write it that way if that's not what they meant.
But putting things back into perspective, we have the developer John Compton talking about blanket immunity (see link above).
|
|
I still point to the multiple references of making saves against the spells. You're immune to the effects of the spell while the protection is up, but not from the spell itself. Yes I can cast dominate on you, yes you can fail your saves, and yes you're immune to my dominate effects until such a time as your protection drops.
But putting things back into perspective, we have the developer John Compton talking about blanket immunity (see link above).
John was talking about the resonance, however. The resonance is never going to wear off, so even if you agree with David Haller that the immunity is only to the attempt to exert mental control, not to the spell itself (I'm in that camp, for the record, but I see both sides as reasonable), the dominate will wear off before the resonance does (which is never), so there's not much point in rolling unless an enemy somewhere has the ability to dispel the Wayfinder and the knowledge of obscure resonances to know to target the Wayfinder, and if at that point the succubus is still alive to exercise her control.
@David, yeah this is my second option, with Valeros failing the save, but the succubus not being able to pass on commands.
That is really the second aspect of the spell in my opinion.
But from an intervention perspective.
A cleric cast protection from evil on Valeros after the succubus dominates him successfully.
But from a prevention perspective.. I always though Valeros would be immune.. but the more I read the spell, the more I get the feeling that the immunity only applies to the intervention, not the prevention.
And yes, Succubus and Babau.. that module actually initiated the questions raised for this thread.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I still point to the multiple references of making saves against the spells.
All of which are in the part talking about spells that are already affecting you. As soon as it starts talking about immunity to new attempts, suddenly there are no more references to making saves or getting bonuses. So on the topic of immunity to new effects, there are no such references to point to.
So, we are not all in agreement on whether Valeros (who drank a protection from evil potion before the fight) is:
1. completely immune to the dominate person cast by a succubus
(no save required)
or
2. immune to the effect of the spell, as long as the protection last
(save required at +2)
Would you agree, that this is FAQ candidate or not?
|
|
Okay, I see immunity, but I also see warding, and I'd say a dominate goes through, and you get to make saves, if you fail when the protection goes down you are under a evil charm / compulsion effect. Because GM discretion.
My bad, I thought I read it three or four times. ^_^
The difference in that paragraph is this:
1) If the spell is in effect before protection from evil is cast, then suppression happens.
2) If the spell is cast upon a creature that has protection from evil in effect, then immunity happens.
|
|
I still point to the multiple references of making saves against the spells. You're immune to the effects of the spell while the protection is up, but not from the spell itself. Yes I can cast dominate on you, yes you can fail your saves, and yes you're immune to my dominate effects until such a time as your protection drops.
That isn't how immunity works.
The saves are for any spell cast by an evil person. Or for existing control conditions to be re-saved against.
But if I have protection from evil active, then your controlling spells have no effect, I don't need to save, and even if that spell's duration is longer than my protection, it still would have no effect.
|
|
If it doesn't stop a spell caster from magic jaring someone under the effects of a protection from evil. It doesnt stop the dominate pain train.
"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)"
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Would you agree, that this is FAQ candidate or not?
No, I'm afraid I can't agree.
Idea #2 in your post requires the reader to believe that the authors wanted to say "suppress the effect" - which they were already talking about in the previous sentence - and chose not to say so, and not to refer back to where they just said it, and instead chose to say it completely differently ("immune to new attempts") when they really meant "suppress the effect".
Believing that when they said "X in one situation, and Y in another" that they really meant "X in both situations" is quite a stretch. With all due respect to the minds which believe it, that interpretation is not reasonable and does not follow from the text or from a logical (including rules of language) extrapolation of said text.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If it doesn't stop a spell caster from magic jaring someone under the effects of a protection from evil. It doesnt stop the dominate pain train.
"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)"
Again you've misread.
Look at what your quoted passage says: "This spell does not expel a controlling life force". To "expel" something, that something has to already be there. This line is talking about if you're already possessed by a ghost then PfE won't boot him out. As has already been pointed out, the immunity line is specific to new effects.
Saying you can't expel something has no bearing on the immunity to new effects.
Would you agree, that this is FAQ candidate or not?No, I'm afraid I can't agree.
Idea #2 in your post requires the reader to believe that the authors wanted to say "suppress the effect" - which they were already talking about in the previous sentence - and chose not to say so, and not to refer back to where they just said it, and instead chose to say it completely differently ("immune to new attempts") when they really meant "suppress the effect".
Believing that when they said "X in one situation, and Y in another" that they really meant "X in both situations" is quite a stretch. With all due respect to the minds which believe it, that interpretation is not reasonable and does not follow from the text or from a logical (including rules of language) extrapolation of said text.
Jiggy, it's not the "immune to new attempts" that is the sticking point, it's the phrase just afterwards, "to possess or exercise mental control". That phrase, and only that phrase, is in contention. If "exercise mental control" means, "cast the spell dominate person", then of course you are unambiguously right. If it instead means "exercise mental control over the person who failed his save against your dominate person, as per the text of dominate person", then not. For the record, it's a gray area, and though I lean more toward the latter, I think there's a lot of support for both. In fact, I'd say it was a coin-flip, but I'm inclined to choose on the side of the somewhat-overpowered 1st-level spell (and resonance) being a bit less powerful. That said, in PFS, at least, this issue is irrelevant over 95% of the time because villains don't usually have a chance to live for 1 minute / level and outlast the protection from evil, and a lot of PCs have the ioun stone resonance, for which it also doesn't matter.
If it doesn't stop a spell caster from magic jaring someone under the effects of a protection from evil. It doesnt stop the dominate pain train.
"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)"
I'm with Jiggy. You're immune to the possession, not just the ability of the possession to exercise control when the spell is applied preemptively. The spell is a walking example of an ounce of prevention being better than a pound of cure.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To be clear, when I made references in that argument to the "immune to new attempts" language, I was referring to the entire line, including the phrase you say is the sticking point. I shortened it for brevity, as citing that long of a sentence inside my own sentence would have been really hard to follow. :)
So what I was getting at is that, if "exercise mental control" means what you're saying, then the effect of PfE on newly-cast spells is that instead of being immune to the spell, it's effectively just suppressing the effects of the spell. I don't see a difference between "you're immune to the effects of dominate until PfE expires" and "the effects of dominate are suppressed until PfE expires".
Which means that, for this interpretation to be correct, we have to believe that the authors switched from saying what they really meant (suppress for the duration, but the spell's still on you) to saying something far less precise (immune, with no mention of durations) but with no change in actual meaning.
I can't think of any reason that someone who was already talking about suppressing only the effects (and only for the duration of PfE), would suddenly, mid-thought, make a drastic change to their terminology (changing "effects are suppressed" to "immune to attempts", and removing references to duration) unless they actually meant something different.
So in the case of an argument by impossibility, a proof by construction (showing that there is still a difference) is sufficient to show the validity of the other interpretation, correct?
Consider the following:
1) Valeros is dominated by a succubus who commands him to do a jig (and he fails to save). Kyra casts PfE on him, and he makes the new save from PfE. Seelah kills the succubus.
2) Kyra casts PfE on Valeros. A succubus commands him to do a jig (and he fails to save). Seelah kills the succubus.
In situation 1, the command to do a jig is suppressed by PfE. When the PfE ends, Valeros has to do a jig.
In situation 2, Valeros is immune to attempts to exercise mental control at the time of the succubus's command, so when PfE wears off, despite the dominate sticking (in this interpretation), he still does not have to do a jig. This can have wide-reaching effects if the command was more harmful than doing a jig. It also means that for a spell like suggestion where you give just one command at the beginning, under either reading, pre-casting PfE renders the suggestion as doing nothing, which shows another reason they might have chosen that wording under the "exercise != cast" interpretation.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hrm, let's start by making sure we're talking about the same thing, as I'm less and less sure that we are. Also, let's use an example that doesn't involve Valeros trying to "do" me. ;)
So let's say that an uber caster has 2x dominate person prepped, one of them quickened, and casts them at our party.
Harsk fails his save. Kyra comes up and casts PfE on him, he gets a new save, and he makes it. DP is suppressed for the duration of PfE.
Merisiel, paranoid rogue that she is, was already under a PfE when her DP got cast. If I'm understanding the interpretation being proposed, Merisiel attempts a save anyway (let's say she fails), but is not subject to its effects until PfE wears off.
Did I follow that right? And if I did, my next question would be: what is the functional difference, if any, between Harsk and Merisiel right now?
(I'm tempted to keep typing, but I should probably wait for a reply before I do, lest I muddy things.)
So when Harsk failed, the uber caster gave some command ("exercised mental control) as per the spell text of dominate person. To avoid worrying about whether it was "against his nature" with another save, let's just say it wasn't. When Merisiel failed, the uber caster also gave some command, also not against her nature.
When the PfE spells drop, Harsk will follow the command he received. Merisiel won't.