I am raising this thraed because i have the same question as the OP.
Does anyone have more information or insight to share?
|
Other than being implied by its positioning within the paragraph, the protection lost by leaving the circle is not specified as only being the protection against possession or mental control. The sentence stands on its own and logically refers to all of the protection afforded by the effects of Protection from Evil.
So everyone who wants the benefits has to remain within the circle at all times, and moving out of the circle or the circle moving with the target such that you are outside of the circle ends its benefits for you.
If you were to change the wording of the sentence to be "Creatures that leave the area and come back are not protected in any way by the spell" you would have more words, but you would not really have any more clarity.
Looking side by side the 3.5 version and the PF version of the spell.
There are two major changes, the first one is that the 3.5 version prevented nongood summoned creatures from entering while the PF version prevents evil summoned creatures creatures to enter, which is irrelevant to our issue here.
The second one is that the PF version added the following:
"Creatures in the area, or who later enter the area, receive only one attempt to suppress effects that are controlling them. If successful, such effects are suppressed as long as they remain in the area. Creatures that leave the area and come back are not protected."
The first sentence just clears something up (whether you get mutliple additional saving throws to suppress dominate person and the like).
The second sentence seems to refer to the previous sentence, it's kinda weird because the two sentences are separated by a period (.) instead of a comma (,) but the context seems to indicate that the "successful" part refers to the "attempt to suppress" from the previous sentence.
The third sentence is the unclear one, on one hand it could mean all of the benefits of the spell, on the other hand this sentence could also refer to the previous sentence and mean that if someone with a suppressed mental control effect leaves the circle and then comes back his mental control effect is no longer suppressed.
Based on the position of the unclear sentence i am inclined to lean on the second explanation myself.
I agree. Based on the previous sentence, it seems that the sentence in question exists purely to prevent me from popping in and out of the edge of the circle and gaining a new save every time.
For example,... BBEG casts greater forbid action on me and prevents my barbarian from attacking (or my wizard from casting). Fortunately, the cleric has a magic circle up so I step 5' to my left, into the circle, and earn a new save.
... which I fail.
No problem. I now step 5' to the right and 5' to the left again and get another save ... which I also fail.
No problem, I now step 5' to the right and 5' to the left again (total of 25' of movement, so still a single move) for a third save, which I make this time. And then cast time stop and win.
The sentence in question seems to be there purely to prevent this type of obvious exploit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is my understanding as well. PF already nerved the Protection From Alignments spells this is based off of, where it no longer gives protection against some effects, and also no longer gives total protection, (now its a new Save), so to me it reads you just can't keep moving in and out to get a new Save. Even that, though, seems stupid, as it is a radius buff.
Inside your shielded, outside you are not. If stepping outside of the area stops it from having any effect, its a extremely useless spell and has no business being any higher than 2nd level.
|
I agree with DM Becket. I used this once with a PFS GM who caused it to completely & permanently stop functioning for anyone who left the radius. This approach renders the spell utterly useless, because the only way to move the protective area is for everyone within to ready an action to move with the spell. No way will a group involved in a battle all ready the same action, instead of fighting normally.
Most of the time I've used this it's with GMs who interpret it the way Becket suggests. This works much better. Not overpowered, but not useless. This is how I do it when I GM.
Given that some table variation exists, this is worthy of a FAW.