Wrath of the Righteous - A Failed AP


Wrath of the Righteous

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,282 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>

I think it means what it says (which is what CWheezy is saying) which is: if you're under an enchantment before the spell is cast you get another save with a +2 (the fact that the spell directly says to "use the same DC as the original effect" supports this) otherwise you're immune to any *new* enchantment cast by evil people (or aberrations and undead as the case may be)


magnuskn wrote:

Two things.

1.) Taking this last sentence as meaning the target was immune to all mind control effects from the start does make the preceding sentences of the spell completely meaningless. Hence, this interpretation makes no sense.

2.) Even if you want to take the meaning that the spell makes you immune to all mind control from the start, that doesn't work, because in the sentence the word "new" delineates that the prior sentences dealing with mind control are to be taken into account, meaning that the simplistic interpretation of this singular sentence is wrong.

Incorrect. The line is not dependent on the previous part of the spell, or it would read, "If you have succeeded in suppressing a spell that exerts control over you, you become immune to any further such spells for the duration of this spell." Instead, it gives you blanket immunity to mind control spells for the duration, whether you suppressed such a spell or not.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You can't base such a conclusion logically on phrasing not being exactly like you say it must be. Please try to explain why we even have the preceding sentences if the last sentence confers to you a blank check immunity in the first place. It doesn't make any logical sense.


Here is the thing: why is the spell able to ignore the charms and domination of the opposing alignment... but not of someone who is True Neutral?

And again, the simple solution is what I suggested. Modify the spell and add two additional spells (a level 4 and a level 7 version) which protect against domination and charms of higher level.

As an added benefit, it reduces the effectiveness of Dispel Magic and the like.


Lol! I love that German stubborness Magnuskn, never change man:)


magnuskn wrote:
You can't base such a conclusion logically on phrasing not being exactly like you say it must be. Please try to explain why we even have the preceding sentences if the last sentence confers to you a blank check immunity in the first place. It doesn't make any logical sense.

Because it only gives you immunity to new spells introduced after the spell has been cast, not on spells already affecting you.

For example, if you were to be under the effects of Domination, and someone cast Protection from Evil for the second saving throw, you would gain immunity to all new, incoming, mind control effects, but not the Domination you are currently under. If you make your second saving throw against the first Domination, it is suppressed and you are immune to any additional Domination spells.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, okay, we were actually talking about the same thing, Tels. ^^

However, I would posit that you still are vulnerable to mind control if you have PfE cast on you before a mind control spell was cast on you in the first place. The text very strongly suggests that you are not immune at that point, but rather get to make the second saving throw with a +2 modifier... then if you make that save, you are immune to further mind control effects for the duration.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
I think it means what it says (which is what CWheezy is saying) which is: if you're under an enchantment before the spell is cast you get another save with a +2 (the fact that the spell directly says to "use the same DC as the original effect" supports this) otherwise you're immune to any *new* enchantment cast by evil people (or aberrations and undead as the case may be)

This is exactly what the spell says. I'm kind of boggled that people are able to read it any other way.

The intro to the spell says it does three things: ward a creature from attacks from evil creatures, from mental control, and from summoned creatures. The "from evil creatures" is a phrase that modifies "attacks", it does not modify the other two. So, in the intro, already we see that this is a powerful spell that's going to help you against more than just evil creatures.

Second paragraph clearly says that the +2 bonus to AC and saves is only against attacks from evil creatures.

Third paragraph talks about the second effect. You get another saving though against ongoing control and charm effects, "if one was allowed in to begin with" (emphasis mine). The "was" in the parenthetical statement, rather than "is", is what makes it clear that we're talking about effects that were ongoing before the Protection from Evil was cast. What's more, "the effects resume when the spell expires" makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about ongoing effects. Then, the target is immune to new attempts. At the end of the paragraph, it's clear that this is only effective against effects from evil creatures as well.

It's very very clear that the second save is against existing control, and that the target is immune to new control. In a game like Pathfinder full of unclear descriptions that are difficult to interpret and FAQ-worthy, I'm surprised that people choose this one to find confusing. It's very clear. I can see you thinking it's overpowered and wanting it to say something else, but it's very clear not only what is written with a careful examination of the language, but also what the intended rule is. (Sometimes a careful examination of the language gives you a RAW that's clearly different from RAI. This is not one of those cases. There's more than one reason to see that the second save is against ongoing effects; the "was", the "resume", and the fact that new attempts are specifically called out, which would not have been necessary if the blanket bonus was only against ongoing effects.)

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:

Oh, okay, we were actually talking about the same thing, Tels. ^^

However, I would posit that you still are vulnerable to mind control if you have PfE cast on you before a mind control spell was cast on you in the first place. The text very strongly suggests that you are not immune at that point, but rather get to make the second saving throw with a +2 modifier... then if you make that save, you are immune to further mind control effects for the duration.

Why? Why would you think this? This is not what the spell says. It's says that you're immune to new attempts. Not "new attempts if you've already resisted one". It means "new" attempts.

Look at the words. The subject "immediately" gets another save. That means immediately when the spell is cast. Also, look at effects that "resume" after the spell ends. That does not make sense unless we're talking about an effect that's already ongoing. If it was something you got a second save against during your time of being protected by the PfE spell, it would have said that the effects begin after the PfE ends, not resume.

If the interpretation was the one you want here, it would have had to have been spelled out. You've got a very willful misreading going here.

What you're saying is similar to looking at the "Special" description for weapons on page 144 of the Core rulebook. For example, let's start with the first one, Brace. It says:

Quote:

Special: Some weapons have special features in addition to those noted in their descriptions.

Brace: If you use a readied action to set a brace weapon against a charge, you deal double damage on a successful hit against a charging character (see Chapter 8)

You could read this and say, aha! The brace feature is in addition to what's noted in the description. All weapons are used for attack, so you can only use a brace weapon against a charge after you've already used it in a normal attack against the charging creature!

That, of course, would be a very perverse and wrong reading that makes no sense and is not at all what the text is saying. This is exactly what you've done with Protection from Evil.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes, "new" attempts. Which linguistically specifies that there were prior attempts, which presumably you were not immune to. I'm baffled that people try to read the spell as giving you blank immunity from the start. The sequence is made quite clear from the spell.

PC -> Gets mind controlled (i.e. was not immune) -> gets new saving throw with +2 bonus -> makes save -> now has that spell suppressed -> furthermore is immune to new attempts to mind control.

The only thing I find unclear is if you also immune to new attempts of mind control if you failed the second save and therefore your comrades can't even rescue you with a timely counter-dominate. ^^


bangs head into wall, Repeatedly
Lol!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, c'mon, gents, Magnuskn's interpretation isn't that bad.

In English, if a paragraph starts with a conditional clause, the rest of the contents of the paragraph might be assumed to be part of that clause, especially in legal writing:
"If a suspect is accused of a drug-related crime, he should be strip-searched. Suspects should be monitored 24/7 for drug use."

I think if I were an officer I wouldn't be out of line for asking, "Er, wait a minute! Do you mean ALL suspects should be monitored, or just the ones accused of a drug-related crime?"

After posting to the Rules thread, I'm back on board with the whole, "This prevents all mental control from evil-aligned people," simply because the alternative (as elegantly summarized by magnuskn above) is just a really weird, convoluted rule I don't see anyone implementing. "IF you're being controlled, and IF someone casts Protection from Evil on you, and IF you make the secondary save, then in that specific instance you are immune to all subsequent attempts to control you for the duration of the spell."

I also have to concede what several people so eloquently said on that thread: "Being mind-controlled sucks, and makes the game unfun. That's why the developers chose a first-level spell castable by both divine and arcane casters that blocks it."

I can accept an uber-powered spell as a "development decision".

EDIT: And yes, Tangent101's solution is so ideal you'd think he should be writing for Paizo...


i was just having fun with it, and yes i showed the spell to my wife (whom works at a very convoluted and confusing branch of government) and despite herself being exceptional at translating all the convoluted and myriad legislation they throw at her, was quite confused by the wording (tho she did come to the same conclusion i did)

i just love Magnuskn's ability to argue his point, very well said for sure:)


Magnuskin's interpretation leads to this situation: Cast prot evil on fight, cast dominate person on fighter, have him fail his save. orders are "Do whatever you want forever". Great, now he is immune to more dominates.

I made a list of custom spell nerfs, and prot evil was one of them. I made sure to nerf mental control spells into the ground though


CWheezy wrote:

Magnuskin's interpretation leads to this situation: Cast prot evil on fight, cast dominate person on fighter, have him fail his save. orders are "Do whatever you want forever". Great, now he is immune to more dominates.

I made a list of custom spell nerfs, and prot evil was one of them. I made sure to nerf mental control spells into the ground though

That was pretty much what my fighter's player said. "Since (the cleric)'s Magic Circle lasts 24 hours, we're just going to hire a LE goon, have him cast Charm Person each morning on the fighter, have the fighter willingly fail the first save, then cast Magic Circle and when he makes the second save we're good."

In other words, convoluted enough to cheese around horrifically.


magnuskn wrote:

Yes, "new" attempts. Which linguistically specifies that there were prior attempts, which presumably you were not immune to. I'm baffled that people try to read the spell as giving you blank immunity from the start. The sequence is made quite clear from the spell.

PC -> Gets mind controlled (i.e. was not immune) -> gets new saving throw with +2 bonus -> makes save -> now has that spell suppressed -> furthermore is immune to new attempts to mind control.

The only thing I find unclear is if you also immune to new attempts of mind control if you failed the second save and therefore your comrades can't even rescue you with a timely counter-dominate. ^^

Except any new attempts is not conditionally bound to being under the effects of a spell from a past attempts.


Tels wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Yes, "new" attempts. Which linguistically specifies that there were prior attempts, which presumably you were not immune to. I'm baffled that people try to read the spell as giving you blank immunity from the start. The sequence is made quite clear from the spell.

PC -> Gets mind controlled (i.e. was not immune) -> gets new saving throw with +2 bonus -> makes save -> now has that spell suppressed -> furthermore is immune to new attempts to mind control.

The only thing I find unclear is if you also immune to new attempts of mind control if you failed the second save and therefore your comrades can't even rescue you with a timely counter-dominate. ^^

Except any new attempts is not conditionally bound to being under the effects of a spell from a past attempts.

Now you're just trying to make my brain hurt. It's near Christmas. Shouldn't you be out trying to hunt down Santa or something? :-P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Argh! now I have to kick the kids off the computer so I can make a new alias:p


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tels wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Yes, "new" attempts. Which linguistically specifies that there were prior attempts, which presumably you were not immune to. I'm baffled that people try to read the spell as giving you blank immunity from the start. The sequence is made quite clear from the spell.

PC -> Gets mind controlled (i.e. was not immune) -> gets new saving throw with +2 bonus -> makes save -> now has that spell suppressed -> furthermore is immune to new attempts to mind control.

The only thing I find unclear is if you also immune to new attempts of mind control if you failed the second save and therefore your comrades can't even rescue you with a timely counter-dominate. ^^

Except any new attempts is not conditionally bound to being under the effects of a spell from a past attempts.

The wording suggests that it is. Because otherwise the preceding sentences would have not been included at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
EDIT: And yes, Tangent101's solution is so ideal you'd think he should be writing for Paizo...

Flatterer.

The problem with me working for Paizo (other than the fact I like my abstracter job for Ebsco) is that I'd be wanting to rewrite the Pathfinder rules. And I doubt some of my alterations would go over big - I mean, nerfing critical hits would probably annoy a number of players.

I'm more akin to the five-year-old that works for the Evil Overlord. You know, the kid whose one job is pointing out the flaws in the Evil Overlord's plans? ;)

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Yes, "new" attempts. Which linguistically specifies that there were prior attempts, which presumably you were not immune to. I'm baffled that people try to read the spell as giving you blank immunity from the start. The sequence is made quite clear from the spell.

"additional" would be the word you'd use to say that there were prior attempts.

When you buy a new car, you don't have to have had a car before. It just says that it's a car that's fresh and hasn't been around. That's the sense of "new" in Protection from Evil.

Really it's extremely clear, but you're also clearly extremely stubborn, so the most important thing is that the two of us never play in a game together.


I disagree I think you 2 should totally play together
charge admission and put it on cable:D


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
rknop wrote:

"additional" would be the word you'd use to say that there were prior attempts.

When you buy a new car, you don't have to have had a car before. It just says that it's a car that's fresh and hasn't been around. That's the sense of "new" in Protection from Evil.

Really it's extremely clear, but you're also clearly extremely stubborn, so the most important thing is that the two of us never play in a game together.

I disagree about your semantic conclusion. I think that's all there is to say about that. Given that I'd probably be the GM in any game we'd end up together, I concur that we better not play together.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Saying "Your" there implies that it is only his conclusion. What would be more accurate is "Everyone else's conclusion ever"


Tangent101 wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
EDIT: And yes, Tangent101's solution is so ideal you'd think he should be writing for Paizo...
I'm more akin to the five-year-old that works for the Evil Overlord. You know, the kid whose one job is pointing out the flaws in the Evil Overlord's plans? ;)

Well since Tangent won't grab the Reign as they say at Evil Despot U.* i might as well see what i can accomplish:)

*where i was at the top of my class in Goatee Stroking and Evil Cackling, as well as "How to maximize incredibly circuitous plans"


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:
Saying "Your" there implies that it is only his conclusion. What would be more accurate is "Everyone else's conclusion ever"

If you say so. Although that there are several threads on the subject would point to your statement being a bit, uh, factually challenged. ^^


magnuskn wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
Saying "Your" there implies that it is only his conclusion. What would be more accurate is "Everyone else's conclusion ever"
If you say so. Although that there are several threads on the subject would point to your statement being a bit, uh, factually challenged. ^^

Hmmm, a search shows that there are rules questions on protection from evil, the threads are interpreting the spell the correct way, but just asking things like: "how comprehensive is this" Or "Wow protection from evil really does this?"

Also even a james jacobs quote!

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k2o8?Protection-from-Evil#3
So I guess I have developer support + community support! That is a lot of support for a spell doing what it says it does


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

James offers opinions, not actual rulings, he has made that clear many times in the past. However, nice to know that charm spells don't even fall under the protection from evil purview.

And I definitely have seen threads where the wording of the spell was discussed extensively, so, again, nice try.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And so... back to the start of this question, isn't Nocticula's aura more of a charm/suggestion? Then it won't be countered by protection from evil.


thats what i gather as well:)
i'm also going to guess that Magnuskn works in linguistics and or law:)

edit: Also we're up to -7!
judging by the howl of the wind outside i'm going to assume the wind chill is substantially lower, but i'm not going outside to test that out:-p
second edit: just checked, wind chill: -25:(


Seannoss wrote:
And so... back to the start of this question, isn't Nocticula's aura more of a charm/suggestion? Then it won't be countered by protection from evil.

Not quite -- Nocticula's aura is very specific:

The Midnight Isles wrote:
Anyone within 180 feet who fails a DC 43 Fortitude save loses any immunity to mind-affecting effects, charm effects, and compulsion effects, and becomes fascinated by Nocticula for 5d4 rounds.

It's a pretty darned explicit, "Protection from Evil ain't gonna save you, kids!" moment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
i'm also going to guess that Magnuskn works in linguistics and or law:)

Historian, actually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice:-)
i love history!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, so do I. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
i'm also going to guess that Magnuskn works in linguistics and or law:)
Historian, actually.

Lucky...I'd rather work in History. Legal/Law, especially administrative and contract law was boring as anything you could imagine at times. Of course, exciting probably wouldn't be something I'd want either considering what excitement might involve (someone going ballistic and out of control and shooting me?)...so...

Yeah...I'd love to be able to work in History.

Do a lot of amateur history though...currently involved with WWI stuff (it is the centennial of all of it afterall).


magnuskn wrote:


1.) Taking this last sentence as meaning the target was immune to all mind control effects from the start does make the preceding sentences of the spell completely meaningless. Hence, this interpretation makes no sense.

You're immune to all new mind control effects and get a second saving throw against any mind control effects already in force. There is absolutely no ambiguity or a way to interptet this spell otherwise. There was in 3.5, where you could argue that PFE applies only to direct control like Dominate, but not to attitude adjustments, like Charm. Not so in PF.

And considering how inherently problematic mental control is, particularly against PCs (loss of character control is a fate worse than character death for most players, and more lasting by the time Dominates start flying around, too), I don't see much problem with such blanket protection.

Scarab Sages

For what it's worth, I've always seen this spell used (by myself as GM and with others) as granting a blanket protection. Once the spell is cast, PCs get a new save against ongoing effects. Beyond that, it provides immunity to any new effects so long as it lasts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, now that I think about it, there's a way for Nocticula to completely dodge Prot from Evil without the BS aura. Since you encounter her in her own realm, she'll have mythic. Just give her Beyond Morality and laugh in the face of Protection from Evil or Chaos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not going to argue the semantics of the spell anymore, since people are so dead set about keeping their blanket immunity level one spell which works against level nine spells. Not in my group and not with the other one where I am a player, either.

And Nocticula gets around the Spell with her aura of awesomeness, anyway. No matter how you want to interpret it.


All i know is their are going to be a lot more alignment variations in my campaigns.
CN(E), LN(E), N(E) AND LG(E) wil all become a lot more prevalent:-p
.... if they discover the spell that is:-p
(i'll most likely do as Magnuskn does)


magnuskn wrote:

I'm not going to argue the semantics of the spell anymore, since people are so dead set about keeping their blanket immunity level one spell which works against level nine spells. Not in my group and not with the other one where I am a player, either.

And Nocticula gets around the Spell with her aura of awesomeness, anyway. No matter how you want to interpret it.

Wow you are pretty salty when it turns out you are wrong. Unfortunately, this is the backfire effect in full force! It is a pretty powerful effect.

What level 9 spells does it work against? Dominate monster and that's it? Dominate monster is only slightly relevant for a higher DC so whatever?

Level 8 spells is mostly nothing as well, except for Demand which I think 0 people have casted, ever.

Can you explain how the Clear Spindle Ioun Stone resonant power works?

Finally, your way still leads to the immunity to all evil mind control spells, you just have to jump through a hoop first by blowing a charm person from your friendly wizard after you cast prot from evil.


So much for Karma huh CWheezy
Why can't you let him say "I was wrong" without jumping on his back!
so much for being the better person, walking away, and any number of "just let it go" cliches:-)
i for one enjoyed the conversation and never came away from it thinking Magnuskn was being an unreasonable jerk (a lot stubborn sure:-p) so why get all worked up about it:-)
or do you need me to put up a link to Let it Go from Frozen:-p


How can you justify a level 1 spell giving blanket immunity to spells up to and including level 9? Here is a counterpoint example: the level 4 spell Lesser Globe of Invulnerability only blocks level 3 and lower spells. The level 6 spell Globe of Invulnerability only blocks level 4 and lower spells DESPITE being two levels higher.

Protection From [insert alignment here] gives a blanket immunity against Possession and Charm, no matter what the level. That ain't right. No level 1 spell should be that powerful. Indeed, there is justification for nerfing the spell so that it only protects against Charm Person, a level 1 spell. If you want a higher level protection? Do what I recommend and create level 4 and level 7 variants (and even a level 9 "Ultimate Protection From [insert alignment here]").


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'll keep it to a "What Tangent said", because, seriously, not worth it getting the mods to work.

Scarab Sages

Tangent101 wrote:

How can you justify a level 1 spell giving blanket immunity to spells up to and including level 9? Here is a counterpoint example: the level 4 spell Lesser Globe of Invulnerability only blocks level 3 and lower spells. The level 6 spell Globe of Invulnerability only blocks level 4 and lower spells DESPITE being two levels higher.

Protection From [insert alignment here] gives a blanket immunity against Possession and Charm, no matter what the level. That ain't right. No level 1 spell should be that powerful. Indeed, there is justification for nerfing the spell so that it only protects against Charm Person, a level 1 spell. If you want a higher level protection? Do what I recommend and create level 4 and level 7 variants (and even a level 9 "Ultimate Protection From [insert alignment here]").

Having it apply against certain levels would make more sense, along with creating more powerful versions. No arguments there. I've never disagreed that the spell was powerful for a 1st level, just that it seemed like the blanket immunity was part of it.

As pointed out, even with the restriction that the immunity doesn't happen until after triggered, all it takes is a friendly wizard casting charm to "trigger" it. That seems more silly then just letting it have the blanket to begin with.

Tl;dr: I think the spell provides blanket immunity by RAW, but do agree that it'd be better if it were errata'd to only work against lower level spells, and make higher level versions of PfE instead.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You know what? Everyone is right... run it as you wish as this is the last line of that paragraph from the PRD:

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


Tangent101 wrote:

How can you justify a level 1 spell giving blanket immunity to spells up to and including level 9? Here is a counterpoint example: the level 4 spell Lesser Globe of Invulnerability only blocks level 3 and lower spells. The level 6 spell Globe of Invulnerability only blocks level 4 and lower spells DESPITE being two levels higher.

Protection From [insert alignment here] gives a blanket immunity against Possession and Charm, no matter what the level. That ain't right. No level 1 spell should be that powerful. Indeed, there is justification for nerfing the spell so that it only protects against Charm Person, a level 1 spell. If you want a higher level protection? Do what I recommend and create level 4 and level 7 variants (and even a level 9 "Ultimate Protection From [insert alignment here]").

I don't really see the need for a new set of spells.

If you want to spread out spell level protection, it seems better to add the higher level protections to the already existing higher level protection from evil type spells - magic circle against evil and holy aura.


Tangent101 wrote:

How can you justify a level 1 spell giving blanket immunity to spells up to and including level 9? Here is a counterpoint example: the level 4 spell Lesser Globe of Invulnerability only blocks level 3 and lower spells. The level 6 spell Globe of Invulnerability only blocks level 4 and lower spells DESPITE being two levels higher.

Protection from evil only blocks a small subset of spells, while those block everything. Seems fair to me!

It turns out that in general play, the immunity to control from pro evil doesn't come up very much. Wrath of the Righteous has many of basically the same enemy, so it is pretty good in that AP. You could probably think of other spells that would do something similar, such as create pit in paizo's next hit AP "Golems Ahoy"

This is actually why neutral is the strongest alignment, as nothing can protect from you


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Which describes a major flaw of this AP, that there are so many demons and evil outsiders. Or that there are so many miscellaneous feats, spells and even traits that give bonuses against demons. It makes something that should feel powerful (the demons) into enemies that are underpowered.


CWheezy wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

How can you justify a level 1 spell giving blanket immunity to spells up to and including level 9? Here is a counterpoint example: the level 4 spell Lesser Globe of Invulnerability only blocks level 3 and lower spells. The level 6 spell Globe of Invulnerability only blocks level 4 and lower spells DESPITE being two levels higher.

Protection from evil only blocks a small subset of spells, while those block everything. Seems fair to me!

It turns out that in general play, the immunity to control from pro evil doesn't come up very much. Wrath of the Righteous has many of basically the same enemy, so it is pretty good in that AP. You could probably think of other spells that would do something similar, such as create pit in paizo's next hit AP "Golems Ahoy"

This is actually why neutral is the strongest alignment, as nothing can protect from you

Sorry. I call b+!#%*#+. Why should Protection from Evil protect against a Wish used to replicate a charm or dominate-style spell? Because it will according to your ruling. You have stated that it negates the Enchantment/Charm branch of spells. You're Geased? Protection from Evil. Mass Hold Monster? Protection from Evil. Power Word. Nope, Protection From Evil. Because all of those are Compulsions and thus affected by this spell.

That's right. A level 1 spell just negated an entire line of spells. Hell, just slap a Protection from Evil on the PCs in Reign of Winter and they are no longer Geased by the Black Rider... and lose the +2 to one stat because the Geas was removed. (Because Geas is? Yup! Compulsion!)

Don't believe me? Look at this quote from the book: "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.)"

Power Word is an Enchantment [Compulsion]. Yet a 1st level spell negates it. Brilliant.

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,282 << first < prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Wrath of the Righteous / Wrath of the Righteous - A Failed AP All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.