Wayfinder + Clear Spindle Ioun Stone


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

As someone that has no predisposition to other rule systems this is my interpretation:

Protection from possession and mental control

First- ...
- This has nothign to do with possession or mental control - Ignore

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.

- If you fail the first save the resonate ability activates (as if protection form evil were cast) and you get a second save at +2. If successful the possession or mental control effect ends and you gain immunity to further possession or mental control effects for 1 minute.

Third ...
-This has nothign to do with possession or mental control - Ignore

I'm not looking to start another huge long thread about this.
I am simply wondering if this has even been addressed in plain English how this resonate ability works or if this is still an area of debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just like protection from evil:

While wearing this, the wearer is immune to effects from evil sources that allow others to control this character's actions. (This immunity does not include things like confusion or hold person)

If this is put on while suffering ongoing mental control from an evil source, rather that grant immunity to the existing control, it grants a new save with a +2 morale bonus.
--

See the Pathfinder FAQ Here

Sovereign Court

Where is it written that it makes me immune without any saves needed.
Nowhere in the FAQ is this stated.
This is simply your interpretation which is up for debate.

There is a case for precedence where it works as a bonus save and not flat immunity:

Quote:
Clear Spindle Ioun Stone + Wayfinder = Permanent protection from control spells (that originate from evil targets).
Secane wrote:

Actually it doesn't out right protect you from dominate.

The protect from evil effect grants you 2 will saves on the first dominate attempt and protect you from further attempts from the same source.
That was how Mike Brock ruled it at a game, earlier this year.
Jeff Merola wrote:

We were kinda surprised at his ruling as well. (More so for the players actually playing at his table.)

From what I understand, he seems certain about it. I guess most other GMs don't see the spell the way he ruled it.

Mike's ruling in that game accurate or not almost identically matches how I had interpreted the rules without having any outside influence of other RPG rule sets. So it seems quite logical to me and furthermore seems to match the appropriate power level of an item at this cost level.


The discussion youre talking about at the bottom of page 8 in the best legal tips tricks and items thread

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r9pt&page=8?Best-PFSlegal-itemsspellsfeats tidbits-that-no#384

Sovereign Court

Chris O'Reilly wrote:

The discussion youre talking about at the bottom of page 8 in the best legal tips tricks and items thread

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r9pt&page=8?Best-PFSlegal-itemsspellsfeats tidbits-that-no#384

I had managed to remember that it was in that thread and not one of the million clear spindle threads that I was searching trying to find the quotes.

I already edited my post with the appropriated quotes but thank you none the less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Negative Zer0 wrote:
Where is it written that it makes me immune without any saves needed.

While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.

---

I guess I don't understand what you're asking.

Protection from Evil and by extension the resonant clear spindle power work exactly the same in PFS as they do in the PFRPG. (Maybe you meant this thread for the rules forum?)

People still frequently make mistakes but I am unaware of any actual controversy in its functioning.

Shadow Lodge

It's not a terribly powerful item nowadays. During season 4, I recall one charm/possession effect that originated from an evil source. Season 5 had perhaps one or two.

Back in the day it basically immunised you to an entire branch of spells, but these days evil bards, wizards(that aren't conjurers) and succubi are pretty few and far between and many mental opponents either use confusion, ex or su monster abilities or are neutral.


Honestly I feel like the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Now there is no point in having it because all the scenario writers have deliberately countered it.

It would be like being in a home game and having the ioun stone work one too many times, and then suddenly every caster of a mind affecting spell you face in every game and campaign thereafter is neutral. I get making the important villains neutral, but ALL of them?

Shadow Lodge

Well, it was ridiculously powerful back then. I think it's good for the campaign to shuffle the must-haves once in a while.


Well the deabate is if it works on harpy song.

It makes you puppet liek follow them, but some DMs disagree.

Silver Crusade

When the clear spindle is applicable, the first mentioned clause of the protection from evil spell will never come up, since the spell is constantly active. Therefore, the main relevant language from the OP is this:

"While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target."

The first listed ability for protection from evil is the case where someone gets affected by mind control and then prot evil is cast after the fact.

But, as has been pointed out, effects from neutral NPCs is the current theme of the day.


Finlanderboy wrote:

Well the deabate is if it works on harpy song.

It makes you puppet liek follow them, but some DMs disagree.

You are compelled to walk towards the Harpy and can take no other actions other than doing so. That is about as textbook a definition of ongoing control as you are likely to ever come across.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My opinion is that it doesn't work on Harpy Song.

Why?

Because if you use the statement, "If the control is an effect of the spell, protection from evil does nothing, while if the caster can exert control, then it helps," and apply it to Harpy Song, you'll find that the ability has an effect and that's what is exerting the control.

The harpy cannot mentally control you to do anything.

Sovereign Court

I think it'll counter a harpy's song, based on the relevant FAQ;

Quote:

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.")

The harpy clearly has an ongoing influence over the subject.

Arguably, also "puppet-like control", because if the harpy moves, you start moving towards the harpy's new position, like a puppet pulled by a string.

Silver Crusade

Where is that particular statement coming from? Also, further limiting player defenses against something like harpies is getting too close to player-griefing for my taste. Harpies are already inappropriately CRed. I see no reason to make it worse.

Grand Lodge

Andrew Christian wrote:

My opinion is that it doesn't work on Harpy Song.

Why?

Because if you use the statement, "If the control is an effect of the spell, protection from evil does nothing, while if the caster can exert control, then it helps," and apply it to Harpy Song, you'll find that the ability has an effect and that's what is exerting the control.

The harpy cannot mentally control you to do anything.

How would a spell like murderous command, how would these interact?

Shadow Lodge

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

I would laugh and never stop laughing if I actually sat down at a table with a GM who tried to twist the words to allow a harpy's song to bypass the stone. That's a baseless house rule.

Now, there's no way this item should exist at all - permanent immunity to a very common and dangerous effect? C'mon, that's ridiculous. But it does exist, and GMs are compelled to allow it to work properly, even if it does wreck certain encounters and force writers to make the sadistic, mass-murdering, demon-worshipping mentalist Chaotic Neutral.


Andrew Christian wrote:

My opinion is that it doesn't work on Harpy Song.

Why?

Because if you use the statement, "If the control is an effect of the spell, protection from evil does nothing, while if the caster can exert control, then it helps," and apply it to Harpy Song, you'll find that the ability has an effect and that's what is exerting the control.

The harpy cannot mentally control you to do anything.

If you ask me, this is more where a DM does not liek a effect and choose to read what they want into rukles instead of what is there.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

As long as the GM rules the same way for harpies' songs as he does for hold person, I'd be cool with either interpretation.

Silver Crusade

Disclaimer: I only own one clear spindle on all my PFS PCs combined, partially for this exact reason. And there's just a lot of bad will-based stuff that it *doesn't* cover.

Grand Lodge

David Bowles wrote:
Disclaimer: I only own one clear spindle on all my PFS PCs combined, partially for this exact reason. And there's just a lot of bad will-based stuff that it *doesn't* cover.

You mean if you're GM'ing you disallow players to use legal items? Or do you mean between all of your personal characters you only let at most of them have a spindle?

Silver Crusade

I have eight PFS PCs. Of them, only one has a clear spindle ioun stone, because of this table variation problem, and the rise of neutral casters, and the prevalence of effects legitimately outside the scope of prot evil.

As a GM, I obviously allow as many clear spindles as the players own. I also have a tendency to judge them in the most pro-player interpretation. Evidently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
As long as the GM rules the same way for harpies' songs as he does for hold person, I'd be cool with either interpretation.

Not the same thing. "You come to me" is mental control. Shutting down someone's connection between their brain and their nervous system is not.

Sovereign Court

If spindle was to be ruled/fixed to work in the way Mike Brock ruled in his game this item would be instantly better from a non-broken and also useful prospective.

If you fail a will save against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control you get a bonus save at +2. If succesful negate that effect and gain immunity to all futher effects from that target.

Now since it is no longer a blanket immunity the effect can be fixed to say:

Protection from possession and mental control (as Protection from evil except ignore evil alignment requirement)

It's now an amazing item for chars with bad will saves but isn't insane broken instant buy or so OP that all the scenarios make everyone chaotic neutral instead of evil just to invalidate this item.

This makes way more sense that it was the intent of the item (matches the power level and cost of such an item).

So for you non PFS GMS you now have a great way to house rule this item.

For PFS I still want them to lay out in plain English every step of how this item works. It needs it's own damn faq entry or just ban the stupid thing so you don't have to write every scenario to counter this item after lvl 4.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
As long as the GM rules the same way for harpies' songs as he does for hold person, I'd be cool with either interpretation.
Not the same thing. "You come to me" is mental control. Shutting down someone's connection between their brain and their nervous system is not.

That's not what hold person does. If it did, you'd collapse. Instead, it's a mind-affecting effect that compels you to hold still.

So just like Captivating Song is a mental influence that continually compels you to walk, hold person is a mental influence that continually compels you to freeze. They most definitely fall on the same side of the PfE divide, whichever side that might be.

Silver Crusade

Negative Zer0 wrote:

If spindle was to be ruled/fixed to work in the way Mike Brock ruled in his game this item would be instantly better from a non-broken and also useful prospective.

If you fail a will save against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control you get a bonus save at +2. If succesful negate that effect and gain immunity to all futher effects from that target.

Now since it is no longer a blanket immunity the effect can be fixed to say:

Protection from possession and mental control (as Protection from evil except ignore evil alignment requirement)

It's now an amazing item for chars with bad will saves but isn't insane broken instant buy or so OP that all the scenarios make everyone chaotic neutral instead of evil just to invalidate this item.

This makes way more sense that it was the intent of the item (matches the power level and cost of such an item).

So for you non PFS GMS you now have a great way to house rule this item.

For PFS I still want them to lay out in plain English every step of how this item works. It needs it's own damn faq entry or just ban the stupid thing so you don't have to write every scenario to counter this item after lvl 4.

As it has been pointed out, even with the most generous ruling (which I think is the RAW ruling, as I pointed out earlier) this thing's utility continues to decrease. Given the other toys you can put into the wayfinder, it's very hard to pull the trigger on the clear spindle.

The problem with Mike's version is that for a PC that can't make the will save in the first place, it just became basically useless. The way it is now, at most tables, it is a 4K insurance policy for high dpr PCs to not TPK their own group against a relatively narrow set of circumstances. I don't see how that's in any way broken.

Sovereign Court

David Bowles wrote:
Negative Zer0 wrote:

If spindle was to be ruled/fixed to work in the way Mike Brock ruled in his game this item would be instantly better from a non-broken and also useful prospective.

If you fail a will save against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control you get a bonus save at +2. If succesful negate that effect and gain immunity to all futher effects from that target.

Now since it is no longer a blanket immunity the effect can be fixed to say:

Protection from possession and mental control (as Protection from evil except ignore evil alignment requirement)

It's now an amazing item for chars with bad will saves but isn't insane broken instant buy or so OP that all the scenarios make everyone chaotic neutral instead of evil just to invalidate this item.

This makes way more sense that it was the intent of the item (matches the power level and cost of such an item).

So for you non PFS GMS you now have a great way to house rule this item.

For PFS I still want them to lay out in plain English every step of how this item works. It needs it's own damn faq entry or just ban the stupid thing so you don't have to write every scenario to counter this item after lvl 4.

As it has been pointed out, even with the most generous ruling (which I think is the RAW ruling, as I pointed out earlier) this thing's utility continues to decrease. Given the other toys you can put into the wayfinder, it's very hard to pull the trigger on the clear spindle.

The problem with Mike's version is that for a PC that can't make the will save in the first place, it just became basically useless. The way it is now, at most tables, it is a 4K insurance policy for high dpr PCs to not TPK their own group against a relatively narrow set of circumstances. I don't see how that's in any way broken.

With his ruling it's a +2 bonus with some flavor re-roll mechanics and a block all further attempts if you pass. Perfectly in line with the cost if you take away the evil requirement.

An item that costs 4k shouldn't be a lvl 20 end gear item. It should lose utility slowly as you go up higher in level.

Silver Crusade

Negative Zer0 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Negative Zer0 wrote:

If spindle was to be ruled/fixed to work in the way Mike Brock ruled in his game this item would be instantly better from a non-broken and also useful prospective.

If you fail a will save against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control you get a bonus save at +2. If succesful negate that effect and gain immunity to all futher effects from that target.

Now since it is no longer a blanket immunity the effect can be fixed to say:

Protection from possession and mental control (as Protection from evil except ignore evil alignment requirement)

It's now an amazing item for chars with bad will saves but isn't insane broken instant buy or so OP that all the scenarios make everyone chaotic neutral instead of evil just to invalidate this item.

This makes way more sense that it was the intent of the item (matches the power level and cost of such an item).

So for you non PFS GMS you now have a great way to house rule this item.

For PFS I still want them to lay out in plain English every step of how this item works. It needs it's own damn faq entry or just ban the stupid thing so you don't have to write every scenario to counter this item after lvl 4.

As it has been pointed out, even with the most generous ruling (which I think is the RAW ruling, as I pointed out earlier) this thing's utility continues to decrease. Given the other toys you can put into the wayfinder, it's very hard to pull the trigger on the clear spindle.

The problem with Mike's version is that for a PC that can't make the will save in the first place, it just became basically useless. The way it is now, at most tables, it is a 4K insurance policy for high dpr PCs to not TPK their own group against a relatively narrow set of circumstances. I don't see how that's in any way broken.

With his ruling it's a +2 bonus with some flavor re-roll mechanics and a block all further attempts if you pass. Perfectly in line with the cost if you take...

The ruling goes against RAW and makes the item borderline useless for a PC that already is will save compromised. That's not worth 4K at all. It's only worthwhile for PCs who already had a good shot of making the save. Who won't own this thing to begin with. How do you get rid of the evil requirement?

Sovereign Court

If a PC's low will save is the part you're complaining about, perhaps that PC should consider investing in items that increase their will save? The barbarian or gunslinger being easily dominated are downfalls of the class, and it seems to me that making a narrow ruling on the clear spindle stone is saying they didn't want a 4000 GP item making a viable danger completely non-dangerous.

Shadow Lodge

The Ioun Stone will always always be useful no matter what:

Hands-free Flashlight wrote:


CONTINUAL FLAME
School evocation [light]; Level cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (ruby dust worth 50 gp)
Range touch
Target object touched
Effect magical, heatless flame
Duration permanent
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn't use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched.

Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.

Silver Crusade

The Human Diversion wrote:
If a PC's low will save is the part you're complaining about, perhaps that PC should consider investing in items that increase their will save? The barbarian or gunslinger being easily dominated are downfalls of the class, and it seems to me that making a narrow ruling on the clear spindle stone is saying they didn't want a 4000 GP item making a viable danger completely non-dangerous.

There are still lots of things that go wrong with bad will save. 4K only protects from evil sources with very specific effects. Just not as specific as some people want to make them. At least, that's my interpretation of RAW.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

You can spend 4k on the clear spindle, or carry a scroll or two of suppress charms and compulsions. Which shuts down all charm and compulsion effects, no matter the caster's alignment.

I seriously don't get why people think the clear spindle is overpowered, and I don't buy for one second this notion that PFS scenario writers are deliberately altering scenarios to invalidate a single magic item.

Silver Crusade

Well, not everyone can cast the scroll easily. But yes, a level two spell would also by this argument be overpowered.

Sovereign Court

David Bowles wrote:
Negative Zer0 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Negative Zer0 wrote:

If spindle was to be ruled/fixed to work in the way Mike Brock ruled in his game this item would be instantly better from a non-broken and also useful prospective.

If you fail a will save against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control you get a bonus save at +2. If succesful negate that effect and gain immunity to all futher effects from that target.

Now since it is no longer a blanket immunity the effect can be fixed to say:

Protection from possession and mental control (as Protection from evil except ignore evil alignment requirement)

It's now an amazing item for chars with bad will saves but isn't insane broken instant buy or so OP that all the scenarios make everyone chaotic neutral instead of evil just to invalidate this item.

This makes way more sense that it was the intent of the item (matches the power level and cost of such an item).

So for you non PFS GMS you now have a great way to house rule this item.

For PFS I still want them to lay out in plain English every step of how this item works. It needs it's own damn faq entry or just ban the stupid thing so you don't have to write every scenario to counter this item after lvl 4.

As it has been pointed out, even with the most generous ruling (which I think is the RAW ruling, as I pointed out earlier) this thing's utility continues to decrease. Given the other toys you can put into the wayfinder, it's very hard to pull the trigger on the clear spindle.

The problem with Mike's version is that for a PC that can't make the will save in the first place, it just became basically useless. The way it is now, at most tables, it is a 4K insurance policy for high dpr PCs to not TPK their own group against a relatively narrow set of circumstances. I don't see how that's in any way broken.

With his ruling it's a +2 bonus with some flavor re-roll mechanics and a block all further attempts if you pass. Perfectly in
...

Except for the people that think it does work this way by raw and keep questioning the logic you are using to say no roll is required, hence the many many threads about it.

And the fact a cracked Amber stone costs 3,400 gold and only adds +1 to a single save. Ya adding a re-roll, a +2 to will (conditional) and a secondary blocking effect seems VERY MUCH in line with a cost of 4k.

Silver Crusade

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The people reading it that way I think are griefing the players unnecessarily. Effects that make people not be able to play are obnoxious enough.

Sovereign Court

David Bowles wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The people reading it that way I think are griefing the players unnecessarily. Effects that make people not be able to play are obnoxious enough.

For the record I am not saying you are wrong and I am not saying I am right. I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION.

There is yet another poster who claimed to have asked the writer of the book containing this item in person about the evil restriction to which he stated

The reference to (as protection from evil) was meant to reference the mechanics and not the restriction on evil only
I'm paraphrasing because again I cant find the post.

1,000 internet cookies if anyone can find that damn post, been looking for over 2 hours now. This is the interwebs so it's possible said person was lying out their @$$ but if this is indeed correct I think this item is very useful as a +2 reroll against all effects that possess or exercise mental control. I would buy this item absolutely under this premise but at the same time it's not a blanket buy for every character item with these rules either.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Negative Zer0 wrote:

There is yet another poster who claimed to have asked the writer of the book containing this item in person about the evil restriction to which he stated

The reference to (as protection from evil) was meant to reference the mechanics and not the restriction on evil only
I'm paraphrasing because again I cant find the post.

1,000 internet cookies if anyone can find that damn post, been looking for over 2 hours now.

You mean this post from a then-member of the design team? Wait, no, sorry, he's actually saying the opposite of that: it only protects against evil, because it cites protection from evil.

Sovereign Court

No I don't mean that post at all. It is a post that claims the opposite and is specifically mentioning the resonate effect and not the braod protection from evil spell.

He states in no uncertain terms that the person claimed the intent was to reference the mechanics of Protection from evil and not the restrictions of evil only.

However I fully admit to it having no credible backing to prove its legitimacy.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The post I linked was talking about the resonant effect in particular; the spell already has a FAQ entry.

Sovereign Court

Sean says
"As for question #2, the stone-wayfinder resonant power only works on said effects from an evil source, because the resonant power specifically cites protection from evil."

however as the poster claims the writer did not intend for that restriction to carry over He merly wanted to refernce how the ability worked just like protection from chaos states it wors like protection from evil. Basically he just dropped the ball on adding a clarification the same way protection from chaos clarifies that evil sources is chaos sources.

This is by no means absolute proof it just shows the amount of confusion even by pathfinder staff (assuming you believe the poster to be genuine) on how this item works.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Even if the poster in question isn't full of it, sometimes the design team changes things after the author hands it over. Therefore, if the author says the intent was X but a designer says how it actually works is Y, then Y is how it works, period.

Silver Crusade

The FAQ is likely we are going to get. It's just a strange case because the reroll language is almost certainly referring to a PC *already controlled* who gets prot evil cast on them. This situation is IMPOSSIBLE with the clear spindle resonance, as the spell is always functional.


The Human Diversion wrote:
If a PC's low will save is the part you're complaining about, perhaps that PC should consider investing in items that increase their will save? The barbarian or gunslinger being easily dominated are downfalls of the class, and it seems to me that making a narrow ruling on the clear spindle stone is saying they didn't want a 4000 GP item making a viable danger completely non-dangerous.

Definitely off topic, but I just had to say that barbarians are not dominated easily if made correctly. Actually, they could/should be the most mentally strong in the group. But I digress.


Driver 325 yards wrote:
The Human Diversion wrote:
If a PC's low will save is the part you're complaining about, perhaps that PC should consider investing in items that increase their will save? The barbarian or gunslinger being easily dominated are downfalls of the class, and it seems to me that making a narrow ruling on the clear spindle stone is saying they didn't want a 4000 GP item making a viable danger completely non-dangerous.
Definitely off topic, but I just had to say that barbarians are not dominated easily if made correctly. Actually, they could/should be the most mentally strong in the group. But I digress.

Barbarians can certainly gain strong saves with superstition but they wont be touching most clerics or druids Will saves or most non PFS charisma based casters casters.

Liberty's Edge

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

I think it'll counter a harpy's song, based on the relevant FAQ;

Quote:

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.")

The harpy clearly has an ongoing influence over the subject.

Arguably, also "puppet-like control", because if the harpy moves, you start moving towards the harpy's new position, like a puppet pulled by a string.

The sleep spell and confusion spell both have some level of ongoing influence.

The statement I listed is one that I think Jiggy came up with to help differentiate what spells are and are not considered blocked by protection from evil.

It works very well within the FAQ examples.

The Harpy song is the only one that I can see that would not fit well into the statement. But I believe that the Harpy is not exerting ongoing influence anymore than the sleep pr confusion spells and it certainly is not "puppet-like control" since the Harpy cannot make them do anything other than stand around and move toward the sound of the song.

Its definitely ambiguous enough that I would not argue with a GM who made the call either way.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

My opinion is that it doesn't work on Harpy Song.

Why?

Because if you use the statement, "If the control is an effect of the spell, protection from evil does nothing, while if the caster can exert control, then it helps," and apply it to Harpy Song, you'll find that the ability has an effect and that's what is exerting the control.

The harpy cannot mentally control you to do anything.

How would a spell like murderous command, how would these interact?

Murderous command would not be blocked, as the spell is telling the target what to do, not the caster.

whereas

forbid action would be blocked, because the caster gets to determine what specific action is forbidden.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Morphling wrote:

I would laugh and never stop laughing if I actually sat down at a table with a GM who tried to twist the words to allow a harpy's song to bypass the stone. That's a baseless house rule.

Now, there's no way this item should exist at all - permanent immunity to a very common and dangerous effect? C'mon, that's ridiculous. But it does exist, and GMs are compelled to allow it to work properly, even if it does wreck certain encounters and force writers to make the sadistic, mass-murdering, demon-worshipping mentalist Chaotic Neutral.

This is a very one-sided, aggressive, and argumentative stance to take. Just because you feel it works that way, does not mean that your interpretation is the only correct one.

Before the FAQ, there were many people who adamantly felt that if the spell said [compulsion] or [charm] it was blocked. Period. The FAQ obviously made a very careful distinction.

In this case, I feel there is enough ambiguity to justify allowing Harpy Song to get through protection from evil. I respect that your interpretation is different, and I'd abide by your ruling if I was sitting at your table.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

My opinion is that it doesn't work on Harpy Song.

Why?

Because if you use the statement, "If the control is an effect of the spell, protection from evil does nothing, while if the caster can exert control, then it helps," and apply it to Harpy Song, you'll find that the ability has an effect and that's what is exerting the control.

The harpy cannot mentally control you to do anything.

If you ask me, this is more where a DM does not liek a effect and choose to read what they want into rukles instead of what is there.

I have no problem with the effect. I feel my interpretation is just.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
As long as the GM rules the same way for harpies' songs as he does for hold person, I'd be cool with either interpretation.
Not the same thing. "You come to me" is mental control. Shutting down someone's connection between their brain and their nervous system is not.

That's not what hold person does. If it did, you'd collapse. Instead, it's a mind-affecting effect that compels you to hold still.

So just like Captivating Song is a mental influence that continually compels you to walk, hold person is a mental influence that continually compels you to freeze. They most definitely fall on the same side of the PfE divide, whichever side that might be.

I'd rule them both the same way that sleep is ruled in the FAQ.


Jiggy wrote:


That's not what hold person does. If it did, you'd collapse. Instead, it's a mind-affecting effect that compels you to hold still.
So just like Captivating Song is a mental influence that continually compels you to walk, hold person is a mental influence that continually compels you to freeze.

Nothing in the spell says, hints, or even suggests this. It is completely baseless comparison

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Wayfinder + Clear Spindle Ioun Stone All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.