| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Protection from Evil is one of those spells that causes endless debates, not just between players and GMs, but between multiple GMs, etc.
Why?
Because of this sentence:
While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
If you live in a vacuum and ignore all context, it seems cut-and-dry. Protection from Evil is the "ultimate spell", a first-level spell that blocks all mind control.
Let's put in context. That'll clarify everything, right?
1. 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.
2. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect.
3. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell.
4. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires.
5. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
Now, we are truly confused, or at least I am.
Here's the way I parse it:
- Sentences 1-4: If I have Protection from Evil up and an evil being tries to Dominate me, I roll two saving throws. The first one is a "normal" saving throw, and if I succeed, nothing happens, as usual. If I fail the first one but succeed on the second, +2 "Protection from Evil" saving throw, then the spell affects me, but its effects are suppressed for as long as Protection from Evil lasts. Nice! All I have to do is kill that vampire in the next few minutes, or I'm going to be its puppet.
That's a bit convoluted, but seems to be an exact interpretation of that wording.
Unfortunately, we get back to the accursed sentence 5.
I'm still stuck. I'm wandering along, protected by Protection from Evil. A vampire pops out of the woodwork and Dominates me.
QUESTION 1: I make my first save. Do I make a second saving throw? It matters quite a bit, because if a second vampire comes along and tries to Dominate me, having those effects suppressed because of my success on the first vampire would be awfully nice.
QUESTION 2: When the heck does sentence 5 apply? After I've made a second saving throw? After I've failed my first and succeeded on my second?
It's getting downright silly, because we're in Wrath of the Righteous where the cleric can put up a 24-hour Magic Circle against Evil, and the party is trying to find a LE person to Charm them, have them willingly fail their first save, make their Protection from Evil save, and be immune to mind control all day.
I just went through the other 2 threads on the subject, and they end up with the usual: Coherent arguments on both sides, but no agreement.
I'd just like to know:
- If I'm unaffected by anything, and I get hit by Dominate, how many saving throws do I roll?
- Exactly WHEN does that miracle immunity apply, turning you into a super-being for the duration of the spell?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new save is against an effect that's already affecting you when PfE is cast; that's why PfE references the DC of the "original" effect.
The immunity is against things cast after you have PfE up and running; that's why it talks about "new" attempts.
Be sure to also check the FAQs already in place on PfE.
The new save is against an effect that's already affecting you when PfE is cast; that's why PfE references the DC of the "original" effect.
The immunity is against things cast after you have PfE up and running; that's why it talks about "new" attempts.
Be sure to also check the FAQs already in place on PfE.
Did that -- the FAQs never address the, "1st level spell shuts down all attempts at mind control" question, so I thought I'd try to get PfE a third entry.
Let's go for the record!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not sure your specific question counts as "frequently asked", to be honest. I've seen lots of "what constitutes an effect that exercises mental control?" and some other questions that led to the FAQs, but I've never seen anyone in your position.
What makes you think it doesn't work like I described?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The new save is against an effect that's already affecting you when PfE is cast; that's why PfE references the DC of the "original" effect.
The immunity is against things cast after you have PfE up and running; that's why it talks about "new" attempts.
Be sure to also check the FAQs already in place on PfE.
Did that -- the FAQs never address the, "1st level spell shuts down all attempts at mind control" question, so I thought I'd try to get PfE a third entry.
Let's go for the record!
It doesn't shut down all attempts at mind control. Only attempts at mind control by evil casters. A good or neutral caster can still Dominate you.
Jiggy is right. The wording is very clear.
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 second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.
It doesn't say it temporarily suppresses new attempts to possess or exercise mental control. It says 'the target is immune to any new ...' If you're temporarily immune to fire spells and are hit by a Fireball, you don't take fire damage when the immunity expires.
I'm not sure your specific question counts as "frequently asked", to be honest. I've seen lots of "what constitutes an effect that exercises mental control?" and some other questions that led to the FAQs, but I've never seen anyone in your position.
What makes you think it doesn't work like I described?
The fact that the sentence grabbing global immunity comes at the end of a paragraph describing what happens after domination.
It's pretty much the single-most important aspect of the spell. Why put it at the end of a paragraph like that?
*AND* it renders the 2nd-level Suppress Charms and Compulsions pretty useless.
You can argue all day that "this is why all casters should be neutral", but if you're running an AP or using demons or devils, they're losing a lot of their oomph.
Oh, I'm perfectly happy to go with the ruling as stated above, and I can use tactics to minimize it.
It just seems like a ridiculously overpowered 1st-level spell, and over in an AP thread someone said, "It doesn't work that way," so I figured it would be easy enough to come here and start a discussion.
I'm easy. Whatever works.
And playing it the way we've been playing it all along is the easiest solution of all...
It is a very good spell, yes. RAW it prevents dominate from evil monsters entirely. There's not much to debate here: you're the first person i've encountered who reads that differently.
You also get into very silly situations if you try to parse it as 'only immune if currently supressing another ability', as you have already discovered.
The spell is actually there for an important reason. Mind control spells are typically very unfun when used against PCs, and Pfe is designed to provide them with a quick, cheap method to undermine enemies such as your aformentioned vampire. Removing this functionality is making mind control enabled demons/devils tougher than their listed CR, for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a very good spell, yes. RAW it prevents dominate from evil monsters entirely. There's not much to debate here: you're the first person i've encountered who reads that differently.
You also get into very silly situations if you try to parse it as 'only immune if currently supressing another ability', as you have already discovered.
The spell is actually there for an important reason. Mind control spells are typically very unfun when used against PCs, and Pfe is designed to provide them with a quick, cheap method to undermine enemies such as your aformentioned vampire. Removing this functionality is making mind control enabled demons/devils tougher than their listed CR, for the most part.
Pretty much, "Yes."
Our mythic fighter can one-shot any other party member, so his player said, "OK, let's try this: Make it work using the other interpretation for just the next session. When you get the TPK because my fighter kills the rest of the party, we'll go back to the 'old' way."
I'm also confused -- I think this is the first time EVER I've been playing a rule correctly.
The world may be ending.
|
From the way I understand it if you are under Protection from Evil you are immune to anything that would dominate you. Period. If you are dominated and then someone casts Protection from Evil on you get another saving through which if you pass suppresses the effects of the dominations until the Protection from Evil fades.
Demons and Devils often have more than one use a day... They see protection go up, they dominate the caster, have him dismiss the spell, dominate the fighter now.. Solved
If they dominate the party caster(s) then having him waste an action dismissing a spell is not going to be high on the priority list in most cases. :)
|
From the way I understand it if you are under Protection from Evil you are immune to anything that would dominate you. Period. If you are dominated and then someone casts Protection from Evil on you get another saving through which if you pass suppresses the effects of the dominations until the Protection from Evil fades.
Just to be clear, The FAQ points out the Protection from Evil only protects you from, well, evil things.
|
Dominate, yes. But confusion still works. It doesn't make an entire school of magic useless. Also, I think a smart villain can do just as much damage by sneakily dominating the PCs' allies when they're not protected by PfE, as they could in straight combat.
Basically, any mind mage who actually tries to use those spells as brute force in combat is already on a second-rate plan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I've always seen this interpreted as the "blanket protection vs. evil mind control", I do agree that it's a powerful 1st level. Marked the FAQ button up top since it does seem like some disagree on the wording, and it'd be good to get clarification.
Amusingly enough, I started this thread to avoid derailing the WotR thread that started the discussion, and it pretty much got hashed out there. NobodysHome FAIL!
Thanks for the FAQ, though. I liked my point in the other thread: If you start a paragraph with a conditional clause or sentence, it's not out of line for the reader to assume the entire paragraph is subject to that condition. English is fun that it could go either way.
The vast majority say, "Blanket protection", even though some add, "And yeah, way too powerful for a 1st-level spell."
But even a couple of real live lawyers have trouble with the way it's worded right now in the PRD/CRB. That sentence shouldn't be at the end of a conditional paragraph.
|
|
It doesn't just hit 'mind control' though. Its also useful for the collection of harpy song, shadow mastiff baying and other stuff.
...that raises another question, if you're under pro-from-evil, does that mean an evil bard can't enthrall you or work any of his charm-compulsion bardic magic hoo-doo on you either?
There are actually a lot of baddies in APs who aren't evil. And even if there aren't, you're the GM so you can adjust. Don't go around making everybody CN, but there's certainly no reason to have every spellcaster the party encounters be Evil.
Also, let's not forget that while Protection from Evil is a first level spell (it's overpowered!), Protection from Evil is a first level spell.
Dispel it. d20+CL v. 11+Caster Stat Modifier.
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.
That is exactly how Dispel works. It's just a lesser known use of the spell.
|
|
Uh, that doesn't change the DC at all, so the level of the target spell is still irrelevant. That just lets you pick which spell you want to dispel, instead of just hitting the highest CL spell (or a random spell if there's a tie).
Whats important to note here (we need to define our terms) is that Dispel Magic determines Difficulty Class differently from saves.
Or to clarify.
Dispel magic indicates for targeted dispel:
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
The DC for pro evil would be 11+caster not DC 10+modifier.
This is different from the Save Harmless that Pro Evil generates.
At equivalent CR, its generally a 50-50 proposition. And generally, as nice as pro evil is, I tend to go for higher threat stuff if I'm a baddie.
Like say suppressing their magic items, which is a hell of a lot easier.
Where pro-evil gets really annoying for mind control folks is when the cleric breaks out the magic circle version. Then even the guys you've pre-controlled to be your meat shields get de-brain controlled when they charge an opponent. Fortunately the circle doesn't move.
[i/] Looks at spell again. [/i]
Crap, it moves with the creature.
Uh, that doesn't change the DC at all, so the level of the target spell is still irrelevant. That just lets you pick which spell you want to dispel, instead of just hitting the highest CL spell (or a random spell if there's a tie).
Nope, you're correct. Spaced and was thinking of save DC.
Nothing to see here. Move along!
Azothath,
If a PC has PFE up and is then hit with Dominate Person from an evil caster he never needs to save because he is Immune. The spell simply fails to affect him. The duration never kicks in.
Now, if a PC is being affected by Dominate Person and then has PFE cast upon him and he makes the save he is still affected by Dominate Person but it is suppressed for the duration of PFE.
The duration will need to be tracked to know when PFE drops and Dominate Person is no longer suppressed.
Where pro-evil gets really annoying for mind control folks is when the cleric breaks out the magic circle version. Then even the guys you've pre-controlled to be your meat shields get de-brain controlled when they charge an opponent. Fortunately the circle doesn't move.
Looks at spell again.
Crap, it moves with the creature.
You can solve this by magically mind-controlling archers.
Or you could do some good old-fashioned brainwashing (or even just misleading -- go go illusions!) of the non-magical variety. Protection from Evil won't do any good against foes of the non-evil, misguided, free-willed variety.
sadly I had originally used Magic Jar in my response and then changed it to Dominate Person to streamline it with the chat.... ahh well...
Even Magic Jar is completely blocked by Protection from Evil.
Attempting to possess a body is a full-round action. It is blocked by protection from evil or a similar ward. You possess the body and force the creature's soul into the magic jar unless the subject succeeds on a Will save. Failure to take over the host leaves your life force in the magic jar, and the target automatically succeeds on further saving throws if you attempt to possess its body again.[Emphasis added]
My ruling would be that Protection from Evil completely blocks the attempt to possess, and thus does not invoke the "... target automatically succeeds on further saving throws ..." clause. Thus, you would be free to attempt to possess a creature after the Protection from Evil effect ended ... though I'm not completely sure what the RAW interpretation would be, since the wording isn't 150% lawyerspeak.
|
|
I will add also, pro evil adds a certain element of reactivity to spells that otherwise are just pure burn.
Being confused has next to no response to clear it off for example, but pro evil can let the player contribute again.
It also arguably has some bad guy advantages in that it could be put on an evil barbarian (in its pro good variant) to keep him from being affected by a calm emotions spell.
And yeah there are ways around pro evil from a villain perspective. It does raise a question, is this a visible or detectable effect pro evil gives off that lets a potential enchanter know why his spells are getting no sold?
Being confused has next to no response to clear it off for example, but pro evil can let the player contribute again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being confused has next to no response to clear it off for example, but pro evil can let the player contribute again.Nope.
Well, crap.
I can go back to feeling like a total and complete jerk when I use it on my players. :/
