PDA

View Full Version : Prot. From Evil vs. Hold dPerson



villainsimple
02-20-2008, 11:58 AM
Shouldn't Prot make you immune to Hold Person and similar effects?

Does it? I don't think it does.

Mad_Bombardier
02-20-2008, 12:01 PM
No, but it does prevent magic or psychic Domination.

Heladron
02-20-2008, 12:03 PM
I believe Freedom of Movement will give you immunity to hold person.

Talon_Moonshadow
02-20-2008, 12:04 PM
As far as I can tell it does not make you immune to anything except Domination. Maybe not even that.
I think this one should be looked at again.

I understand that Hold might be debatable.

But what about command?
Shouldn't it make you immune to command?! If that isn't mental control, I don't know what is.

Laith
02-20-2008, 12:05 PM
posessions are blocked (ie magic jar).

"enchantment (charm)" & "enchantment (compulsion)" are blocked, but only if they offer "ongoing control over the subject.

And the (physical) attacks of summoned creatures.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm

spells like command & hold don't fill that "ongoing control" aspect. They give a single command that lasts a certain duration. No further control can be had with that spell.

or at least, that's ONE interpretation...

rimble
02-20-2008, 12:08 PM
For what it's worth, the official PnP FAQ entry is below. The FAQ is not rules correction or errata, it's just the opinions of a designer:



What exactly does the second effect of protection from
evil do, anyway?

The Sage feels your pain. While the first and third effects
of protection from evil are relatively straightforward, the
second is less clear. The key phrase that defines this particular
effect of the spell is as follows: “ . . . the barrier blocks any
attempt to . . . exercise mental control over the creature
(including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment
(compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over
the subject . . .).”

(The spell also blocks attempts to possess the creature, but
effects that accomplish this are so few as to barely be worth
mentioning.)

The first part of this phrase describes the basic criteria by
which the DM should judge protection from evil’s effect: If the
incoming effect attempts to exercise mental control over the
creature, protection from evil likely suppresses that effect.
The parenthetical portion of the phrase provides two specific
examples (pointed, obviously, at rules elements of the Player’s
Handbook) to help judge what exactly is meant by that:

1. Enchantment (charm) effects. Simple enough—
protection from evil automatically suppresses any
enchantment (charm) effect, such as charm person or
enthrall.

2. Enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the
caster ongoing control over the subject. This is where
adjudication gets trickier, because you have to decide
what “ongoing control” means. The Sage
recommends a broad definition, which includes any
non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from
exercising full control over its own actions.

Examples would include the obvious (such as command or
dominate person), but also the less obvious, such as daze,
sleep, and Tasha’s hideous laughter. Such effects would be
suppressed for as long as protection from evil lasts on the
target.

There are still plenty of enchantment (compulsion) effects
that don’t grant the caster ongoing control over the subject.
Heroism, crushing despair, mind fog, power word blind, rage,
and touch of idiocy are examples. Protection from evil has no
effect on such spells.




It's pretty loose to be ruled however a particular DM wants. DDO has ruled that it doesn't apply to Hold spells.

GeneralDiomedes
02-20-2008, 12:14 PM
Blame the D&D scribes for yet another poorly worded definition. They should really hire some lawyers.

But anyways volumes and volumes and volumes of ink were already spilled on this topic long ago. Prot from Evil used to protect against holds as an arbitrary DEV decision, but it was revoked after Mod 2 as obviously overpowered. It currently protects you from a Vampire's (and Mind Flayer's?) Domination.

Yaga_Nub
02-20-2008, 12:15 PM
So protection from evil should work against Irresistible Dance right?

Laith
02-20-2008, 12:17 PM
For what it's worth, the official PnP FAQ entry is below. The FAQ is not rules correction or errata, it's just the opinions of a designer:

...

It's pretty loose to be ruled however a particular DM wants. DDO has ruled that it doesn't apply to Hold spells.heh, gotta love D&D. There's always a vague rule to argue about, where both sides technically correct. :)

in the end, the other posters are right: it'll come to game balance. a lvl1 spell that blocks so many spells for 1min/lvl in DDO is probably a bit too powerful.

Aspenor
02-20-2008, 12:29 PM
Back in the day, Protection from Evil DID protect from hold, dance, command, and all of the above spells.

It was incredibly overpowered for the DDO environment.

A trinket of protection from evil can easily be obtained by running a House P quest that can be easily solod by a high level caster or cleric. Having protection from evil offer immunities to all these spells was decided to be contrary to good balance in DDO. I admit, my rogue used to be literally unstoppable vs casters. High SR, good will saves for a rogue, protection from evil AND freedom of movement. I basically ignored casters altogether.

Basically, this decision came down to a balance issue. Turbine decided to change protection from evil to offer +2 to saves vs these effects instead. Last I checked, it stacked with resistance items, although the bonus wouldn't appear on the character sheet.

steelblade
02-20-2008, 12:37 PM
prot.from evil prevents charm,dominate,and other spells that need low will save from evil ppl
FoM prevents hold person,mold monster,ottos resistibal dance,dancing sphear,and iresistible dance ,GREASE


thats all i know

Mad_Bombardier
02-20-2008, 12:43 PM
So protection from evil should work against Irresistible Dance right?No. Sometimes, you just gotta boogie. ;) :D

MysticTheurge
02-20-2008, 01:08 PM
So protection from evil should work against Irresistible Dance right?

No. That's another "single command" compulsion vs. "ongoing control" compulsion. At least according to the DDO interpretation.

dameron
02-20-2008, 02:04 PM
It seems WotC has reversed themselves (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20070917a) a bit:


The key phrase that defines this particular effect of the spell is as follows: “…the barrier blocks any attempt to… exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject…).”

...

The parenthetical portion of the phrase provides two specific examples (pointed, obviously, at rules elements of the Player’s Handbook) to help judge what exactly is meant by that:

1. Enchantment (charm) effects. Simple enough--protection from evil automatically suppresses any enchantment (charm) effect, such as charm person or enthrall.
2. Enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. This is where adjudication gets trickier, because you have to decided what “ongoing control” means. The Sage recommends a broad definition, which includes any non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions.

Examples would include the obvious (such as command or dominate person), but also the less obvious, such as daze, sleep, and Tasha’s hideous laughter. Such effects would be suppressed for as long as protection from evil lasts on the target.

It's seems like an incredibly broad interpretation to me and would make that first level spell one of the most powerful buffs in the game.

Laith
02-20-2008, 02:14 PM
It seems WotC has reversed themselves (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20070917a) a bit:that's the same WotC quote mentioned earlier.

DDO just doesn't adhere to that ruling these days.

Karavek
02-20-2008, 02:20 PM
It largely stems from the makers putting in items without enough thought. I have never even seen a PnP game book or pre made mod with an item permamently granting protection from evil. and it would of been much simpler to remove the item or nerf it to only certain classes like paladin and cleric of good alignment using it. Instead they crippled a spell which was meant to be highly effective from 1-20 lvl.After all it was meant to make evil creatures using natural attacks recoil from trying to touch you as well but it certainly doesnt. Easiest way my DM dealt with the compulsion debate was if the spell was enchantment(compulsion)mind effecting regaurdless of single command or duration it stopped it, after all we want evil to suck in a fight, ofcourse could just make sure evil casters used pro from good more most undead casters in my PnP games do.

Laith
02-20-2008, 02:24 PM
It largely stems from the makers putting in items without enough thought.
yeah, i mean seriously: a lvl1 spell that makes you immune to possession, mind control, and so many high-level compulsions no matter the power or nature of the enemy! ***!

"Nah, think i'll pass on protection from evil and memorize sleep or magic missile instead." pfft.


I have never even seen a PnP game book or pre made mod with an item permamently granting protection from evil.
oh wait... you meant the creators of DDO... *embarrassed* :)


At least in PnP 1min/lvl is a relatively short duration. In DDO, it might as well be permanent.

MysticTheurge
02-20-2008, 03:24 PM
I find Protection from Evil as the Sage describes it to be a bit overpowered for a first level spell.

DDO's interpretation seems much more reasonable to me. Though the only compulsion that really fits the bill at that point is Geas/Quest and maybe Antipathy/Sympathy, Command and Suggestion/Demand. The sage's interpretation, on the other hand, seems to function against just about every compulsion in the SRD except Bane, Crushing Despair and the Buffs. (I'm not sure I even buy his examples. How does Touch of Idiocy, for example, not prevent you from exercising full control over your actions if, in fact, it prevents you from, say, casting spells.)

Angelus_dead
02-20-2008, 03:41 PM
I find Protection from Evil as the Sage describes it to be a bit overpowered for a first level spell.
Not only is that interpretation overpowered, but it is also explicitly against the PHB rules. In the PHB section introducing the different schools of magic, it explains the various kinds of enchantment spells. It takes you through the kinds that allow variable commands to be given after the spell is cast, and those whose effect was fixed by the spell itself. And they are clearly different. Dominate is the first category (and is blocked by PFE), Irresistable Dance is the second (and is not blocked).

There is some room for arguement as to whether Charm Person is in category 1 or 2, but that's barely relevant for DDO (except in the situations where players would like to charm a monster who is under a Protection From Good buff).

PS. Its not like the Sage column hasn't been wrong before. Do a search for "Vorpal".

Laith
02-20-2008, 03:43 PM
PS. Its not like the Sage column hasn't been wrong before. Do a search for "Vorpal".that was a fun thread :)

Angelus_dead
02-20-2008, 03:46 PM
So protection from evil should work against Irresistible Dance right?
Note that by the D&D rules, a level 16 wizard would be giving you a Mind Blank buff to stop Irresistible Dance.

It is understandable that Mind Blank is omitted from DDO, as it is rather overpowered. Of course, the same reasoning that says Mind Blank is overpowered would also say Freedom of Movement is overpowered. In both cases it would probably be better game design for the buff to give you SR 17 + CL against spells of certain category, rather than blocking them entirely. (Oh, and FOM should give a +1/CL bonus to checks made to escape a grapple)