protection from evil and will saves

[alanek2002]

I will be able to maintain protection from evil on myself, and was wondering, what examples of will saves doesn't it cover? I can boost my will save vs. mind affecting, but does that even matter with protection from evil?

[ericgrau]

It mostly stops charm and dominate. There are still a lot of effects remaining include mind affecting effects. Though charm and dominate are a good chunk, I'd guess 1/4 to 1/2 of the mind affecting effects that get used. And then there's the issue of the many will saves that aren't mind affecting and won't be stopped by your bonus nor PfE.

Other common mind affecting effects include the various fear effects and mental influence that doesn't involve ongoing exercised control like suggestion and confusion.

[Andezzar]

The problem is that the description is vague. Yes, it stops dominate and charm but it also stops: "any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)." I underlined the important parts. What "mental control over a creature" is however, is never defined. This could indeed be any mind-affecting ability, depending on how you define control.

[ericgrau]

I think it means "control" like an R/C car or similar. The ongoing requirement for the compulsions isn't a special exception only for them, it's an example. If you could somehow repeatedly pull the strings on someone's actions without an ongoing effect then I suppose that would qualify too, but I don't know if any such thing exists or even could exist.

Specifically it says "If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature". So it's warding against some kind of command sending system.

[Andezzar]

That is not my point, the ongoing control is only an example anyways. The question is whether making someone not do something also constitutes control or if you have to direct every action of the subject. Charm person is included, which cannot do the latter, so probably the latter is unnecessary. It gets interesting if an effect grants mental daze or stun or paralysis. All three control the subject in the sense that it cannot perform certain actions.

[ericgrau]

It clearly doesn't include all enchantment (compulsion) though. You have to figure out where to draw the line.

For example confusion gives someone the confused condition. Is that "exercise mental control over the creature"?

You can't fully ignore "ongoing" either, you need to figure out why it's in the example. Which I would think would be related to figuring out what exercising mental control is.

[Andezzar]

It clearly doesn't include all enchantment (compulsion) though.Where does it say that?

You have to figure out where to draw the line.I agree. The rules as written do not set a clear line though.


For example confusion gives someone the confused condition. Is that "exercise mental control over the creature"?That is the question. The confused condition forces the subject to perform certain actions. That is a form of control. It just is not of the form "You have to do A" but of the form "randomly determine which of five options you have to do".
Other conditions (e.g. dazed, stunned) affect the subject in the form "do not do A, B, etc." This also can be called a form of control.


You can't fully ignore "ongoing" either, you need to figure out why it's in the example. Which I would think would be related to figuring out what exercising mental control is.I'm not ignoring it, but since it only comes up in one example, we cannot deduce that it is a global condition for the spell to work. The only global conditions are "mental control" and possession.

[ericgrau]

Where does it say that?
The example would be needlessly complicated otherwise and would not be written the way it was. And the example is our best starting point for figuring out where to draw the line.

"Ongoing" is not necessarily the only restriction, but it is part of a greater whole which is likely to be similar. Not necessarily, but examples are not meaningless and worthless and should have some influence on the decision. The time for being ultra-literal is a theoretical RAW page. I think the OP intends on actually using this.

So for each spell you have to ask if the DM going to consider it exercising mental control. Usually I would think that confusion would be declared to not be exercising mental control, for example. You can try to stretch the meaning to high heaven, but I doubt the DM will go for it.

There have been similar threads on iron heart surge and freedom of movement that likewise got applied to everything and got extremely silly. Life freedom of movementing away any drawback from death. But I doubt many would play that way. Check this out :smalltongue::

Ah you're not reading it liberally enough. Any form of opposition is impeding your ability to move and attack freely. If someone is menacing a village and you have to go save it you are not free to move normally due to the threat. So freedom of movement removes all opposition to the caster of any form.

[Psyren]

I would say anything that doesn't involve direction would not be covered. For instance, Confusion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/confusion.htm) is a [compulsion], but the caster has no ability to direct what you do - indeed, they may even come under attack by you anyway. Similarly, Attraction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/attraction.htm) is a [charm], but unlike Charm Person, you have no chance of convincing someone to do something it wouldn't normally do, save by the regular means of convincing them diplomatically that's available to everyone. So I would rule that PfE doesn't affect or suppress either of those.

[alanek2002]

Thank you, all of you. One of the first threads I saw that was truly on topic for this many posts. It was very helpful, with only logic used. would have replied sooner, but was away from internet.

[Andezzar]

I would say anything that doesn't involve direction would not be covered. For instance, Confusion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/confusion.htm) is a [compulsion], but the caster has no ability to direct what you do - indeed, they may even come under attack by you anyway. Similarly, Attraction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/attraction.htm) is a [charm], but unlike Charm Person, you have no chance of convincing someone to do something it wouldn't normally do, save by the regular means of convincing them diplomatically that's available to everyone. So I would rule that PfE doesn't affect or suppress either of those.That may be a balanced houserule, but the rules do not use control that restrictively. Definition 2a of to control (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control) and definition 2 of the noun control fit both spells. So including them is at least as valid.

[Psyren]

That may be a balanced houserule, but the rules do not use control that restrictively. Definition 2a of to control (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control) and definition 2 of the noun control fit both spells. So including them is at least as valid.

Merriam-webster is unfortunately not a RAW source. Declaring someone else's interpretation of RAW a houserule and then citing the dictionary is pretty ironic.

[Cheiromancer]

I think the key term is 'mental control'. This is defined in the text of dominate person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) as the ability to "control the actions ... through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind".

The phrase from protection from evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm) that specifies that it blocks mental control has a parenthetical statement: "including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person." It seems to me that the purpose of the parenthetical statement is not to expand the protection to things other than mental control, but to clarify that it doesn't matter how the mental control is established; PfE blocks all such attempts at mental control, including, but not limited to, enchantment (charm) and enchantment (compulsion) effects. But it is not important how the mental control is established, it is whether there is an attempt to establish mental control.

Again, mental control is when you can control a creature's actions using only your mind. It is blocked by PfE, but relatively few enchantment spells involve attempts at mental control.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person).

Possession is blocked universally, as is charm. Attraction is blocked because there are no provisos on different charm spells. Compulsion is where the confusion lies because what constitutes "granting the caster" "on going control"

Insanity/Confuse may be considered a form of control but it doesn't really fit "grant the caster ongoing control." He has no control on your actions what so so ever he simply gave them the confused condition and the condition causes them to act abnormally

Now things like suggestion, command or geas do give the caster some measure of control and it can be ongoing. The caster has been given control over your actions. I'd limit it to just geas I believe the intention of protection from evil is to save a character from being enslaved.

Suggestion or confusion could potentially kill you but domination or geas could force you into being an NPC.

[Andezzar]

Merriam-webster is unfortunately not a RAW source. Declaring someone else's interpretation of RAW a houserule and then citing the dictionary is pretty ironic.I used a dictionary because neither control nor mental control have a definition in the RAW, unless I'm mistaken. If I am, please cite it. Until then, we have to resort to plain English.


I think the key term is 'mental control'. If the spell gives you the ability to "control the actions ...through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind", as by dominate person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm), then that is an attempt at mental control, and is blocked.Control trough a telepathic link definitely is a sufficient condition, but the rules do not say that it is a necessary one.


The phrase from protection from evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm) that specifies that it blocks mental control has a parenthetical statement: "including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person." It seems to me that the purpose of the parenthetical statement is not to expand the protection to things other than mental control, but to clarify that it doesn't matter how the mental control is established; PfE blocks all such attempts at mental control, including, but not limited to, enchantment (charm) and enchantment (compulsion) effects. But it is not important how the mental control is established, it is whether there is an attempt to establish mental control.I agree, but RAW is silent on whether mental control includes preventing certain actions through the power of your mind or whether active direction of the subject's actions is required.

@Lord Vukodlak: The phrase "ongoing control" is only ever mentioned in an example, as evidenced by the word including. So making the persistence of the control a requirement has no basis in the RAW.

[TuggyNE]

Possession is blocked universally, as is charm. Attraction is blocked because there are no provisos on different charm spells. Compulsion is where the confusion lies because what constitutes "granting the caster" "on going control"

Grammatically, both charm and compulsion are part of the same conditional ("ongoing control"). Not all charms are blocked.

[Andezzar]

Grammatically, both charm and compulsion are part of the same conditional ("ongoing control"). Not all charms are blocked.

As far as I can tell it is ambiguous whether the meaning is:
including enchantment (charm) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject

OR

including enchantment (charm) effects and including enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject

I cannot say with any certainty whether the relative clause refers to both effects or only the latter.

[Cheiromancer]

I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around what exactly is in dispute here. As I understand it, we are trying to discern the meaning of the following line:


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, such as dominate person).

One way to read it is as follows:

1. Protection from evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm) blocks all attempts to exercise mental control over the creature; attempts to exercise mental control include (1) all enchantment (charm) effects and (2) all enchantment (compulsion effects) that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, e.g. dominate person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm).

I believe this reading is unlikely. It is not the case that all enchantment (charm) effects are attempts to exercise mental control. To exercise mental control over a creature you must control that creature using your mind. If you cannot give or change instructions through purely mental operations, you are not exercising mental control. The paradigm case of mental control is dominate person. Spells that reference it, such as necrotic domination, would also be blocked by protection from evil.

A better reading would be


2. Protection from evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm) blocks all attempts to exercise mental control over the creature; attempts to exercise mental control include (1) all enchantment (charm) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject and (2) all enchantment (compulsion effects) that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, e.g. dominate person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm).

Presumably a spell like charm person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm) allows ongoing control, since reasonable orders are followed for the spell duration (provided they are things the subject would ordinarily do, or the opposed charisma check resolves in the caster's favor). However you don't use your mind to control a charmed subject; you have to speak to them. For this reason I don't like this reading. Tinkering with (2) yields the following:

3. Protection from evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm) blocks all attempts to exercise mental control over the creature; in fact, it also protects against effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject such as (1) some enchantment (charm) effects and (2) some enchantment (compulsion effects) such as dominate person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm).

This is effectively reading (2), except that it doesn't falsely claim that ongoing control is mental control. Even this reading has problems; the example should have been a spell that provides ongoing control without granting mental control, since ongoing control includes mental control. Also if this is what was meant the first sentence of the spell description should read "This spell wards a creature from attacks by evil creatures, from ongoing control, and from summoned creatures."

So I guess my preferred reading would be

4. Protection from evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm) blocks all attempts to exercise mental control over the creature; mental control includes some cases of ongoing control provided by enchantment (charm) or enchantment (compulsion); dominate person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) is an example of such an effect.

The weakness of my reading is that it leaves unexplained why there is a reference to enchantment (charm) effects in the description. I do not know of any enchantment (charm) effects that allow the caster to exercise mental control over a subject: that is, to direct the subject's view of you purely by means of mental operations. However it is not impossible that there could be such effects. So I think that (4) is the best reading of the bunch. There may be yet a better reading than this.

tl;dr Protection from evil blocks mental control, but does not block all effects that grant ongoing control. It blocks domination but not charm person. Protection from evil blocks mental control even if it is not from an enchantment effect. Thus necrotic domination is a necromancy effect, but since it grants the caster mental control over the subject it would be blocked by protection from evil.

[Andezzar]

You claim that control requires active direction of the subject. That is not the case, because there is no definition in the rules that restricts the word control in that way. Control by removing certain actions is also a valid meaning.

The parts in parentheses are examples, nothing more nothing less. So they cannot function as global restrictions to the rule.

Without the parts in parentheses you still have the full rule:
"Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature or to exercise mental control over the creature."

The problem is that the phrase mental control is not defined in the rules. So every group has to decide what they want to include and what not.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The parts in parentheses are examples, nothing more nothing less. So they cannot function as global restrictions to the rule.

In your opinion, the rest of us believe its clarifying the limitations as to what mental control means.

But lets forget that and take the following line.

"If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature"
The end of the paragraph seems to define mental control as something that makes the target follow your commands. Confusion, daze, stun etc are not commands even if you cover them under mental control.

The spell it self implies that mental control is command

[Deophaun]

I like comparing it to mind blank to determine its effects.

Pair the broad reading of protection from evil with nondetection, and mind blank suddenly looks greatly overpriced. In fact, for most characters, the broadly-interpreted protection from evil would be enough even at level 20 to make Will saves a non-issue. It's effectively immunity to [mind-affecting]. This makes me think that reading of RAW is incorrect, and it should be treated narrowly.

And if you read RAW narrowly, it's still a powerful spell that is worth preparing. Just using the suppress domination function alone has save my party's and my players' bacon more than once. Again, that tells me the narrow reading is the right one; there is no need to be more permissive in order to make it worthwhile.

As for what constitutes "ongoing," I'd rule that "ongoing" means you can issue additional commands to the subject throughout the duration. So, dominate monster would qualify, as would charm person. Geas and suggestion would not, as they are fire-and-forget effects.