What's your limit on Protection from X

[Crake]

So I feel like there's been an increase in the amount that people recommend protection from X as a 1st level mind blank, acting as if it practically grants you blanket immunity to enchantments, despite the very clear term of the spells needing to grant onging control. Personally, that seems quite clear as to any effect that allows ongoing, directable manipulation of the target, as demonstrated by the spell's example, dominate person, and also the charisma check to force a charmed target to perform an action they wouldn't normally do (in my games the target is still treated as friendly, they simply cannot be forced to perform actions they wouldn't normally perform).

Where do other people draw the line? How many of you treat it as practically blanket immunity to enchantments? Which of the following would you allow protection from X to work against:

Suggestion

Suppressed: 6
Not Suppressed: 3

Command

Suppressed: 7
Not Suppressed: 3

Geas/Quest

Suppressed: 6
Not Suppressed: 3

Hideous Laughter

Suppressed: 3
Not Suppressed: 6

Hold Person

Suppressed: 2
Not Suppressed: 6

Confusion

Suppressed: 2
Not Suppressed: 7


*Note the above tallies do not all add up to the same number, since not everyone who posted their limits of the spell covered all of the above spells.


For reference, I personally wouldn't have protection from X suppress any of the above spells. Jack_Simth's post on the second page covers my reasoning quite well:


I tend to treat it as "Can the caster change things afterwards?" for the main determinant.

So Suggestion (one off command, even though it may take several hours to complete) gets through, as does the general Command spell. Something like Charm Person, on the other hand, does not (caster can do stuff after).

That said, so far psyren's post seems to be the most agreed upon, and the numbers above reflect that:



Suggestion: Suppressed
Command: Suppressed
Geas/Quest: Suppressed
Hideous Laughter: Unaffected
Hold Person: Unaffected
Confusion: Unaffected

[legomaster00156]

Pretty sure it just gives self-control when possessed or dominated.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The text says that it blocks "any attempt... to exercise mental control over the target" and then gives examples in parentheses. Unless we have the example list to be exhaustive then there must be effects that aside from what it lists.

Based on your list: I would have it block command and suggestion since those exercise mental control over the target but confusion since I, the caster of confusion, have no control over the targets actions. Another example I would say that is not stopped is Daze: it is not an ongoing compulsion like in the example and and does not offer control over actions, just the restriction thereof. (I understand some people may think my definition is a bit splitting hairs, but it works for me).

[flappeercraft]

I allow it to protect from just mental control regardless of source. Mind affecting still works so Confusion and Hideous Laughter do work but Suggestion, Geas/Quest and Command won't. Even non mind affecting effects that are mind control such as Controlling Undead through Clerics Turn/Rebuke ability works, since it never specifies it must be mind affecting.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Pretty sure it just gives self-control when possessed or dominated.

Sorry for the double post but it is just easier this way when on my phone: it explicitly blocks ongoing charms by example, otherwise I would not include them.

I essentially test: is it an ongoing charm or compulsion? Yes: it is blocked or No: continue on;
Then: does it permit the controller to mandate an action(s), not just inflict a state where actions are difficult? Yes: it is blocked; No: it is not blocked.

[Nifft]

Yeah it's a weird spell.

In my interpretation of the rules, charm doesn't give you control of someone else, it merely clouds that person's judgment such that they are friendly towards you.

The spell even supports this reading pretty explicitly:



The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.


... so at my table, protection from ___ would not apply to charm person.

The explicit example (dominate person) is quite obviously an ongoing control effect. Applies? Yes.

Suggestion is ... not. Does not apply.

Command is not ongoing. Does not apply.

Geas/Quest is ongoing, and certainly tries to control your actions. I think yes.

Confusion ... hmm. Seems more like enforced chaos than enforced control. Maybe protection from chaos should work here. That would give protection from chaos a bit more of a reason to live than it currently has.

Tasha's hideous laughter and Otto's irresistible dance both do dictate your behavior, and are ongoing. Are they control effects? I guess, technically, so that's another yes.

[Kayblis]

Command is not ongoing. Does not apply.


Would that mean that Greater Command(basically Command with many targets and duration of 1 round/level) would be blocked while plain old Command wouldn't? Yeah, Protection from X spells get confusing sometimes. I believe Command should be blocked for it dictates your next action in your own round, and the debate goes both ways.

[Zanos]

Pretty much anything that influences someones mind and has a duration. Even spells where you dont make the decisions like confusion are still mentally controlling the target in limited ways.

I dont let players make dirt cheap custom magic items though, and you cant persist it sinc its touch. So its usually just a panic button for blocking stuff during a fight.

[Psyren]

Where do other people draw the line? How many of you treat it as practically blanket immunity to enchantments? Which of the following would you allow protection from X to work against:

Suggestion
Command
Geas/Quest
Hideous Laughter
Hold Person
Confusion


Unsure of 3.5's guidance on this, but Pathfinder provided an official ruling. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o2p) So to address your examples, in PF:


Suggestion: Suppressed
Command: Suppressed
Geas/Quest: Suppressed
Hideous Laughter: Unaffected
Hold Person: Unaffected
Confusion: Unaffected


Note also that in PF, the alignment component of the protection does matter. Thus, being true neutral allows an enchanter to circumvent this defense, which is (in my opinion) a fitting alignment for an amoral puppeteer anyway.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Unsure of 3.5's guidance on this, but Pathfinder provided an official ruling. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o2p) So to address your examples, in PF:


Suggestion: Suppressed
Command: Suppressed
Geas/Quest: Suppressed
Hideous Laughter: Unaffected
Hold Person: Unaffected
Confusion: Unaffected

How excellent, that's exactly what I was going with.

[ryu]

Pretty much anything that influences someones mind and has a duration. Even spells where you dont make the decisions like confusion are still mentally controlling the target in limited ways.

I dont let players make dirt cheap custom magic items though, and you cant persist it sinc its touch. So its usually just a panic button for blocking stuff during a fight.

I mean wasn't there that canonically existent banner that spread one of the protection effects in a thirty foot radius?

[Psyren]

I dont let players make dirt cheap custom magic items though, and you cant persist it sinc its touch. So its usually just a panic button for blocking stuff during a fight.

You can get it long duration pretty easily if you want it. For example, you can get a Coure Eladrin familiar (or bind one) and have it ride on your shoulder for several days, if not indefinitely.

[Zanos]

I mean wasn't there that canonically existent banner that spread one of the protection effects in a thirty foot radius?
Magic Circle Against X has a pretty good duration, but a 10ft radius is kind of pathetic in combat. It's also a higher level spell.


You can get it long duration pretty easily if you want it. For example, you can get a Coure Eladrin familiar (or bind one) and have it ride on your shoulder for several days, if not indefinitely.
Fairly certain that requires improved familiar, and getting limited immunity to mental control for a feat isn't outside the realm of what's reasonable. As for planar binding one, if there's two parts to a strong combo and one of those parts is planar binding, the safe bet is usually on planar binding being the strong part.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Shape Soulmeld (Planar Ward) will protect anyone with 13+ constitution. It has the exact same effect as the mind control clause of protection from evil. I don't think it's great value for a feat, but it's straightforward, doesn't take an item slot, and much harder to dispel than a CL 1 custom item.

[Psyren]

Fairly certain that requires improved familiar, and getting limited immunity to mental control for a feat isn't outside the realm of what's reasonable.

It's not, but your interpretation wasn't very limited at all. To quote your earlier post, you said:

"Pretty much anything that influences someones mind and has a duration."

Which is broad enough to be Level 1 Mind Blank, minus the divination stuff (which is usually only relevant for NPCs anyway.)

[ZamielVanWeber]

Unsure of 3.5's guidance on this, but Pathfinder provided an official ruling. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o2p) So to address your examples, in PF:


Suggestion: Suppressed
Command: Suppressed
Geas/Quest: Suppressed
Hideous Laughter: Unaffected
Hold Person: Unaffected
Confusion: Unaffected


Note also that in PF, the alignment component of the protection does matter. Thus, being true neutral allows an enchanter to circumvent this defense, which is (in my opinion) a fitting alignment for an amoral puppeteer anyway.

This generally falls within what I would rule, cool. I tend to be harsh on Pathfinder but I admit I do appreciate that change to the protection spells.

[Zanos]

It's not, but your interpretation wasn't very limited at all. To quote your earlier post, you said:

"Pretty much anything that influences someones mind and has a duration."

Which is broad enough to be Level 1 Mind Blank, minus the divination stuff (which is usually only relevant for NPCs anyway.)
Spells which are mind-affecting aren't always the same as mental control. And a feat plus a tax feat buys completely immunity to mind-affecting.


Note also that in PF, the alignment component of the protection does matter. Thus, being true neutral allows an enchanter to circumvent this defense, which is (in my opinion) a fitting alignment for an amoral puppeteer anyway.
Neutral people have compunctions about harming others. An amoral puppeteer would probably be Neutral Evil, because True Neutral people still have some morals.

[Psyren]

Spells which are mind-affecting aren't always the same as mental control.

You keep saying things I agree with, but that don't jive with the (very) broad definition you used.


And a feat plus a tax feat buys completely immunity to mind-affecting.

Not sure what this is referring to.


Neutral people have compunctions about harming others.

Charms and compulsions aren't inherently harmful though. Quite the opposite in many cases, as they allow you to easily bypass more violent conflict entirely. For example, if you need vital information from a prisoner, I'd say beating or torturing it out of them would be much closer to evil than simply charming them and asking.

[ryu]

Magic Circle Against X has a pretty good duration, but a 10ft radius is kind of pathetic in combat. It's also a higher level spell.



NOPE! Just found it. Protection from evil banner in heroes of battle grants the protection from evil buff continuously to a 30 foot radius. It also costs 8000 GP.

[Crake]

Unsure of 3.5's guidance on this, but Pathfinder provided an official ruling. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o2p) So to address your examples, in PF:


Suggestion: Suppressed
Command: Suppressed
Geas/Quest: Suppressed
Hideous Laughter: Unaffected
Hold Person: Unaffected
Confusion: Unaffected


Note also that in PF, the alignment component of the protection does matter. Thus, being true neutral allows an enchanter to circumvent this defense, which is (in my opinion) a fitting alignment for an amoral puppeteer anyway.

Honestly, by the answer the paizo guys gave, I would say suggestion and geas/quest would not be suppressed, because they don't provide ongoing, puppet-like control. Suggestion is a single, reasonable suggestion that the target can follow in whatever method they choose, while geas/quest is a single, task that they are forced to complete against their will, but again, using whatever method they choose.

[Psyren]

Honestly, by the answer the paizo guys gave, I would say suggestion and geas/quest would not be suppressed, because they don't provide ongoing, puppet-like control. Suggestion is a single, reasonable suggestion that the target can follow in whatever method they choose, while geas/quest is a single, task that they are forced to complete against their will, but again, using whatever method they choose.

The line is simple: if you're giving orders (or "suggesting" them), it's suppressible. Suggestion, Command, Geas, Demand, they all fall under this.

[Crake]

The line is simple: if you're giving orders (or "suggesting" them), it's suppressible. Suggestion, Command, Geas, Demand, they all fall under this.

Then wouldn't hold person and hideous laughter also count? You're giving orders: Laugh/don't move.

[Psyren]

Then wouldn't hold person and hideous laughter also count? You're giving orders: Laugh/don't move.

You're not - in those cases, the spells themselves compel specific behaviors over which the caster has no input. Similarly, the caster doesn't get to give orders with Confusion either.

[Chronikoce]

The line is simple: if you're giving orders (or "suggesting" them), it's suppressible. Suggestion, Command, Geas, Demand, they all fall under this.

Personally, I think the text of Geas is pretty clear as to the intended power. Nothing shy of limited wish, wish, or miracle can stop it. Therefore a 1st level spell is going to do diddly to prevent it.

[Psyren]

Personally, I think the text of Geas is pretty clear as to the intended power. Nothing shy of limited wish, wish, or miracle can stop it. Therefore a 1st level spell is going to do diddly to prevent it.

That text says those spells are required to end a geas. Suppressing it is a different matter entirely. In your games, if a geased creature enters a dead magic zone, would they still be compelled to follow its directives (or take penalties for not doing so)?

Also, Break Enchantment and Remove Curse explicitly kill a Geas and those are well shy of miracle/wish.

[Crake]

That text says those spells are required to end a geas. Suppressing it is a different matter entirely. In your games, if a geased creature enters a dead magic zone, would they still be compelled to follow its directives (or take penalties for not doing so)?

Also, Break Enchantment and Remove Curse explicitly kill a Geas and those are well shy of miracle/wish.

Break enchantment certainly does not remove it, and remove curse only works if your CL is two higher than the CL of the geas.

[Psyren]

Break enchantment certainly does not remove it, and remove curse only works if your CL is two higher than the CL of the geas.

You're right, I conflated with lesser geas. Still, point stands, Remove Curse is considerably less powerful than Wish and Miracle, as is Antimagic Field.

[RoboEmperor]

It affects all mind-affecting enchantment spells, including those with instantaneous duration and the like.

The spell suppresses all mind-affecting enchantment spells regardless of duration. If it suppresses spells that last 1hour, why wouldn't it suppress spells that last 0.01 second? Or 0 seconds?

The spell's weakness is that it doesn't provide immunity, only temporary relief, so once the 1min/level is up, you're screwed, which is why it's awesome against spells that last less than 1min/level.

Pathfinder's ruling does not apply to 3.5, and I find a LOT of pathfinder's official rulings to be dubious, and seemed like the judge spent only 1 second thinking about the spells before making a ruling.

edit: This spell is literally the reason I ditched all of my charm/dominate characters as every single creature worth a damn has some form of at-will magic circle or protection from x. Dispel Magic is the reason I ditched Necrotic Tumor characters.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder's ruling does not apply to 3.5, and I find a LOT of pathfinder's official rulings to be dubious, and seemed like the judge spent only 1 second thinking about the spells before making a ruling.

edit: This spell is literally the reason I ditched all of my charm/dominate characters as every single creature worth a damn has some form of at-will magic circle or protection from x.

I find it more than a little amusing that you disagree so vehemently with the ruling, yet think that interpreting the spell so broadly and completely giving up on enchanting characters instead is somehow a more reasonable response.

[Zanos]

You're not - in those cases, the spells themselves compel specific behaviors over which the caster has no input. Similarly, the caster doesn't get to give orders with Confusion either.
Just because the spell instead of the cast dictates the mental control doesn't mean that there isn't ongoing mental control.


It affects all mind-affecting enchantment spells, including those with instantaneous duration and the like.

The spell suppresses all mind-affecting enchantment spells regardless of duration. If it suppresses spells that last 1hour, why wouldn't it suppress spells that last 0.01 second? Or 0 seconds?

The spell's weakness is that it doesn't provide immunity, only temporary relief, so once the 1min/level is up, you're screwed, which is why it's awesome against spells that last less than 1min/level.

Pathfinder's ruling does not apply to 3.5, and I find a LOT of pathfinder's official rulings to be dubious, and seemed like the judge spent only 1 second thinking about the spells before making a ruling.

edit: This spell is literally the reason I ditched all of my charm/dominate characters as every single creature worth a damn has some form of at-will magic circle or protection from x. Dispel Magic is the reason I ditched Necrotic Tumor characters.
The only reason every character would have those abilities is if the DM is out to get you.

To be fair, anyone in a serious leadership role should have some method of either preventing or detecting mental control, but that can be as simple as daily meetings with someone with good sense motive.

[Psyren]

Just because the spell instead of the cast dictates the mental control doesn't mean that there isn't ongoing mental control.

The "ongoing control" is specifically required to be granted to the caster, not the spell. The PF FAQ merely restates this provision even more explicitly, but that line is present in both editions.

[Jack_Simth]

I tend to treat it as "Can the caster change things afterwards?" for the main determinant.

So Suggestion (one off command, even though it may take several hours to complete) gets through, as does the general Command spell. Something like Charm Person, on the other hand, does not (caster can do stuff after).

[Crake]

It affects all mind-affecting enchantment spells, including those with instantaneous duration and the like.

The spell suppresses all mind-affecting enchantment spells regardless of duration. If it suppresses spells that last 1hour, why wouldn't it suppress spells that last 0.01 second? Or 0 seconds?

The spell's weakness is that it doesn't provide immunity, only temporary relief, so once the 1min/level is up, you're screwed, which is why it's awesome against spells that last less than 1min/level.

Pathfinder's ruling does not apply to 3.5, and I find a LOT of pathfinder's official rulings to be dubious, and seemed like the judge spent only 1 second thinking about the spells before making a ruling.

edit: This spell is literally the reason I ditched all of my charm/dominate characters as every single creature worth a damn has some form of at-will magic circle or protection from x. Dispel Magic is the reason I ditched Necrotic Tumor characters.

Except in the myriad of cases where you get it permanently on yourself. And that's outside of a custom magic item.

[Chronikoce]

That text says those spells are required to end a geas. Suppressing it is a different matter entirely. In your games, if a geased creature enters a dead magic zone, would they still be compelled to follow its directives (or take penalties for not doing so)?

Also, Break Enchantment and Remove Curse explicitly kill a Geas and those are well shy of miracle/wish.

Even if I allowed it to stop the compulsion on Geas, it still wouldn't prevent the penalties from applying. In fact, if you allow it to suppress the mental compulsion then it's explicitly the cause preventing you from working towards completing the Geas and penalties ought to apply.

The penalties after all aren't a compulsion in of themselsves. Merely a punishment for being prevented (by any means) from working toward the compulsions goal.

As for anti-magic or dead magic zones, I've got no problem allowing those to temporarily suspend the compulsion. Though I'd probably rule that when you exited the zone/field any time that had passed would be counted against you and all penalties would apply immediately. I've never had to make this judgment call in a game but that's what I came up with for the moment. I'd have to consider it more carefully to make an official ruling at my table.

[Crake]

I tend to treat it as "Can the caster change things afterwards?" for the main determinant.

So Suggestion (one off command, even though it may take several hours to complete) gets through, as does the general Command spell. Something like Charm Person, on the other hand, does not (caster can do stuff after).

This is pretty much the litmus test I use, though I limit it to the control effects, so for example, for charm person, protection from X would suppress the ability to use a charisma check to force them to do something, but they would still remain friendly in the meantime.

[Psyren]

As with most PF rulings, this one makes the most sense to me, so that's what I'm going with.


Even if I allowed it to stop the compulsion on Geas, it still wouldn't prevent the penalties from applying. In fact, if you allow it to suppress the mental compulsion then it's explicitly the cause preventing you from working towards completing the Geas and penalties ought to apply.

The penalties after all aren't a compulsion in of themselsves. Merely a punishment for being prevented (by any means) from working toward the compulsions goal.

The punishment is being imposed by magic. Therefore, antimagic should prevent the punishment too. For me, suppression is suppression.

[Chronikoce]

As with most PF rulings, this one makes the most sense to me, so that's what I'm going with.



The punishment is being imposed by magic. Therefore, antimagic should prevent the punishment too. For me, suppression is suppression.

I guess in an antimagic field the spell would have know why of knowing whether or not you had worked toward the goal so it makes sense to be suppressed.

[RoboEmperor]

I find it more than a little amusing that you disagree so vehemently with the ruling, yet think that interpreting the spell so broadly and completely giving up on enchanting characters instead is somehow a more reasonable response.

Its not that I vehemently disagree with this particular ruling, its that I generally don't have a lot of respect for people who claims authority over things they were not the creators of. You see it all the time when companies are taken over by other companies, the original developers leave, and the resulting product completely goes to ****.

When i considered switching over to pathfinder I looked at their official rule judging stuff, and the judges were always "I think", "maybe", "should be", "would be", etc. If they said "This spell's effect is ____ in PF regardless of what is said in 3.5" I'd have more respect but instead they said "I think the spell is supposed to do ___, not sure." followed up by "Yeah I think that is how you do that. This is now official ruling".

It's similar to why a lot of people have problems with the 3.5 faq.

Anyways PF have 0 authority over 3.5.


The only reason every character would have those abilities is if the DM is out to get you.

To be fair, anyone in a serious leadership role should have some method of either preventing or detecting mental control, but that can be as simple as daily meetings with someone with good sense motive.

Reasonably speaking, if NPCs know your balor is mind controlled by a necrotic tumor, why wouldn't they invest a **** ton of resources into dispelling it? I mean sure if random NPCs who never heard of me suddenly pack dispel magic then you're right the DM is out to get me.

I actually found an exploit to prevent Necrotic Tumor from dispelling. You just stack 999999999 Necrotic Tumors on your target. NPCs can't dispel em all.

It really doesn't matter to me if protection from x stopped instantaneous mind-affecting spells or not, but logically speaking, I just don't see why it wouldn't. It suppresses Dominate Monster, but not irresistable dance because the caster doesn't have ongoing control? I say making him dance is ongoing control, but other people say "no, the spell has control, not the caster", etc.

[Psyren]

Its not that I vehemently disagree with this particular ruling, its that I generally don't have a lot of respect for people who claims authority over things they were not the creators of. You see it all the time when companies are taken over by other companies, the original developers leave, and the resulting product completely goes to ****.

When i considered switching over to pathfinder I looked at their official rule judging stuff, and the judges were always "I think", "maybe", "should be", "would be", etc. If they said "This spell's effect is ____ in PF regardless of what is said in 3.5" I'd have more respect but instead they said "I think the spell is supposed to do ___, not sure." followed up by "Yeah I think that is how you do that. This is now official ruling".

It's similar to why a lot of people have problems with the 3.5 faq.

That PF FAQ entry doesn't say anything about "I think" or "maybe." It is a ruling: "The latter interpretation is correct", in black and white.



Anyways PF have 0 authority over 3.5.

Obviously, which is why I started my post with "Not sure about 3.5, but in PF..." The thread isn't specific to one edition or the other, and the spell exists in both.

[RoboEmperor]

That PF FAQ entry doesn't say anything about "I think" or "maybe." It is a ruling: "The latter interpretation is correct", in black and white.

The FAQ stuff originates from the ruling question discussion forum and if you delve deep enough you can find the staff member's thoughts, reasoning and discussion regarding the issue at hand.

On the top of my head, the Shades spell, from this post:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mh3k?Request-for-Jason-Please-clarify-the-Shades


2. As for this particular issue, I think the intent here of this spell was to keep the subschool limitations. Without them, this spell is probably too good, seeing as its 80% limitation would not really apply (or would have to be creatively applied) to a number of spells outside the subschool limitation. For now, that is the way I would play it, and that is certainly the way I am leaning toward with any clarification.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

So right here, we have the lead designer saying Shades is too powerful when ruled that way when Miracle is even more powerful yet same level no cost spell, we have him saying "I think" and is trying to ascertain the original intent of the original 3.5 authors of this spell.

I'm probably being nitpicky/splitting hairs/borderline OCD on this issue, but for me, having the lead designer make rulings based on what he thinks other people were thinking instead of making rulings based on what he believes to be the best for the game is a deal breaker, which is why I have no respect for pathfinder's FAQ on 3.5 matters.

[Crake]

Just to be clear, this thread isn't really about picking apart the RAW and coming to a conclusive, unambiguous RAW answer though. The RAW is quite clearly ambiguous and ultimately it comes down to each DM's individual discretion how the rule it. If the DMs wish to use pathfinder FAQs to aid their decision on the matter, more power to them.

The point of the thread was more of a poll to see what people generally allow the spell to do, so in the context of this thread, nobody's answer is wrong on the matter.

[RoboEmperor]

Just to be clear, this thread isn't really about picking apart the RAW and coming to a conclusive, unambiguous RAW answer though. The RAW is quite clearly ambiguous and ultimately it comes down to each DM's individual discretion how the rule it. If the DMs wish to use pathfinder FAQs to aid their decision on the matter, more power to them.

The point of the thread was more of a poll to see what people generally allow the spell to do, so in the context of this thread, nobody's answer is wrong on the matter.

You should honestly edit the first post with a tally :)

[Crake]

You should honestly edit the first post with a tally :)

That is actually a great idea :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

The FAQ stuff originates from the ruling question discussion forum and if you delve deep enough you can find the staff member's thoughts, reasoning and discussion regarding the issue at hand.

Irrelevant. Anything posted to the FAQ page comes from the entire design team after deliberation, regardless of whether a single designer was the impetus for that ruling.


I'm probably being nitpicky/splitting hairs/borderline OCD on this issue, but for me, having the lead designer make rulings based on what he thinks other people were thinking instead of making rulings based on what he believes to be the best for the game is a deal breaker, which is why I have no respect for pathfinder's FAQ on 3.5 matters.

As above, they do think this is best for the game. You just don't like it. That's the source of your "OCD."

As for me, I'd rather have a game that has FAQ than one that doesn't, even if I don't agree with all of the rulings. Especially since, as I stated previously, the vast majority are what I would have done in my home games anyway.