Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vegepygmy" data-source="post: 4775783" data-attributes="member: 40109">It depends on what authority you find more persuasive. First, here's the 3.5 FAQ's answer to your question:  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. But what about mental control effects that aren’t enchantment effects, such as psionics? In such cases, the DM must use the rules and his own best judgment in concert to adjudicate the effect. Psionic powers of the telepathy discipline are the equivalent of enchantment spells, for example, and thus are affected in the same way. Nonspell effects that closely mimic enchantment spells should be treated as if they were spells of the appropriate subschool (charm or compulsion). Now here's what the 3.0 FAQ had to say (and remember, the relevant text in the spell description didn't change between editions--only the author of the FAQ did): The second function of the protection from evil spell blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature or to exercise mental control over the creature. What, exactly, counts as mental control? “Mental control” includes all spells of the school of Enchantment that have the Charm subschool, such as animal friendship, charm person, and charm monster. It also includes some Enchantment spells of the Compulsion subschool if those spells grant the caster ongoing control over the subject; such spells include dominate person and dominate monster. Compulsions that merely dictate the subject’s action at the time the spell takes effect are not blocked. Such spells include command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto’s irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of truth. Would a protection from evil spell block mind-affecting spells that aren’t from the Enchantment school, such as cause fear, create undead, gate, hypnotic pattern, mount, rainbow pattern, sanctuary, and summon monster? No, see previous question. Personally, I find the 3.0 FAQ more persuasive as to the first question (what "ongoing control" means), but that second question (regarding non-Enchantments) is borked right from the start. Create undead, gate, mount, sanctuary, and summon monster aren't mind-affecting spells (even in 3.0), so why they're even mentioned is a mystery, and besides, protection from evil doesn't limit itself to Enchantments--it blocks any "attempt to...exercise mental control over" the subject; certain Enchantments are included in the category of "attempts to exercise mental control," but are not the entirety of that category. So the 3.5 FAQ says protection from evil would block brain lock (a non-instantaneous telepathy power that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions), and thus unholy aura would, too. The 3.0 FAQ says protection from evil wouldn't block brain lock, for two reasons: (1) because it doesn't grant "ongoing control" (since brain lock merely dictates the subject's action at the time the power takes effect), and (2) because it's not an Enchantment. FWIW, I think (1) is a good reason and (2) is not. But now you have all the information you need to make an educated ruling yourself. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> (By the way, I apologize for any irregularities in the format of this post.  The new EN World interface really screws cut-and-paste jobs up badly.) </blockquote>

Verification