Clarification please

[Infiniti2000]

This is actually quite straightforward.

And yet arguable? I don't understand that comment.

The protection from alignment spells are anything but straightforward and unfortunately my opinion on them goes beyond the scope of this thread. My interpretation of the rules, however, is that PROT_EVIL does not block a suggestion, whether beforehand or afterwards (regardless of the other points made previously).

 

[eamon]

The protection from alignment spells are anything but straightforward and unfortunately my opinion on them goes beyond the scope of this thread. My interpretation of the rules, however, is that PROT_EVIL does not block a suggestion, whether beforehand or afterwards (regardless of the other points made previously).

Well, since the thread's about clarifying these issues, I'm curious!

I've said I thought suggestion's effects would be suppressed while under PFE but the effects would resume as soon as PFE expires. Others have said they think a planted suggestion would be unaffected, but PFE prevents new suggestions. The distinction depends on how you interpret ongoing mental control - but how could PFE not protect as in one of these two cases? Suggestion - at some level, and at some time - is mental control, right?

 

[Infiniti2000]

I say it's not ongoing (mental) control. Because of the terrible wording in PROT_EVIL, it has to be "ongoing" for Compulsion effects. Once you implant the suggestion, the victim continues carrying it out, but are you able to change it, i.e. provide ongoing control? For example, let's say you suggest that sometime "go to the City." Once implanted and see the person walking there, can you alter the command, or further control the person, to take a horse or teleport? No, thus it's not ongoing.

Unfortunately, the argument comes up that some people read "ongoing" as merely having a duration greater than instantaneous. That's really making the wording even worse because to my knowledge there are no Compulsion spells, possibly even Enchantment school spells, that are instantaneous.

 

[roguerouge]

I think that the srd is a bit lighter than the description of the spell in the book. Not having the book in front of me, my recollection is that "obviously harmful" is about harming yourself, as their example is holding off a dragon for just a few seconds, rather than command a suicidal attack, which would invalidate the spell. I believe that dominate person uses the example of a dip into a pool of acid.

In general, I think DMs would do well to rule leniently on enchantment or illusion spells, for two reasons. First, failing to do so moves removes player incentives to think creatively and transforms mages into walking boom sticks by nerfing those two schools. Second, I would argue that DM villains are more likely to make nasty use of those two schools. So nerfing your player's use of these kinds of spells only makes it harder when you try to use manipulative and social villains.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I think that the srd is a bit lighter than the description of the spell in the book. Not having the book in front of me, my recollection is that "obviously harmful" is about harming yourself, as their example is holding off a dragon for just a few seconds, rather than command a suicidal attack, which would invalidate the spell. I believe that dominate person uses the example of a dip into a pool of acid.

I remember this too... PHB must have more info in the spell desc. than the SRD does...

 

[eamon]

Unfortunately, the argument comes up that some people read "ongoing" as merely having a duration greater than instantaneous. That's really making the wording even worse because to my knowledge there are no Compulsion spells, possibly even Enchantment school spells, that are instantaneous.

I'm reading ongoing merely as a word stressing the fact that it doesn't just supress new spells/effects, but also spells/effects which are already ongoing. But to each his own, I suppose.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm reading ongoing merely as a word stressing the fact that it doesn't just supress new spells/effects, but also spells/effects which are already ongoing. But to each his own, I suppose.

Let me see if I understand you then, you're saying that protection from evil blocks/suppresses all Enchantment (Compulsion) effects? The 'ongoing' part of the rule is merely clarifying the fact that existing effects are also suppressed?

 

[green slime]

I prefer sending them running away as fast as they can "Flee! Flee for your life!":

1) It is pretty hard for the enemy spellcasters to dispel or counter the effect when the target has fled at full speed up the stairs, down the corridor, and out into the courtyard, vaulting into the saddle and galloping off into the sunset.
2) At the very least, barring interference from other spellcasters, the "flee" doubles the duration of the spell: the time under the effect of the spell spent fleeing, and the time it takes to get back (barring instantaneous travel, of course).