James McMurray
First Post
Ottergame said:
Spoken like a true player, not a DM attemptng to maintain game balance.
Protection from Evil curiosity
- Thread starter der_kluge
- Start date
Spoken like a true player, not a DM attemptng to maintain game balance.
You are taking this way too strongly james 
but thats ok.
If more than 50% of your foes your +2 deflection and +2 saves matter on then perhaps, but still, +2 deflection that has a severe limitation is not worth as much as a normal +2. Simple as that. Most characters tend to get +resistance items as some point, earlier if they are afraid of missing saves, and a +5 resistance item is dirt cheap for its effect.
Dominateing a person is close to the same as save or die, and I was responding directly to someone else's comment about it being like save or die. Therefore my comment made perfect sense in how it was inteneded
Very few creatures have a chance of getting their SR to work? So this means out of the fraction of creatures that are evil on the summon monster list, and the fraction of those that dont have spells or weapons, the fraction of those that will actually matter, and then there is a roll at the end that might just cancel the spell anyway. Doesnt sound too bad. If the party is going up against a summoner then casting 4 protection from *alignment* might be a good plan. But then that is four less first level spells with a fairly short duration.
Neutral aligned creatures are definately an option, creatures with some attack other than natural weapons are also an option
If you find the spell too powerful that is fine, head on over to houserules and ask people there how they think it should be changed
Oh, and that was more than a bit harsh there Otter, might want to try toning it down just a little.. Everyone makes mistakes now and then, the thing here is to fix the problem.
but thats ok.If more than 50% of your foes your +2 deflection and +2 saves matter on then perhaps, but still, +2 deflection that has a severe limitation is not worth as much as a normal +2. Simple as that. Most characters tend to get +resistance items as some point, earlier if they are afraid of missing saves, and a +5 resistance item is dirt cheap for its effect.
Dominateing a person is close to the same as save or die, and I was responding directly to someone else's comment about it being like save or die. Therefore my comment made perfect sense in how it was inteneded
Very few creatures have a chance of getting their SR to work? So this means out of the fraction of creatures that are evil on the summon monster list, and the fraction of those that dont have spells or weapons, the fraction of those that will actually matter, and then there is a roll at the end that might just cancel the spell anyway. Doesnt sound too bad. If the party is going up against a summoner then casting 4 protection from *alignment* might be a good plan. But then that is four less first level spells with a fairly short duration.
Neutral aligned creatures are definately an option, creatures with some attack other than natural weapons are also an option
If you find the spell too powerful that is fine, head on over to houserules and ask people there how they think it should be changed
Oh, and that was more than a bit harsh there Otter, might want to try toning it down just a little.. Everyone makes mistakes now and then, the thing here is to fix the problem.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
I'm not sure i understand what you're saying here. If, at the time, the player didn't realize what the spell did, then there's not a problem, AFAICT. The player wasn't depending on the spell's anti-domination effect, and so his plans weren't messed up. As near as he understood the effect of the spell and of the ring, it worked identically.Scion said:Of course if when it was identified it was a 'ring of protection from evil: as the spell' or just the first part, which implies the second part since no further detail was given (just has the name? must give the same bonuses as the spell). So at this point either it is an artifact (better have more powers than the minor ones listed) or the dm messed up in the identify, just about anything else is beyond reason
Later, he found out more about how the spell worked, presumably in-character as well, and was startled to find out that the ring works differently from the spell. Cool! Magic is mysterious!
I don't know why it would need to be an artifact.
Daniel
Nail
First Post
FWIW:
- The magic ring costs more than you think it does.
- You should probably think twice about giving a "always on* magic item for several spells. True Strike, along with Prot/Evil and Shield also come to mind. Just because this is the case doesn't mean those spells are bad.
- Changing rule in mid-game is poor form. You changed the rules.
- Changing the rules after a session - after realizing something is more/less powerful than your first thought - is good form. It's okay.
- Prot/Evil is a very good 1st level spell. Like Magic Missile and Detect Evil, it's probably too good, but has been kept for legacy/workhorse reasons.
- Lighten up, bud. Your player had the silver bullet for this particular BBEG. It happens. Suck it up!
der_kluge
Adventurer
Yes, you can definitely tell who here is a player, and who is a DM.
FWIW, I talked to the player, and he said he would probably keep the item. He also mentioned the "protection from possession" spell that someone mentioned earlier.
To me, that makes more sense, because it seems more correct to isolate a mental-blocking spell separately from protection from evil. Prot. from evil just seems cooky to me the more I think about it. It's either way too powerful, or way too weak. It just doesn't work very well, IMHO.
FWIW, I talked to the player, and he said he would probably keep the item. He also mentioned the "protection from possession" spell that someone mentioned earlier.
To me, that makes more sense, because it seems more correct to isolate a mental-blocking spell separately from protection from evil. Prot. from evil just seems cooky to me the more I think about it. It's either way too powerful, or way too weak. It just doesn't work very well, IMHO.
borc killer
First Post
This spell is not over powered in my eyes... however if it was a permanent effect it would be a very very very good item... I would price it at 50k... if at all.
If you think it is over powered as a spell then you have never had all 3 tanks in your party get charmed (another first level spell) and the ONLY way you could fix it was CoP:E (and even then you have to make a touch attach and they get a will save to resist it!!!). Think of a 4th level party fighting 2 wizards and 2 tanks... the wizards would be brain dead not to charm your parties fighters in the first round if they get initiative... and with most fighters and rogues will saves being as bad as they are most of them are going to fail the save even if they are already in combat! The ONLY recourse is a CoP:E when stuff like this happens.
Is it a useful spell? Hell yes. Is it over powered? Nope. Should you let it be a permanent effect item? Not in my world.
Borc Killer
If you think it is over powered as a spell then you have never had all 3 tanks in your party get charmed (another first level spell) and the ONLY way you could fix it was CoP:E (and even then you have to make a touch attach and they get a will save to resist it!!!). Think of a 4th level party fighting 2 wizards and 2 tanks... the wizards would be brain dead not to charm your parties fighters in the first round if they get initiative... and with most fighters and rogues will saves being as bad as they are most of them are going to fail the save even if they are already in combat! The ONLY recourse is a CoP:E when stuff like this happens.
Is it a useful spell? Hell yes. Is it over powered? Nope. Should you let it be a permanent effect item? Not in my world.
Borc Killer
Pielorinho said:
When identified the player was told it was protection from evil. Looking up the spell it does certain things. The dm did not say that those things were changed in his game. This is a huge problem
When he found out it didnt work as it should (ie according to the spell description) it killed his character, this is bad.
The artifact comment was in order to give an out about why identify did not work properly.
Other than that it almost sounds like you are posting on a completely different thread than me and not reading the same things I am, very confusing.
der_kluge
Adventurer
For more clarifications on the situation.
The player playing the sorcerer is a power-gamer. Even he admits to this. I had already given his character a ton of power by allowing him to use spell-chains (Adapted from SKR's rules), so he's already an uber-sorcerer.
He asked for the permanent protection from evil ring, and at first, I was like, "you're crazy", but I decided I would go ahead and let him have it. I forget now what I costed it at. Probably around 8-10k gp.
I have read the spell. I play a lot of clerics. I know what it does. I've just never noticed that one little line at the end of the second benefit that says "this works regardless of alignment". Because, in my mind, the spell "protection from evil" works against evil. I've never tried to exploit it, nor has it ever came up before, that the spell could be used to thwart attacks from a neutral or good enchanter, for example.
So, in the game, the sorcerer ventures down -alone- into the dark, murky depths of a flooded out dungeon section. I don't care who you are, but leaving the party behind to venture into a flooded section of dungeon is just asking to be killed.
The aboleth cast a dominate person on him from its hiding place. At the time, there were several reasons why I felt like his item would be powerless to stop this effect:
- the aboleth isn't necessarily evil. The alignment says "usually evil". I decided that, since this particular aboleth is in the middle of nowhere, with no one in particular to corrupt or enslave, it was just neutral.
- the dominate person effect of the aboleth is a psionic ability. Now, I don't know 3.0 psionics, but from my 2e days, psionics and magic just didn't mix. So, I also determined that, if the first rule didn't apply for some reason, this second one would.
So, it was about making a ruling up based on the best knowledge that I had available. I should also point out that my player also took the time to research a rule from the SRD that indicates that psionics are negating by magic effects that block magic attacks.
So, this wasn't about "changing the rules in the middle of the game", or "sticking it to my player", it was about making the best interpretation given the information that I currently had available. From that encounter, onwards, I decided that it made more sense to me that the effect should apply to creatures with the [evil] subtype, since it seems more clear, and removes all fuzziness. Otherwise, you can get into a whole alignment debate, i.e., a guy leads a good life all his life, and then kills one guy. Is he evil? Do you get a +2 against him? Bah.
And, I should point out that I literally wrote the book on magic items - Artificer's Handbook. So, I like to think that I know a *little* bit about magic items.
The player playing the sorcerer is a power-gamer. Even he admits to this. I had already given his character a ton of power by allowing him to use spell-chains (Adapted from SKR's rules), so he's already an uber-sorcerer.
He asked for the permanent protection from evil ring, and at first, I was like, "you're crazy", but I decided I would go ahead and let him have it. I forget now what I costed it at. Probably around 8-10k gp.
I have read the spell. I play a lot of clerics. I know what it does. I've just never noticed that one little line at the end of the second benefit that says "this works regardless of alignment". Because, in my mind, the spell "protection from evil" works against evil. I've never tried to exploit it, nor has it ever came up before, that the spell could be used to thwart attacks from a neutral or good enchanter, for example.
So, in the game, the sorcerer ventures down -alone- into the dark, murky depths of a flooded out dungeon section. I don't care who you are, but leaving the party behind to venture into a flooded section of dungeon is just asking to be killed.
The aboleth cast a dominate person on him from its hiding place. At the time, there were several reasons why I felt like his item would be powerless to stop this effect:
- the aboleth isn't necessarily evil. The alignment says "usually evil". I decided that, since this particular aboleth is in the middle of nowhere, with no one in particular to corrupt or enslave, it was just neutral.
- the dominate person effect of the aboleth is a psionic ability. Now, I don't know 3.0 psionics, but from my 2e days, psionics and magic just didn't mix. So, I also determined that, if the first rule didn't apply for some reason, this second one would.
So, it was about making a ruling up based on the best knowledge that I had available. I should also point out that my player also took the time to research a rule from the SRD that indicates that psionics are negating by magic effects that block magic attacks.
So, this wasn't about "changing the rules in the middle of the game", or "sticking it to my player", it was about making the best interpretation given the information that I currently had available. From that encounter, onwards, I decided that it made more sense to me that the effect should apply to creatures with the [evil] subtype, since it seems more clear, and removes all fuzziness. Otherwise, you can get into a whole alignment debate, i.e., a guy leads a good life all his life, and then kills one guy. Is he evil? Do you get a +2 against him? Bah.
And, I should point out that I literally wrote the book on magic items - Artificer's Handbook. So, I like to think that I know a *little* bit about magic items.
der_kluge
Adventurer
And I mentioned to the player that because of my ruling, I would probably increase the number of monsters with the [evil] subtype, specifically undead.
And, in a perfect world, I would make these changes, update them to my house rules document, and present them to my players so that everyone is aware of the changes, and we can all be happy.
But Jesus Christ, I work for a living, and I just don't have that kind of time.
And, in a perfect world, I would make these changes, update them to my house rules document, and present them to my players so that everyone is aware of the changes, and we can all be happy.
But Jesus Christ, I work for a living, and I just don't have that kind of time.
