Protection from X spells vs. Mind Control

[ouini]

In the PHB, under the "conflicting spell effects" magic description area, there seems to be a conflict I can't figure out. It says to make opposed Charisma rolls when the effects of two mind-affecting spells directly conflict with one another. But is also says that this is moot wrt, say, Hold Person, as it takes away your ability to move.

Wha?

Hold Person is just another mind-affecting spell. It's not paralyzing you physically. It's a compulsion, just like Domination, to be still. Its effects will conflict directly with other mind-affecting compulsions which tell you to move somehow, so why don't you make opposed Charisma rolls? Is it somehow better or of a different nature than all the other mind-affecting compulsion enchantments?

The reason I'm wondering about this is because Protection from X spells (good, evil, etc), say they don't prevent mind-affecting spells from being cast on you, but they -do- keep the commands from being given to you. I thought, "hey, Hold Person fits in that category -- it's a single command to hold still, so any Protection from X spell will protect you from Hold Person." But it also seems the PHB wants to treat it as both a mind-affecting compulsion enchantment, and as something more powerful, too. I'm having trouble parsing that.

Any errata or Sage Advice about this?

 

[Maitre Du Donjon]

I think its in the case 2 spellcasters try to dominate (for example) the same target, the one that wins the opposed charisma check is the one that is obeyed by the dominated person.

Its for spells that permit the spellcasters to continuously affect the target's judgement or actions. A fighter charmed by 2 opposed spellcasters would fit into the example, imo.

Maitre D

 

[ouini]

Yes, two dominations on the same target roll vs. each other to see which is obeyed. I probably wasn't clear in my inquiry.

How is a Hold Person spell different from a Domination spell? They're both officially "mind-affecting, compulsions, enchantments", but the PHB implies that Hold Person trumps all other such spells because it's compelling you to hold still as opposed to jump up and down. By that logic, I can use the Dominate spell to command someone to hold still, and it will trump any other Dominate spell cast on them.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Basically, the passage says that if two mind-affecting spells are cast you use a Cha-check to determine who's in control:

Example 1: Mage A and Mage B each cast Dominate on Fighter. They make an opposed cha-check to see which gains control of Fighter.

But then there's the point about Hold Person. The passage says that the bit about the cha-check is moot in the case of Hold Person, because it only makes you stand still. Consider:

Example 2: Mage A and Mage B each cast Hold Person on Fighter. There's no cha-check, because all the spell does is make the Fighter hold still. So he does.

What you're imagining is a different scenario, where Hold Person is put in direct conflict with another mind-affecting spell. The passage isn't addressing such a case. In the event that two different spells are cast, they both affect the target normally. Thus:

Example 3: Mage A casts Hold Person on Fighter, Mage B casts Dominate on Fighter. Fighter is immediately Held, and when he can move again, will be under the domination of Mage B.

Or that's how I read and rule it, at any rate.

Edit to add: I suppose in a way that the passage could be referring to Example 3 as well. After all, so long as the Hold Person lasts, Dominate isn't effective, so rolling an opposed-cha is moot.

 

[Kraedin]

I think you're missing his point. I think his question is, if someone is affected by two compulsions, such as dominate person, the two casters make opposed Charisma checks to see who gets obeyed.

Hold person is a compulsion that causes the subject to hold still, dominate person is a compulsion that causes the subject to move (or whatever.) Why do dominate person and suggestion have to fight it out with Charisma checks when opposing orders are given, but dominate person and hold person do not?

 

[ouini]

Kraedin,

Yes. That's it in a nut-shell. Thanks for clarifying my question. Any ideas as to an answer?

 

[LokiDR]

Protection from X only prevents commands from the caster.

It doesn't affect charm spells, and that isn't a compulsion only a change of perceptions.

Hold does not allow the caster to send repeated commands the target, it simply stops your mind from telling your body to move. To the best of my knowledge, it is not described as a "command" but it is still a mind affecting compulsion.

Think of it this way: Fight has been charmed by mage A, dominated by mage B, and hold personed by mage C. He wants to follow A, will follow B if possible, and can't do anything so long as the hold spell from C lasts. Protection from X would only stop B.

 

[ouini]

Thanks for the effort. This might make sense if I could get in the right mind-set, but I can't seem to grok it. How can any mind affecting compulsion make you hold still without excercising mental control?

Hold Person doesn't physiologically change you, it's just a single command (or compulsion) to stay still. It's 'excercising mental control', which Protection from X stops.

I get that the 'multiple mind control' paragraph describes the effect as you did (He follows Domination if possible, but can't do anything about the Hold spell). It just doesn't scan right.

 

[LokiDR]

Protection from X stops 'excercising mental control'. Protection from X doesn't stop hold spells. Hence hold spells must not be 'excercising mental control'.

Don't think of Hold Person as the same as command - stop. Hold person just prevents your mind from moving your body. You are not control a persons mind with Hold, you are preventing that mind from doing anything with the attached body.

I want to steal your car. You have an anti-theft device that prevents anyone but you from driving the car. I then destroy your transmission. I can't steal your car, but you can't drive it either.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The strange thing is, Hold Person has the descriptor Enchantment (Compulsion) (Mind affecting) as does Suggestion, Dominate Person, Dominate Monster, Confusion and Ottos Irresistable Dance (for example).

All of these spells magically compel some kind of behaviour. Is protection from evil supposed to negate the power of all these spells? I don't think so, it never has in the past.

The description suggests that the magic of dominate still affects you, but it blocks the mental commands that a vampire sends. Do you take this to its literal extension and say that it *only* blocks mental control, so anyone that is dominated by Dominate Person (say) and given a verbal command must obey that command because it is not a (blocked) mental command?