Question on Pro Evil and Improved Trip

[Space Coyote]

Hello. I have 2 things to ask/discuss and was unable to locate any previous information since I dont have access to a Search function.

FIRST
I need some clarification on the spell Protection from Evil. The spell states that it will grant protection from echantement type of magic and magic that gives the caster ongoing control over the target. Now, I thought that I read somewhere that the spell *only* protects from Enchantment spells that grant "ongoing control", such as Domination or Magic Jar (abilities that basically turn the target into the casters "puppet"), but not something like charm, sleep or hold person.

However, I have been unable to find recent information on this. Nothing in the most up to date erratta or FAQ. Does anyone else recall reading this ruling (Pro Evil only protections from total control attacks, not Enchantment/charms in general), or did I dream this?

SECOND
My players and I have been discussing the feat Improved Trip. We all concur that as it stands now it is too powerful. The feat grants the following: No AOO when you do a trip attempt, +4 on trip checks AND if the trip is successful you still get to attack as if you did not use your attack action to make the trip. So in reality, if someone gets 3 attacks per round (e.g. a level 8 Monk doing Flurry of Blows), they could get the equivalent of 6 attacks (3 trips and three attacks).

My group was debating how to modify this and we came up with: Improved trip will negate the AOO and grant the "free" attacks if successful, but no +4 bonus.

I would like other posters thoughts on this.

Thanks

 

[cmanos]

From the SRD

This spell wards a creature from attacks by evil creatures, from mental control, and from summoned creatures. It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects.

First, the subject gains a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves. Both these bonuses apply against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures.

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast. This second effect works regardless of alignment.

Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect. The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature.

Charms are definitely mental control so they are protected against.

Sleep and Hold Person are Mind-Controlling Compulsion, but it is debatable if they cause 'ongoing control'. I could see where there could be a debate here. I'd personally allow the protection to extend to these.

Changing Improved Trip belongs in the House Rules forum.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

I need some clarification on the spell Protection from Evil. The spell states that it will grant protection from echantement type of magic and magic that gives the caster ongoing control over the target. Now, I thought that I read somewhere that the spell *only* protects from Enchantment spells that grant "ongoing control", such as Domination or Magic Jar (abilities that basically turn the target into the casters "puppet"), but not something like charm, sleep or hold person.

Protection from evil suppresses the effects of (1) any enchantment (charm) spell, and (2) enchantment (compulsion) spells that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. Sleep is a (compulsion) that does not grant ongoing control, so it is unaffected. Hold person is a (compulsion) that does not grant ongoing control, so it is unaffected. Charm person is a (charm), so it is suppressed.

My players and I have been discussing the feat Improved Trip. We all concur that as it stands now it is too powerful. The feat grants the following: No AOO when you do a trip attempt, +4 on trip checks AND if the trip is successful you still get to attack as if you did not use your attack action to make the trip. So in reality, if someone gets 3 attacks per round (e.g. a level 8 Monk doing Flurry of Blows), they could get the equivalent of 6 attacks (3 trips and three attacks).

My group was debating how to modify this and we came up with: Improved trip will negate the AOO and grant the "free" attacks if successful, but no +4 bonus.

I would like other posters thoughts on this.

If I were you, I would not change the feat. Without the +4 bonus, the chance of successfully tripping an opponent is reduced. If you do not successfully trip your opponent, you do not get the follow-up attack. Even with Improved Trip as is, tripping is a dicey maneuver. It can be (very) effective, but it is not overpowered.

 

[dcollins]

This is what it says in the 3.0 FAQ, p. 59:

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.

 

[cmanos]

is that 3.0 FAQ or 3.5? One would think if it was FAQ'd in 3.0 it would have been explained in the 3.5 rules.

By that, it would appear Sleep and Hold are not protected against.

 

[Rashak Mani]

I agree its a bit strong. Yet we haven't seen any fighters specializing in tripping. I think Improved Trip is especially overpowerful when used as an AOO.

BTW If you fail your improved trip... you get tripped back. Just a little detail that is easy to oversee.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So in reality, if someone gets 3 attacks per round ..., they could get the equivalent of 6 attacks (3 trips and three attacks).

Against three separate opponents, yes, and with a significantly reduced chance on subsequent attack rolls (iterative). If you apply it against the same opponent, then the tripping is only worthwhile until such a time as you succeed.

So in reality, if someone gets 3 attacks per round (e.g. a level 8 Monk doing Flurry of Blows), they could get the equivalent of 6 attacks (3 trips and three attacks).

Keep in mind that this is arguable. IMO, a trip is not an unarmed strike (it is an unarmed attack, sure, but they are not equivalent) and so therefore cannot be used in a flurry of blows. Only unarmed strikes (and monk weapons) can be used in a flurry of blows. Unless you are tripping with a monk weapon, your example is wrong.

My group was debating how to modify this and we came up with: Improved trip will negate the AOO and grant the "free" attacks if successful, but no +4 bonus.

I'd prefer to see the +4 ability and not the free attack. Make it similar to improved disarm and improved sunder.

 

[Magesmiley]

Having been on both the giving and receiving end of Improved Trip on a number of occasions, I think that it isn't overly powerful compared to many other feats.

The six attacks scenario you've outlined is possible, but realize you could also accomplish a similar benefit with the Cleave feat, or an even greater number with Great Cleave.

One of the factors that you have to remember about the tripping is that there are a series of steps involved, and blowing any one of them prevents the subsequent steps. The touch attack is relatively easy to accomplish (usually). The opposed strength check is usually where the trip fails in my experience. I'd guess maybe half of the trip attempts work, and that number goes down significantly with larger opponents. Realize that if this step fails, you haven't done a thing to your opponent at all. The final step is to try to whack your opponent (with a +4 bonus for him being prone).

You're essentially gambling with your attack (more so than usual). If you do better, your opponent is much worse off, however you have a lot more chances to blow your attack than usual. Realize that the extra attack you're getting isn't going to do more damage than if you just walked up and whacked the guy.

One final note: the attack of opportunity for hitting a target which is standing up from a prone position occurs before he/she actually atacks, so you can't trip someone who is standing up with an AoO (you can use a readied action to do this though...).

 

[dcollins]

is that 3.0 FAQ or 3.5? One would think if it was FAQ'd in 3.0 it would have been explained in the 3.5 rules.

Like I said, 3.0. Your expectation was not generally done from 3.0 -> 3.5. WOTC said the 3.0 FAQ is still held as applicable except where underlying rules were explicitly changed in 3.5.

 

[Thanee]

Charms are definitely mental control so they are protected against.

I actually don't see how charms are mental control (in the PHB only Dominate is, IMHO, of course), but the FAQ clarifies, that PfE protects against them, anyways.

Bye
Thanee