Protection from Evil - Which spells does it ward against?

[mmu1]

The title says it all. Which spells does Protection from Evil automatically suppress? From the SRD:

"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)."

One way to look at it is that it only works on (charm) and (compulsion) spells that grant ongoing control - but in that case, why was the word "including" used in the sentence above? Why not say "specifically, enchantment (charm) effects and..."? Since that reading basically means it only affects Charm Person/Monster and Dominate Person/Monster, why the added complexity? It'd have been easier and clearer just to list those spells.

On the other hand, if (as the use of "including" implies) the ongoing (charm) and (compulsion) effects are just a subset of ways to exercise mental effects (and they're being mentioned specifically to make sure the player knows that the spell works on them) - what else would it work on? Enchantment (compulsion) and (charm) covers a ton of spells, including, for example, Hold Person - which really doesn't feel quite right.

Does anyone know of any official errata or clarification, perhaps? Is the spell a lot more far-reaching than seems reasonable, or are we simply looking at bad writing?

 

[jaelis]

There's a FAQ entry on it, though not everyone agrees. But if you just want an official answer, this would be it.

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).

 

[mmu1]

Thanks, that's very helpful. I don't know that it's the take on it I'd use myself, and like a lot of people I'm sort of sceptical when it comes to Sage rulings (too many clearly wrong ones over the years) but it's good to have at least some idea of what the people behind it might have intended.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I read "ongoing control" a little differently, myself; something like Sleep, I don't consider to be ongoing control, because the only time you have influence over the course of action the subject takes is at casting time.

Sure, they continue to follow that course of action for a length of time, but you no longer have control over what that course of action is.

Something like Dominate Person, where you can say "Do this", and then three rounds later say "Now stop doing this, and start doing that instead"? That's ongoing control.

Something like Sleep, where you say "Do this", and subsequently cannot change what it is they do? That's not ongoing control.

IMO.

-Hyp.

 

[RefinedBean]

Headache

This was a huge pain in a previous campaign, where I played a Soulborn (MoI) who PrC'd into Topaz Diadem from Lords of Madness. One of the abilities granted to the TD is a constant effect equivalent to the Protection from Evil's second effect.

And then I picked up Finslayer. For those of you who don't know, Finslayer is an awesome sword who also happens to have a mind of its own, and immediately tries to take over its wielder.

Was this blocked? Was this even a magical effect, or literally just a force of will? WotC wasn't much help, and my DM and I were stumped until we decided to go the path of least resistance and let me retain control of my character.

Ah, the headaches of a complex hobby.

 

[Vegepygmy]

There's a FAQ entry on it, though not everyone agrees.

Actually, there are two FAQ entries on the subject: the 3.0 version, and the 3.5 version. The strange thing is that the spell description didn't change between editions, so the 3.5 version was completely superfluous.

FWIW, I think the 3.0 answer was much better. It follows the reasoning Hypersmurf has used above, and seems to not generate as many negative comments on the D&D boards I frequent.

 

[jaelis]

FWIW, I think the 3.0 answer was much better. It follows the reasoning Hypersmurf has used above, and seems to not generate as many negative comments on the D&D boards I frequent.

I rather agree myself.