Arena Tournament, Round 30: Elethiomel vs RedMoon

[Maurkov]

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).... 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.

I don't think sleep grants the same sort of ongoing control as dominate person. I guess we'll need a high ref.

[Mavian]

This was taken from the FAQ, which means as Kyeudo has suggested earlier, that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

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).

So it appears that Protection from Evil is the best Arena spell in existence. Cause who doesn't want a first level spell that can completely nullify whole builds. It's not like wizards are that good anyway

[Maurkov]

Any really overpowered spell has to be range: personal to prevent the hoi polloi from using it via potion. Therefore, the Sage's recommendation of a broad interpretation must be mistaken. QED.

Bronz, how about you make the second save first and we can maybe finish the match without waiting for the big K to rule?

[Kyeudo]

GM Kyeudo

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.

The Sage suggests taking a broad definition, but that is a recomendation for non-compeditive, home play. Here in the Arena, we have enough rules lawyers, such as Mavian here , that not following the rules to the letter would be disasterous, and so a stricter reading is needed.

Our definition of ongoing control will be this: Any non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions and allows the source of the effect to influence the choices of the target.

Sleep does not count as ongoing control, because while it may force sleep (depriving one of full control over your own actions), it does not allow your opponent to make you do anything or make it easier for your opponent to make you do anything. It merely causes you to sleep. One could even make a fairly strong case that one does not awaken at the end of the sleep spell, but instead the spell simply stops enforcing sleep on the victim at its end.

Sorry, but Protection from Evil needs to have its limits.

[Bronz]

This was taken from the FAQ, which means as Kyeudo has suggested earlier, that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.



So it appears that Protection from Evil is the best Arena spell in existence. Cause who doesn't want a first level spell that can completely nullify whole builds. It's not like wizards are that good anyway

That's exactly why I've been using it against any type of Wizard. Hell, with BlueMoon vs. Kalder I used it to nullify Incite (though that was a happenstance)

Although we do need a ruling on my second question.

[Bronz]

GM Kyeudo



The Sage suggests taking a broad definition, but that is a recomendation for non-compeditive, home play. Here in the Arena, we have enough rules lawyers, such as Mavian here , that not following the rules to the letter would be disasterous, and so a stricter reading is needed.

Our definition of ongoing control will be this: Any non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions and allows the source of the effect to influence the choices of the target.

Sleep does not count as ongoing control, because while it may force sleep (depriving one of full control over your own actions), it does not allow your opponent to make you do anything or make it easier for your opponent to make you do anything. It merely causes you to sleep. One could even make a fairly strong case that one does not awaken at the end of the sleep spell, but instead the spell simply stops enforcing sleep on the victim at its end.

Sorry, but Protection from Evil needs to have its limits.

@Kyeudo
It is a TIME oriented spell, not an instaneous one. So by your very definition of exercising control sleep is considered under the purview of protection from evil.

So essentially we are nullifying the RAW so prevent something from happening? I don't like this at all. We have gone to rulings on RAW forever.

I have to call BS on this. It is enchantment compulsion, time oriented, uncontrollable by the target, AND is in the FAQ! How are we going against this?

And since RedMoon has his eyes closed Maurkov, he isnt saving against color spray, that was for my second question.

And if this is REALLY how this is, I want to call for a rematch. I was going by rules as written, and fairly, and was basing tactics fully off of that. You think I would charge headlong into a sleep spell for fun?

Edit: This would be made into a house rule, which we have fervently stayed away from. I don't know why we would change the way we do things in the middle of a match. The rules state one thing, and the ruling is going the other way. Kyeudo, if you don't like Protection from X so much why not just ban the stupid thing. At least that would be in line with other rulings. This just goes against the grain of everything we've done for 30 rounds.

[chilepepper]

ref chilepepper
edit-nevermind

[Maurkov]

I'd like a ruling on the colorspray, too. Does closing your eyes really make you "sightless?" A blindness spell, blindfold, or visorless helmet might work, but it's not like a gaze attack. You can't avert your eyes for a 50/50.

[Talic]

Initiate Ref Talic

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.

Relevant portion bolded, and provided in context.

Sleep is not an enchantment(compulsion) effect that grants ongoing control over the subject. It is not affected by Protection from Evil.

edit: ninja'd! Glad my answer agreed with Kyeudo. Bad my internet
connection sucks.

edit2: Sleep does not allow the caster to influence the choices of the target, beyond the exact text of the spell. It enforces a single, unchangeable action. By the same token, Confusion would not be protected, as the caster has no ONGOING control. After the spell is cast, even the caster cannot change your character's actions. They are beyond his control.

Also, I'd personally rule that if you're willing to give everything total concealment to you, you should be immune to sight based effects, instead taking the more severe blindness effect. The decision to do so would last until your next opportunity to act. That last part would actually need a high ref to rule on, though. The initial part is supported by RAW.

[Bronz]

What is it about a durational COMPULSION to sleep that people are not getting? Sleep is NOT instantaneous. It has a duration. You are COMPELLED to sleep for that duration, and therefore CONTROLLED against your will.

The school of magic, the wording, and the freaking FAQ agree with me. Every bit of logic says that sleep is exactly the kind of thing that prot. from X protects against.

It is RAW, twice over, and should not be changed. Banned? Maybe. But not changed.

[Talic]

What is it about a durational COMPULSION to sleep that people are not getting? Sleep is NOT instantaneous. It has a duration. You are COMPELLED to sleep for that duration, and therefore CONTROLLED against your will.

The school of magic, the wording, and the freaking FAQ agree with me. Every bit of logic says that sleep is exactly the kind of thing that prot. from X protects against.

It is RAW, twice over, and should not be changed. Banned? Maybe. But not changed.

Yes, you are compelled to do something. In that, the caster exercises temporary control over your actions. That control occurs at the instant the spell is cast. Beyond that, the caster has no control over your ability to act, any more than you do. Thus, the control is not ongoing. If the compulsion effect does not grant ONGOING control, then it is not covered by Prot from evil.

Edit: If sleep were dismissable, you'd have a case, as then the caster could control whether you woke up. It is not, however. Still, this is just a reasoning of WHY it falls in line with Kyeudo's ruling above.

[Mavian]

The things about the FAQ is that it itself says that what Prot Evil affects is explicitly up to DM interpretation, and I can see this argument going both ways, heck, I could argue it in both ways.

Pro Protection from X:

Sleep is as Bronz has stated, a mind affecting enchantment spell of the compulsion subschool. The FAQ itself states that under a broad view of the secondary effects of the spell, it delays the effect of the sleep spell

Anti Protection from X:

Taking a broad brush when trying to delineate what spells it actually counters, makes it much more powerful in this context than any 1st level spell has a right to be. The FAQ itself states that Protection from X's protection from Compulsion spells is up to the purview of the DM.


@Also Talic, Go back and read my post from Yesterday at 3:22 pm. I ninja'd you almost word for word.

[Talic]

The things about the FAQ is that it itself says that what Prot Evil affects is explicitly up to DM interpretation, and I can see this argument going both ways, heck, I could argue it in both ways.

Pro Protection from X:

Sleep is as Bronz has stated, a mind affecting enchantment spell of the compulsion subschool. The FAQ itself states that under a broad view of the secondary effects of the spell, it delays the effect of the sleep spell

Anti Protection from X:

Taking a broad brush when trying to delineate what spells it actually counters, makes it much more powerful in this context than any 1st level spell has a right to be. The FAQ itself states that Protection from X's protection from Compulsion spells is up to the purview of the DM.


@Also Talic, Go back and read my post from Yesterday at 3:22 pm. I ninja'd you almost word for word.

Yeah, darn me and not clicking on page 2. I feel like belkar when he failed a spot check. I'm too easy to ninja.

[Maurkov]

Please excuse my previous flippancy. I don't expect to mollify you, Bronz, but I'll try to explain my reasoning:

Is sleep "ongoing control?" The SRD text does not say that waking the sleeper ends the spell. Can the caster will the subject back to sleep again during the duration? If so, that would be ongoing.

Considering the caster has no control over which targets in the area are affected nor knowledge of which targets resist, I would posit that the caster doesn't have ongoing control over the subject. Otherwise, he could exclude allies from the effect. It's not even dismissable.

Sleep is a compulsion, but is it 'control' in the sense of Protection from Evil section 2? The sentence "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." leads me to think it only protects against a limited set of compulsions, those that allow the caster to mentally direct the subject's actions.

I don't think the list of spells is cut and dried, but I think the sage is reaching. He does that.

As to a do-over. If the refs rule that eyes-shut is total protection from colorspray (and other spells that exclude sightless creatures), I'd be okay restarting. Otherwise, I'll see you in the finals.

[Bronz]

@Maurkov
Honestly I rechecked the color spray thing, and apparently "patterns" effect you whether you can see them or are just caught inside them. I saw the tactic work on someone else before and didn't do my homework (they never cast because of it).

I am still defiantly PRO prot. from evil. It is powerful sure but the interpretation is there.

I'll roll the second will save, but this protection from evil thing really has me going. Seriously, it's like I'm seeing 1+1=2 and people are telling me it's 3. To me, it is blatantly obvious, but I guess it's just me. The control doesn't end until the end of the spell. Charm does not give full control either, neither does daze (which is like sleep), but the wording is there to make it bypass.

And as for power of a 1st level spell, I think color spray and sleep take the cake here. One shot wonders they are, and color spray is like that up until level 5, with sleep topping out at 4th level. That's power.

will - (1d20+1)[21]

[Bronz]

Go figure I make that save.

[Bronz]

I'd still like to ask for a restart. The rules, as stated, were being followed and they got interpreted in another direction mid match. I based my entire strategy on protection from evil protecting against sleep (we can all see the logic both ways) and I believe it calls for one.

[Kyeudo]

GM Kyeudo

Sleep doesn't fit the definition of ongoing control. For something to be considered ongoing control, it has to meet 3 criteria.

1. Must be non-instantaneous. Sleep qualifies.
2. Must render the target unable to have full control over his/her actions. Sleep qualifies.
3. Must grant the user influence over the target's actions. Sleep does not qualify, since the caster can't influence the target to do anything but sleep.

I'm sorry that this ruling messes with what you thought would happen, but if we don't go with this ruling, we end up with a 1st level spell that can give the finger to nearly the entire school of Enchantment.

On the restart, you can have it if your opponent will allow it. Otherwise, you can undrink the potion if it had no effect on the match before this.

[Maurkov]

See? Now why'd you have to go and make that save? Rack 'em.

I'll be purchasing a few things, I think.

[Bronz]

@Maurkov
I thank you for being understanding. I will have to think of a few things but let me know when you are ready. I'll leave it up to you if you want to keep the same initiative (not like I have a good chance of winning it anyways

@Kyeudo
There is one thing that really perplexes me about the ruling and it's this line:

but if we don't go with this ruling, we end up with a 1st level spell that can give the finger to nearly the entire school of Enchantment.

This, above all else, suggests a banning of the spell and not a case by case ruling which can lead to multiple instances of this happening. Is Daze covered since it only lasts one round? Or Command?

Either a comprehensive list of does works and doesn't works is needed, or a complete banning of the Protection from X spells. I am honestly surprised it took us 30 rounds for this to come up.

[Maurkov]

I agree, we should enumerate which spells Protection from Evil suppresses. I haven't had a chance to rethink my strategy, so I'm not quite ready to buy stuff yet. What's the range and duration on those blindsight potions, anyway?

[Bronz]

30'. If you are curious the spell is in the spell compendium.
And 1 minute per level.

[Bigmac]

Yall want to start the new fight in this thread or do you want a new one?

[Maurkov]

This thread is fine. Is the blindsight spell foiled by silence/deafness?

[Bigmac]

It never mentions how the sense is acquired (it could be more akin to tremorsense + scent combo) which could still work even blinded and deaf. So I'd be inclined to say no.

[Mavian]

blindsense and blindsight are both covered in the SRD and the spell never specifies how blindsight is gained, so I have to agree with Bigmac on this one. Although maybe we should define it for arena purposes.

[Maurkov]

No purchases.

spell selection

Spoiler

Show

0 Daze
0 Ghost Sound
0 Detect Magic
0 Daze
(0) Mage Hand
1 Colorspray
1 Sleep
1 Sleep
1 Mage Armor
(1) Reduce Person

Init - (1d20+8)[16]

Starting with a scroll in hand.

Spoiler

Show

scroll is expeditious retreat

[Bronz]

Maurkov,
If you don't mind, I'd like the uses for Protection from Evil outlined before we proceed, or if its just banned. There are still spells you have that it could be used for theoretically (mainly daze), and I'd rather not make this mistake again.

Edit: Also, I noticed you used reduce person in the last match. I'd just like to remind you that reduce/enlarge person are indeed full round casts

Reduce Person

[Maurkov]

Thanks for catching the reduce person thing. I'd probably have made that mistake again. The +5 to hide is really handy.

Given the third criterion outlined by Kyeudo, Protection from Evil isn't going to protect against daze. Command would be supressedd, as would the suggestion from hypnotism and using charm person to persuade your opponent to take any actions (though it would probably still prevent attacks). After we get a definitive ruling, though, I may reselect spells.

[Bronz]

Not to mention the +2 to AC for reduce person.

But yeah, once we get a final list we will finally get going again.