Protection from Good (or evil)

[Dell]

There's a long and boring discussion about protection here:
www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12049

It focuses on the Paladin's ability, but I think the information is general enough. Anyway, here's the way I understand it to work:

The protection only prevents the natural attacks from certain creatures. Spells or spell-like abilities and missile weapons would be possible against the protected person. This is in comparison to Sanctuary, which prevents any attacks, but is dependent on the lack of aggressive actions from the protected character.

The DMG says on page 41:

Protection From Evil: Note that this excludes (keeps out) monsters using natural (body) weapon attacks which require touching the protected character.

This implies that the monster could use melee weapons to attack a protected character - assuming it has the reach to do so. For a paladin, this is fairly difficult, for the regular protection from evil they just need to not be using a dagger...

If the protected character were to touch the monster physically, I'd agree that he is essentially opting to drop his protection. But the monster is already able to attack the character - just not with his fists, claws, tentacles, hooves or whatever. So the protected character should be able to have those non-melee options without losing his protection.

[Dead Greyhawk]

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of the commenters on that thread agree that if the person within the protection launches an attack, the protection is no longer valid. Only one commenter, Runecrow, opines that Protection From Good exists regardless of the actions of the recipient of the spell.


The others use some quite pithy language when talking about players who wish to maintain the protection while still attacking. See following:

Only members of the International Union of Disgusting Characters can get away with things like that

As soon as someone with PfE engages an enemy who was hemmed out by the PfE, the enemy is free to attack, modified at a -2 on attack rolls.

While a cowering paladin (if there is such a thing) would be protected from the physical attacks of conjured/summoned beings (tho nonmaterial attacks, such as at-will abilities, will freely pass), if the paladin attacks or uses the P/E in an offensive manner -- such as trying to force any such being to move at all -- the absolute blockage would be dispelled, leaving only the -2 penalty to such attackers.

The key word is "Protection". The spell/ability is primarily defensive. Allowing it to be used as an offensive super weapon just because it doesn't specifically state the protection is negated by offensive actions is a lack of common sense and rules lawering crap.

By the wildly overpowering reading of the spell, the paladin could wail on Orcus and not have any fear of physical retribution. That is just nutty.

Holy crap. Its not just paladins. Any priest or mage who casts PfE or PfG is in effect, casting an Anti-Melee Field as a 1st level spell. If that doesnt explain how grossly Mr. Rune has misread PfE, I give up. Nothing else will.

I'm still strongly of the opinion that a summoned creature simply cannot engage in melee combat with someone under protection from evil. This includes whacking them with their hands and whacking them with their sword. They are simply barred from melee contact unless the protected being attacks them. Then they would be able to engage in melee.

I agree that indirect attacks would be successful, like bringing down the roof, but I would also think that spell-like direct attacks would not be acceptable.

[Dell]

admin said:

I agree that indirect attacks would be successful, like bringing down the roof, but I would also think that spell-like direct attacks would not be acceptable.

Okay, so let me see if I have this straight. Say a protected character is facing a devil. In your campaign, the devil couldn't enter melee with, fire a missile weapon at, cast a spell upon or use a psionic ability that directly targets the character. Would he be able to use an area effect spell like silence, darkness or fireball on an area that includes the protected character? If so, would the protected character be protected against it completely, or just have the +2 to their saving throw? Would the devil be able to charm a fellow party member and have them attack the character?

Also, if there are multiple creatures in the area, does attacking one of them remove the protection for all of them, or just for that one? If I recall Gordon vs. the Ghouls, it's on an individual creature basis.

[Ginger]

If I sit still with a protection amulet, can a demon:
a) attack me in melee?
b) attack me with missile weapons?
c) attack me with spells?
My understanding is that he can't do the first, but can probably do the last two.

If that is true, than it would seem that I could use missile weapons or spells to attack a demon without forfeiting the protective radius.

[Dead Greyhawk]

I would say that the +2 benefit against aligned creatures would be equally applicable against summoned creatures, once combat against the summoned creature begins.

To answer James, a protected character is facing a devil. The devil couldn't enter melee with, fire a missile weapon at, cast a spell upon or use a psionic ability that directly targets the character. He would be able to use an area effect spell like silence, darkness or fireball on an area that includes the protected character. The target is not the protected creature and the indirect effect, of silence, darkness, or flame, from the casting would affect the target. The protected character would gain the +2 to their saving throw, the same as if targeted by an evil, but not summoned, creature. The devil would definitely be able to charm a fellow party member and have them attack the character, as the fellow party member is not protected from evil. The fellow party member's alignment determines the effect of the protection spell.

If there are multiple creatures in the area, attacking one of them removes the protection for just that creature.

All of this seems self-explanatory to me for melee weapons. If you walk up to the elemental, clad in your protection from good amulet, it can't hit you. Once you strike it, you've broken the protection from good barrier, but still gain the general benefit.

The tricky question is spells and missile weapons. It seems that any elemental would be toast by a spellcaster in the midst of a protection spell. For game balance reasons, I'd say that missile attacks and magical attacks break the protective shield.

The analogies I'd use to descibe my reasoning include turning undead, where attacking a turned undead breaks the turning effect, and magical fear, where a cornered, feared creature can strike back at an attacker to get away.

To answer David, if you sit still with a protection amulet, a demon can not attack you in melee, can not attack you with missile weapons, and can not attack you directly with spells. The demon can attack you indirectly with spells, by targeting areas outside of the protective radius and casting area of effect spells. Consequently, your protections are voided if you attack with a melee weapon, attack with a missile weapon, and attack directly with spells. If you attacked indirectly with spells, I'd have to put some more thought into it.

After thinking a minute, I'd probably adjudicate that attacking a creature indirectly with a spell would provide it a saving throw, similar to the other 1st level spell, sanctuary, to give it the ability to attack you. Sometimes it could (made save), sometimes it couldn't (failed save).

Basically, PfE is different from sanctuary in it gives non-saveable protection against summoned creatures and a bonus against aligned creatures, where sanctuary is saveable protection against all creatures with no other bonus.

Now, this is the way I have played PfE. James clearly has a different interpretation. Since we're likely to see more summoned creatures as the Company's level increases, we should nail this rule down. I'm happy to entertain other notions, with the understanding that summoned creatures will adapt their tactics appropriately. If James, or anyone else, has a complete notion of how they'd like PfE to work, post it so we can talk about it.

[Dell]

I'm fine with your interpretation of the spell, I just want to make sure I understand how it works. Like with Protection 10' radius - if one of the people within the circle attacks, are they all fair game, or just the one that attacked?

[Dead Greyhawk]

dell said:

Like with Protection 10' radius - if one of the people within the circle attacks, are they all fair game, or just the one that attacked?

If one of the people within the circle of a protection from evil 10' radius attacked a creature outside of the circle, the creature could attack only the person who attacked. Other people shielded by the PfE 10' r. would still be shielded.

It's not clear to me what would happen if the person who had the PfE 10' r. cast on him attacked the creature. Would the whole PfE 10' r. collapse or just that one person become unprotected? I'd think that whole PfE 10' r. would collapse, since that person is the center of the circle.

[Wolfgar]

Follow up question regarding a paladin's PfE 10'. Once a devil has been attacked I understand that the devil can attack the paladin. But what happens when combat is over and the devil has run off? Does the PfE reset? Or is the paladin permanently open to attacks from the devil?

I believe that we have played where a PfE cast after an attack by a character has the effect of preventing new attacks by the devil (so long as there is at least a round between the last attack and the new PfE).

I would argue that if the devil voluntarily left combat then when it returned it would no longer get an automatic attack on the paladin. The break would have to be more than a single round. Only when the DM says "we are out of combat" would the current PfE status reset.

[venger]

I'm leaning toward having to take the casting time of PFE 10' radius to reconsecrate the protection... or for it to be 24 hours.

And I kind of like the active approach more than the passive one.

[venger]

Revisiting this:

Mar 8, 2011 19:33:29 GMT -5 Wolfgar said:

IFollow up question regarding a paladin's PfE 10'. Once a devil has been attacked I understand that the devil can attack the paladin. But what happens when combat is over and the devil has run off? Does the PfE reset? Or is the paladin permanently open to attacks from the devil?

Let's go with 1 uninterrupted turn (10 minutes) to reconsecrate the PfE.

Aug 8, 2005 22:55:15 GMT -5 Dead Greyhawk said:

... a protected character is facing a devil. The devil couldn't enter melee with, fire a missile weapon at, cast a spell upon or use a psionic ability that directly targets the character. He would be able to use an area effect spell like silence, darkness or fireball on an area that includes the protected character. The target is not the protected creature and the indirect effect, of silence, darkness, or flame, from the casting would affect the target. The protected character would gain the +2 to their saving throw, the same as if targeted by an evil, but not summoned, creature.

I think the demon's fear effect would have worked on those in Paavo's 10' radius after all.

[Wolfgar]

I think we have been playing with not allowing area-of-effect spells either. See for example the fight in the Crypt of Badr Al Mosak in the last campaign.

Jun 13, 2010 19:53:14 GMT -5 Ginger said:

So the efreet, with the princess, was in the very next room, right past the one with the weird lights. Morvan was dead by the end of the first round of combat. The efreet's 2 attacks, 2d10 each, brought him into unconsciousness. On segment 5, it used its special ability to fireball and Morvan was caught in it, killing him instantly. There wasn't much to be done. We fought the efreet for a while, then he vanished, planning to wait out our protection spells. Concurrently, we had managed to get the princess into a ring of protection, and she said that Hassan's medallion had magical powers vs. the efreet. She put it on.

I wasn't there for the fight but if area-of-effect spells work against protection then the efreet could have easily annihilated us with his fireballs.

[venger]

Indirect area of effect spells are the only means to bypass a Protection from Evil, that remains.

I'm fine, however, with ruling that they cannot be damage-dealing under what we'll call the "Efreeti-Precedent."

And it could be argued that a cone of fear aimed at the party is not indirect, so I'll rule that ineffective as well.

[Ginger]

I agree. It seems goofy to think that a sorcerer would conjure a demon in a circle of protection and then get nuked because it used indirect attacks against him.

[venger]

So reading the spell description it seems Protection from Evil/Good does not grant a -2 to AC or +2 to savings throws vs. summoned creatures unless they are good/evil respectively.

Against a conjured or summoned creature of neutral or alignment contrary to the protection it prevents physical contact within the radius of the spell.

So Friedrich should have been struck by the earth elemental.

[Dead Greyhawk]

We have been house ruling the +2 against summoned too. See above quoted.

Aug 8, 2005 22:55:15 GMT -5 Dead Greyhawk said:

I would say that the +2 benefit against aligned creatures would be equally applicable against summoned creatures, once combat against the summoned creature begins.

[venger]

Oh, well then, carry on.