AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Clear spindle ioun stone9/19/2023 ![]() ![]() That's what mind affecting means, and if the spell protected you from all mind affecting effects, it would say so. One cannot decide that sleep/confusion/hold/anything exercise mental control just because they affect the mind. That being said, and having argued this into the ground through 3 editions of this game now, I can be a bit passionate. To my opponents: I really do not wish to sound haughty, and I do respect your right to an opinion. The funny part is that we all believe that our position is what is worded in the rules. I believe the spell is worded properly, especially considering one cannot cover every eventuality for every spell in a finitely worded document. What I find humourous is the folks reading the spell and claiming that the rules say you can't sleep someone protected. I'd like to add though: I think the wording is fine as it is. It's probably too late for an errata to shove in the word "ongoing", but I'll settle for a FAQ to stop this neverending back and forth. They tried to add their own wording to grant the +2 bonus to removing a current controlling force, and in the process they screwed up important words in the copy/paste. However, the intent behind the spell changes makes me feel it's more a problem with edition carryover. Now, if Pathfinder means to make the 1st level spell grant immunities where they took it away from an 8th level spell (Mind Blank), then whatever. No where in the theme of the spell do I get the impression that it's to protect against being put to sleep, etc. The spell's theme comes from myth and legends of summoning creatures and protecting from creatures that tried to possess or control you in some way. In 3.5e, the spell had the specific verbiage of "ongoing control", which neatly removed any doubt as to what spells were affected. However, now that it's been published it sets a terrible precendent. If a player tried to come up with their own always-on Protection From Evil prior to that item being available, it'd be subject to the pricing guidelines. ![]() The problem with the item in question in this thread (which I'll admit I don't have to look at, I'm just going by what others have posted) is that it's a published item that wildly violates the game's own guidelines. Since we already know that a +4 armor bonus (ala Bracers of Armor) costs 16,000, we can extrapolate that a Shield item would cost at least that much, more if you want to include the auto-protection from Magic Missile and other force/incorporeal effects.īesides, the one that REALLY breaks the game is an always-on True Strike. You're only supposed to use the generic pricing guidelines for continous use items when there are no other comparable items. Flux Vector wrote: I myself would certainly houserule the continuous magic item in some manner (for another magic item that kicks cost-vs-effect in the shins, btw, look at a continuous Shield spell item.)Īh, but the rules do take that into account. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |