Protection from Evil vs Sleep and Charm spells?

[waysoftheearth]

Using the monster determination tables (U&WA p10), players can meet groups of conjurers, thaumaturgists, or even enchanters(!) on dungeon level 1.

So: What defense do lowbie players have against evil magic-user spells? Particularly the sleep spell which can easily TPK the players. Especially when groups of conjurers with several sleep spells show up. Life is tough enough already!

I've been thinking that maybe the protection from evil spell could stretch to cover sleep and charm attacks too. PfE says it will <<keep out attacks from enchanted monsters>>. Probably, an evil-conjurer's sleep or charm spell wasn't front of mind. But if a ref was being generous, it makes a certain sense that PfE should block these. It would also be a decent incentive for players to actually pick the PfE spell, even if it does last only 6 turns.

What do you think?

[hamurai]

Interesting idea. How powerful a spell would PfE be able to hold off, then?

To be honest, I've never given it much thought in the sense that I was aware that as an enemy monster, these encounters would be too powerful unless surprised. But since the term "monster" includes pretty much everything that isn't a PC, these conjurers, theurgists and enchanters don't have to be enemies:

Note, however, that the term “monster” includes men found in the dungeons, so in this way some high-level characters can be brought into a character’s service, charisma allowing or through a Charm spell.

(M&M p.12)

If you roll one of those powerful "monsters", they could be powerful NPCs who help the PCs in exchange for their help - could be a quest! They could even be used again as mentor types to PCs in regular exchange of loot.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 25, 2022 10:00:36 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Interesting idea. How powerful a spell would PfE be able to hold off, then?

I was thinking just charm and sleep.
I guess if you wanted to generalise, perhaps it could be spell level 1 enchantments?
Or perhaps (more generously) enchantments up to and including whatever spell level the M-U can cast?

[Mordorandor]

Oct 25, 2022 5:30:50 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

...

I've been thinking that maybe, just maybe, the protection from evil spell could stretch to cover sleep and charm attacks too. PfE says it will <<keep out attacks from enchanted monsters>>. Probably, an evil-conjurer's sleep or charm spell wasn't front of mind. But if a ref was being generous, it makes a certain sense that PfE should block these. It would also be a decent incentive for players to actually pick the PfE spell, even if it does last only 6 turns.

What do you think?

Fun little twist. Any reason you wouldn't want to lean more into "evil sendings," ala Poul Anderson?

----------

    He woke with a jerk. Alianora was shaking him. In the restless light he saw her eyes grown enormous. Her voice was a dry whisper. “List! There’s summat out there!”
    
    He got up sword in hand, and peering to the gloom. Yes, he could hear them too, the pad-pad-pad of many feet, and he saw the light gleam off slanted eyes.

    A wolf howled almost in his ear. He leaped and slashed with his sword. Laughter answered, shrill and nasty. “In nomine Patris.” he called, and was mocked by the noises. Either those things were immune to holy names, or they weren’t close enough to be hurt. Probably the former. As his eyes adapted, he saw the shadows. They glided around and around the charmed circle. They were monstrous.

    Hugi crouched by the fire; his teeth clasped in his head. Alianora moaned and crept into Holger’s free arm. He felt how she shuddered. “Take it easy,” he said.

    “But the sendings,” she gasped. “Night-gangers on every hand, Holger! I‘ve never erenow been under their siege. I canna look.” She buried her face against his shoulder. Her fingers tightened on his arm till the nails bit.

[Red Baron]

I have always read "protection from evil" as "total protection from balrogs, djinn, efreet, elementals, and invisible stalkers", which is already fairly powerful, if niche, for a 1st level spell.

However, it makes sense for the spell to protect against enchantments, as the definition of evil in "dispel evil" includes spells and sendings.

[hamurai]

Oct 25, 2022 15:58:22 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Oct 25, 2022 10:00:36 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Interesting idea. How powerful a spell would PfE be able to hold off, then?

I was thinking just charm and sleep.
I guess if you wanted to generalise, perhaps it could be spell level 1 enchantments?
Or perhaps (more generously) enchantments up to and including whatever spell level the M-U can cast?

Well, since PfE 1 only works on the MU and only PfE 3 extends to a circle, I guess I'd be generous here. Maybe PfE would allow a spell negation roll as in Chainmail, or a Saving Throw vs. Magic with a bonus.

PfE does grant a bonus of +1 to saves and "a -1 from hit dice of evil opponents", which both makes me wonder if those are modifiers to a d20 roll or a 2d6 roll from Chainmail, which would be a lot better.

[Starbeard]

At first I read the thread title "PFE vs Sheep." This changes things.

Oct 25, 2022 17:15:28 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

I have always read "protection from evil" as "total protection from balrogs, djinn, efreet, elementals, and invisible stalkers", which is already fairly powerful, if niche, for a 1st level spell.

However, it makes sense for the spell to protect against enchantments, as the definition of evil in "dispel evil" includes spells and sendings.

This point sort of clinches it for me. I'd have to play with it to see whether automatic protection is balanced enough, or whether it makes more sense to grant a standard save for enchantments that would otherwise have none.

[hamurai]

"Detect Evil" includes "evil thought or intent", so Dispel Evil and Protection from Evil should probably also include all spells cast with evil intention.

According to PfE's description, it would grant a saving throw bonus (again I wonder, if that rather small +1 bonus was intended for a d20 roll or a CM-like 2d6, which would make it a lot better). "dding a +1 to all saving throws" would RAW not allow one where none is mentioned in the spell description, but it might be RAI to allow a ST against "evil" spells, with a bonus.

[howandwhy99]

Sleep is too powerful as written, honestly. Also, switch the consequences for many monsters using Sleep, especially at lower levels, so their objective isn't necessarily killing others. That has worked for me.

I do like your proposal as a house rule. As others mention, it makes a lot of sense. And I don't think it is that powerful as it requires some foreknowledge by the caster for the day. And some subtle timing usage or not being surprised.

I would worry about Charm Monster, its power and utility, when any evil protection spells auto-dispel the casting of it.
(Especially all those all-class used Prot. Scrolls!)

[Desparil]

Oct 30, 2022 11:21:18 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

I would worry about Charm Monster, its power and utility, when any evil protection spells auto-dispel the casting of it.
(Especially all those all-class used Prot. Scrolls!)

I wouldn't worry too much - monsters with actual spell casting powers should prove extremely difficult to charm, so I see that as "working as intended," and how many of the rest are actually going to have protection scrolls just lying around? Not many if you're randomly assigning loot, and if you're hand-placing the loot then you have only yourself to blame if Charm Monster is nerfed too much. Not to mention the fact that using a protection scroll still presumably requires a human-like intellect, so even if a protection scroll ends up in a hydra, wyvern, or purple worm's treasure pile, the beast won't actually be able to use it.

[tombowings]

Were I to create such a house rule, I would say that Protection from Evil does not dispel Charm or Sleep, but instead prevents a character from becoming charmed or put to sleep. If a character is already charmed or sleeping, I would therefore rule that Protection from Evil had no effect whatsoever.

I probably would not institute such a house rule, however. Instead, I would like to create a way for magic-users to shield themselves and their allies from offensive spells as those spells are being cast. How? I'm not so sure at the moment.

[Starbeard]

I agree, I would do the exact same thing. Some sort of dispel magic is required to remove those enchantments once cast.

You could alter PFE so that it only blocks spells only if cast as a reactionary counterspell.

[thegreyelf]

Intriguing. I was going to suggest that elves are a defense against sleep and charm, but upon revisiting, it seems that OD&D elves are not immune to these things. Just when you think you've learned all you can from OD&D...

[rsdean]

I seem to recall that we used Protection from Evil as blocking level drain from undead, though not the physical damage. Adding sleep and charm doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch…