Protection from Evil -missiles from conjured

[AxeMental]

Would conjured creatures be able to use missile attacks (bows, spears etc.) against a person protected by this spell (or ability as in the case of the paladin)? The DMG explanation is a bit confusing to me "this excludes (keeps out) monsters using natural (body) weapon attacks which require touching the protected character". I always took this to refer to hand held weapons (but now that I read it again, it seems to cover missile weapons). We've never included missiles, but then again, when have we ever played correctly. This is kind of critical to know in an upcoming battle I'm DMing next weekend (in this case one of the PCs is a paladin).

Thanks

[prespos]

Missile attacks are OK.

[BlackBat242]

Only if the missile is also physically touching the creature that fired/threw/hurled it at the same time it is touching the protected character.

[Matthew]

I am not keen on allowing missile attacks against targets that are warded against the attacker, nor of using a pike to accomplish the same.

[prespos]

BTB, the wording is "preventing bodily contact". (PH.44)

See PH.38 -- it seems that any weapon would be OK to use, not just pikes and missile weapons.

[AxeMental]

My impression is that the spell should prevent a conjured creature from easily attacking the caster. Thats why I've always assumed what was meant by "bodily contact" was the person protected from being touched (contacted) in any way.

[Matthew]

I agree, otherwise it would be a next to useless protection spell.

[BlackBat242]

I disagree - many of the more effective attack forms in AD&D are touch-based - all the level drains, paralyzing touches, devils teleporting humans to the hells, and so on.

Undead, devils/demons/etc and the like cannot use those powers through weapons, and it is exactly that form of attack that I (and those I've played with) always viewed the Protection From Evil spells to have been developed to counter.

The spells are not to make people immune to all attack from such beings, they are to block the most "special" of the evil being's attacks only.

[Philotomy Jurament]

Given the wording used in the DMG, I think there's a strong BTB argument for the spell only warding the magic user against natural weapon/touch attacks.

Nevertheless, I don't like that interpretation. I prefer a much more protective version of protection from evil, where the caster is warded from all physical attacks made by a conjured creature.

[T. Foster]

The spell definitely only wards out contact/touch-based attacks; not weapons and definitely not missiles. Protection from Evil, 10' Radius would block out most/all melee attacks but still not missiles.

[TRP]

Otherwise, the -2 "to hit" makes little sense.

[AxeMental]

I agree with PJ, otherwise the conjured creatures simply use weapons and bypass the spell (how many summoned orcs walk around without swords, axes etc.). This would effectively limit the spells use to non-weapon using monsters. At the very least the spell should effect the weapons summoned in I'd think (so a monster summoned orc might not be able to use his long sword, but be able to use one found when he arrives).

Foster, I've always thought the more likely advantage of 10' Protection from Evil was that you could cover several PCs.

[Matthew]

Given the wording used in the DMG, I think there's a strong BTB argument for the spell only warding the magic user against natural weapon/touch attacks.

Nevertheless, I don't like that interpretation. I prefer a much more protective version of protection from evil, where the caster is warded from all physical attacks made by a conjured creature.

So it would seem, though like you I prefer something more akin to the "protection from demons" scroll.

Otherwise, the -2 "to hit" makes little sense.

Well, for argument's sake, orcs are evil and not hedged out.