3.5 Mind Blank

[Gabe the Bard]

Lately in our PnP D&D game, our fighters have been dancing to Otto's Irresistible tune more and more often. So I'm thinking about picking up Mind Blank for my sublime chord. However, I'm wondering how the spell affects bardic music, which is a mind-affecting supernatural ability. RAW, mind blank protects against all mind-affecting effects, but do you think it should include beneficial effects such as Inspire Courage? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[Tyger]

Short answer, it blocks everything mind-affecting.

Long answer, its just like Spell Resistance except it can't be voluntarily lowered when you want to accept the positive effect. Its a bit of a double edged blade there really.

Now, Protection From XXX will give a lot of the same benefits, but without the total blockage. Note that this works regardless of alignment, so it is an alternative. It doesn't have the duration of Mind Blank but would be easy to Persist or get a continuous use magic item for.

[Psyren]

It's debatable whether Protection from X would do anything to Irresistible Dance. You don't get "ongoing control over the subject," so much as you make the subject uncontrollable.

[Choco]

Tyger is right, it does in fact block ALL mind-affecting spells and abilities. If you want one that can be lowered, you need something like the Occult Slayer's 5th level class feature, which lets you suppress or resume it as a free action.

[Tyger]

It's debatable whether Protection from X would do anything to Irresistible Dance. You don't get "ongoing control over the subject," so much as you make the subject uncontrollable.

Debatable is the way I see that too. You force them to dance, which seems to me to be ongoing control, but its pretty open to interpretation.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Debatable is the way I see that too. You force them to dance, which seems to me to be ongoing control, but its pretty open to interpretation.
The question is: Does “Ongoing Control” imply the ability to change the initial instruction, or does it simply imply the compulsion lasts? In the case of the former, Otto’s irresistable dance does not count, where it does in the latter. And the rules do not offer any clarification. :smallannoyed:

[Psyren]

Debatable is the way I see that too. You force them to dance, which seems to me to be ongoing control, but its pretty open to interpretation.

I think that's too narrow - every compulsion forces some kind of behavior on its subject (as that is what "compulsion" means.) If PfE blocked every compulsion it wouldn't need the "ongoing control" qualifier, or any qualifier at all.

PfE wouldn't block Confusion for the same reason. You compel behavior, but beyond that you have no control over the subject. You can't force a dancing individual to attack, or not to defend himself, or indeed to do anything beyond toe-tapping and capering in place.

In short, you aren't mentally commanding the player to keep dancing - that's just an effect of the spell. PfE would stop a command, but ID doesn't require one.

EDIT: I also don't buy the "ongoing control = spell with a duration" argument. Does protection from evil make you immune to Sleep? Again, you are compelling a behavior, but you don't actually have control over the subject.

[Stegyre]

The point may be debated (and has been in the past), but I would say that the description in Protection from Evil that, it blocks "enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects" means that it bars any and all spells with the enchantment (charm) or enchantment (compulsion) descriptor, which would include irresistible Dance.

Bottom line, you will have to ask DM for a decision.

[Psyren]

The point may be debated (and has been in the past), but I would say that the description in Protection from Evil that, it blocks "enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects" means that it bars any and all spells with the enchantment (charm) or enchantment (compulsion) descriptor, which would include irresistible Dance.

If you're going to quote RAW, quote the whole thing:



...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).

There is a qualifier there, so "any and all" is wrong.

[Stegyre]

There is a qualifier there, so "any and all" is wrong.That is (part of) the debate. It can be readily argued in either direction on this and other language. (Among other things, forcing someone to dance may readily qualify as having "ongoing control over the subject").

The real question is RAI: did the authors intend the extra language you quoted as a limitation on the protection or only as an example?

If you've got their testimonials, by all means, share. :smalltongue:

I stand by my original position: RAW is a mess, and it can be argued either way, and it comes down to a DM's call.

[Psyren]

That is (part of) the debate. It can be readily argued in either direction on this and other language. (Among other things, forcing someone to dance may readily qualify as having "ongoing control over the subject").

Does it? Can you tell them to stop dancing? Dance in a different way? Focus entirely on dancing? Dance towards or away from you? How much control do you really have?


The real question is RAI: did the authors intend the extra language you quoted as a limitation on the protection or only as an example?

I don't see how that can be a question. If it was an example, it would have said "such as those that" rather than simply "that."


If you've got their testimonials, by all means, share. :smalltongue:

The question is not whether or not "ongoing control" is a qualifier or not; it very plainly is, therefore logically there are compulsions that PfE doesn't block. Rather, the question is what constitutes "ongoing control." I have presented my arguments as to why I don't think ID falls under that description.

[Stegyre]

The question is not whether or not "ongoing control" is a qualifier or not; it very plainly is . . . .
No. One may credibly argue that that "ongoing control" is simply subsumed in any spell with the enchantment (compulsion) descriptor.

Nothing requires "total" control, before the protection is triggered. By casting a compulsion spell, the caster is exercising at least some control, which is why they have that descriptor. In the case in point, he is causing them to dance, and likewise causing them to forfeit any other actions. In context, that's actually quite a substantial amount of control. In fact, as it is "obviously self destructive" in combat, it is quite arguably greater control than that granted by Dominate Person.

You face a much higher burden in this argument than I do, and you're not carrying it.
I am not arguing that this is the correct interpretation, although I do believe it is the better one. You must show that this interpretation is insupportable. RAW being what it is, you really cannot achieve that.

[Psyren]

I never used the phrase "total control." I said "ongoing control." ID fails this litmus because you compel one action at the onset of the spell and thereafter cannot make any modifications/additions to your command. You do not have ongoing control.

Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051004a) breaks out the different types of compulsion:


Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.

The quote makes it clear that "ongoing control" is different from "determining the subjects actions when the spell is cast." Irresistible Dance falls under the latter.

And if that isn't enough for you, then we can turn to the FAQ: (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DnDFAQ11272001.pdf)


Q: The second function of the protection from evil spell blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature or to exercise mental control over the creature. What, exactly, counts as mental control?

A:“Mental control” includes all spells of the school of Enchantment that have the Charm subschool, such as animal friendship, charm person, and charm monster. It also includes some Enchantment spells of the Compulsion subschool if those spells grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such spells include dominate person and dominate monster. Compulsions that merely dictate the subject’s action at the time the spell takes effect are not blocked. Such spells include: command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto's irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of truth.

Emphasis mine. I'm as fond of PfE as the next player, but it is NOT level 1 Mind Blank, no matter how much you want it to be.

[Stegyre]

Good arguments, but as Crumudgeon is fond of saying, "FAQ is not RAW."

Neither are the Skip Williams' articles, for that matter, although they certainly come with greater authority than FAQ. In this particular instance, however, they don't get you all the way home, because they don't make the distinction the FAQ does.

EDIT: Further to the point, let's link to the correct FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv06302008.zip). (Psyren linked the 3.0 version.)

You may note that the 3.5 FAQ answers the same question very differently:

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 PH) 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. [emphasis added - Stegyre]

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. [Note that including Command is direclty opposite to the 3.0 answer; and Tasha's is substantially the same - for purposes of this discussion - to ID in how it "controls" the target. -Stegyre]

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).

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Neither are the Skip Williams' articles, for that matter, although they certainly come with greater authority than FAQ.
Protip: Most of the FAQ comes from Skip Williams. The entries are straight out of Dragon’s “Sage Advice” articles, which were written by Skip Williams before he handed it over to Andy Collins. So the FAQ is a Skip Williams Article.

Not sure how one official article would carry more weight than the other. Short of conflict resolution rules (such as the “primary source” rules), of course.

[Psyren]

Good arguments, but as Crumudgeon is fond of saying, "FAQ is not RAW."

Again, you were arguing RAI, not RAW. To quote Stegyre: "if you've got their testimonials, by all means, share." Well, that's what I just did.

Your quote is no more authoritative than the FAQ, either - but mine has the advantage of specifically mentioning OID, whereas yours does not.

[Stegyre]

Protip: Most of the FAQ comes from Skip Williams. The entries are straight out of Dragon’s “Sage Advice” articles, which were written by Skip Williams before he handed it over to Andy Collins. So the FAQ is a Skip Williams Article.

Not sure how one official article would carry more weight than the other. Short of conflict resolution rules (such as the “primary source” rules), of course.
Pro-tip: see my above edits (made while you were posting). Skip apparently answered the question one way, in 3.0, but Andy answered in an almost diametrically opposite way, in 3.5.

I submit that if even the authors cannot agree, it's hard to say that one cannot rule either way.


Again, you were arguing RAI, not RAW. To quote Stegyre: "if you've got their testimonials, by all means, share." Well, that's what I just did.

Your quote is no more authoritative than the FAQ, either - but mine has the advantage of specifically mentioning OID, whereas yours does not.

I am by no means arguing RAI. I've said more than once, this issue may be decided either way. Just ask Andy and Skip. :smallyuk:

[Psyren]

I am by no means arguing RAI.



The real question is RAI: did the authors intend the extra language you quoted as a limitation on the protection or only as an example?

Your own quote is self-contradictory besides. Your quote says that Rage isn't blocked, but Rage is much closer to "ongoing control" than ID is, given that it's duration is Concentration. It also "prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions" - shutting off a target's ability to cast spells definitely qualifies.

I am not debating that a DM can rule either way if he chooses - that goes without saying - just that the logic is clear to me.

[Stegyre]

Your own quote is self-contradictory besides. To say that "the real question is RAI" is not to say, "Here's what RAI is." I'm simply acknowledging that there isn't one right answer to this question. That's been my position all along.

It would be nice to have a definitive statement of RAI. It would be even better to have well-written RAW. We have neither, particularly when one considers the disagreement between Skip and Andy.

Does the fact that Skip answered the question one way in the 3.0 FAQ and Andy answered it contrariwise in the 3.5 FAQ mean the rule has changed?

Maybe. I don't actually know, but I don't think that you can claim to know, either. Maybe Andy didn't know about Skip's comment. Maybe they've had a long-standing disagreement about this. Ultimately, it will come down to whatever the DM in a particular game concludes.

Gosh! I think that's what I said in my first post on the topic.

Your quote says that Rage isn't blocked, but Rage is much closer to "ongoing control" than ID is, given that it's duration is Concentration. It also "prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions" - shutting off a target's ability to cast spells definitely qualifies.
What sort of an argument is that? So Andy says Rage isn't included, but Sleep, Command, Daze, and Hideous Laughter are.

He doesn't mention Irresistible Dance in either category.

We can argue until well after the Moon Cows come home as to whether ID is more like Rage (or less like control than Rage, which appears to be your actual argument) or like HL. In the end, all that we've proven is that it can be argued either way.

Which is exactly my point.

[Tael]

That is (part of) the debate. It can be readily argued in either direction on this and other language. (Among other things, forcing someone to dance may readily qualify as having "ongoing control over the subject").

The real question is RAI: did the authors intend the extra language you quoted as a limitation on the protection or only as an example?

If you've got their testimonials, by all means, share. :smalltongue:

I stand by my original position: RAW is a mess, and it can be argued either way, and it comes down to a DM's call.

You have to be kidding me. I mean, I play it as protecting from almost everything, but that position is ridiculous. (By position I mean arguing that the second part was an example)

[Psyren]

He doesn't mention Irresistible Dance in either category.


Whereas FAQ specifically does.



We can argue until well after the Moon Cows come home as to whether ID is more like Rage (or less like control than Rage, which appears to be your actual argument) or like HL. In the end, all that we've proven is that it can be argued either way.

Which is exactly my point.

And my point is that there is more weight on the side of disallowing the protection than allowing it.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Pro-tip: see my above edits (made while you were posting). Skip apparently answered the question one way, in 3.0, but Andy answered in an almost diametrically opposite way, in 3.5.

I submit that if even the authors cannot agree, it's hard to say that one cannot rule either way.
Fortunately, there is an official rule that would apply even if both answers were given for 3.5: The most recent version is the correct one. So Andy trumps Skip.

[Runestar]

Even though the 3.5 version seems way more unreasonable than the 3.0 version?

I subscribe to the 3.0 version BTW.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Even though the 3.5 version seems way more unreasonable than the 3.0 version?
The rules say what’s official. That’s all. Not necessarily what’s best. :smallsigh:

[Psyren]

Fortunately, there is an official rule that would apply even if both answers were given for 3.5: The most recent version is the correct one. So Andy trumps Skip.

The 3.5. version does not mention Irresistible Dance, therefore specific trumps general.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The 3.5. version does not mention Irresistible Dance, therefore specific trumps general.
So every time a General Rule is re-written, they have to cover every single specific example that may have been used under the old rule?

…Right… :smallsigh:

[olentu]

Oh come now things like rules precedence and the like do not apply since it is not the rules.

[Psyren]

So every time a General Rule is re-written, they have to cover every single specific example that may have been used under the old rule?

When the new rule contradicts itself, you bet they do.

[Yukitsu]

When the new rule contradicts itself, you bet they do.

Only if they say the list is definitive.