Damage Immunity for Constructs

[Leeham]

Should non-intelligent, non-living constructs (i.e. mindless) be immune to psychic and poison damage?

[Sarco_Phage]

Should non-intelligent, non-living constructs (i.e. mindless) be immune to psychic and poison damage?

Poisons require metabolism to function. Just like how they don't work on undead, they won't work on constructs. I suppose you could rule that certain poisons are extremely corrosive.

The psychic one is different. For example, if a psion is doing Force damage, that's not a mental effect. That's him hitting the thing with a psychic sledgehammer that has a physical presence.

[Gillric]

This is one that I think you would want to evaluate on a case by case basis. The different types of damage would have different affects based on what the construct is made of. For example, if it was fashioned of wood or some other highly flammable material fire damage would work really well against it, the opposite would be true if made of most types of stone.

[Suedars]

Most Golems (aside from Flesh Golems) are already immune to poison. They shouldn't be immune to Psychic damage though. They still have a magically created "mind", it's just usually not sentient.

4e generally assumes powers work as listed, and leave it to the players and DM to rationalize how. Knocking Gelatinous Cubes prone is the famous example. It also generally avoids making entire classes of enemies immune to common effects (which is why Sneak Attack no longer needs an enemy with vital organs).

[theNater]

Should non-intelligent, non-living constructs (i.e. mindless) be immune to psychic and poison damage?
I'd say that a non-intelligent construct which is acting as a creature would generally have some sort of "program" with which psychic attacks could interfere, so they wouldn't be immune. Non-intelligent constructs functioning as traps might have no such "program" or one simple enough to not be disrupted, making them immune. Immunity to common psychic effects(like sleep, charm, and fear) might show up in any of them, as whatever "programs" they have may not include subroutines for those things.

For poison immunity, I'd generally look to the elements of the construction. Any fluids: fuel(for the construct itself or its weapons), lubricants, coolants, or hydraulic fluids may cease to function properly when contaminants are added, so a construct that uses any of those in its design could be damaged by poison. Barring such elements, poison immunity is pretty likely.

[kieza]

I agree. I've used a lot of homebrewed constructs (I borrowed warjacks from the Iron Kingdoms, if you must know), and I've been giving them immunity to poison and psychic, and usually necrotic as well.

A couple of exceptions, though: possessed objects should probably be affected by psychic; flesh-based constructs should be affected by necrotic and maybe poison.

[KillianHawkeye]

4th Edition doesn't actually have nonintelligent creatures like 3E did, so that's not a problem.

[Suedars]

Generally the assumption in 4e is that if a power can conceivably work, it should. Immunities are fairly rare, and resistances are usually counterbalanced by damage weaknesses. Immunities also generally apply to rarer things, that won't invalidate entire characters. The problem with psychic immune constructs is that it's quite possible that 75% or more of a Psion, Bard, Warlock, or Wizard's powers will be psychically based, more or less taking them out of the fight, which goes against 4e's design philosophy.

[Surrealistik]

Uh oh, I see someone's contemplating whether my Grasping Shadows should damage his crab constructs :P.

In my (at least in this case) admittedly biased opinion, immunities are one thing that probably shouldn't be tampered with because of the staggering impact they have on builds and classes (particularly the ones noted by the above poster); their wholesale elimination in 4E relative to 3.5 was part of a conscious attempt to permit the greatest possible range of viable builds and powers. Even in the case of mindless automatons (or undead when it comes to that) you could justify it as psychic/psionic energy doing actual physical damage.

[KillianHawkeye]

Even in the case of mindless automatons (or undead when it comes to that) you could justify it as psychic/psionic energy doing actual physical damage.

I guess I need to say this again: There are no mindless creatures in 4E!!!

Seriously, Golems and Skeletons have Int 3. Rats have Int 2. Zombies and various bugs have Int 1. There is NO REASON they should be immune to psychic damage! :smallannoyed:

[Surrealistik]

The ability scores do not necessitate the presence of a conscious mind or sentience to effect; in most 4e source material, these sorts of undead (skeletons/undead) are referred to as mindless. There is also the case of original material by the DM for things that _are_ truly mindless, beyond debate.

[Suedars]

There's a huge difference between a conscious, sentient mind and a mind. Undead and contructs might lack the former, but they still have something that makes them aware of their surroundings and controls their actions, even if it's just an enchantment. That's what your psychic powers are affecting.

[Sarco_Phage]

I guess I need to say this again: There are no mindless creatures in 4E!!!

He specified "non-intelligent", though.

[Dergmann]

The way that I would run this situation would be for the poison to be ineffective, whereas the psychic effect, depending on the sort, might mess with the force that animates the construct.

[Surrealistik]

There's a huge difference between a conscious, sentient mind and a mind. Undead and contructs might lack the former, but they still have something that makes them aware of their surroundings and controls their actions, even if it's just an enchantment. That's what your psychic powers are affecting.

But that's the thing; they don't actually have a proper mind so much as an animating force, and what of purely mechanical constructs/automatons? There's no mind or even force to assault in the latter case. Again, I don't think that you can quite cover all the bases given the strict, rules compendium definition of 'effects that assault the mind'. Expanding on that to incorporate a type of otherworldly energy that tends to ravage the mind but is also capable of imposing physical harm seems more tenable.

[Suedars]

But that's the thing; they don't actually have a proper mind so much as an animating force, and what of purely mechanical constructs/automatons? There's no mind or even force to assault in the latter case. Again, I don't think that you can quite cover all the bases given the strict, rules compendium definition of 'effects that assault the mind'. Expanding on that to incorporate a type of otherworldly energy that tends to ravage the mind but is also capable of imposing physical harm seems more tenable.

A purely mechanical construct still takes in information about its surroundings, processes it, and acts based upon it. It functions as if it had a mind.

Look, it's fine to say "The construct's data processing works differently than a human mind, so psychic assaults on it don't work", but that's not how 4e works. In other games more emphasis is placed on function following form. A fireball in other systems behaves as fire will. It probably won't work underwater or in a void. In 4e a fireball is a ranged burst 3 that does 5d6+Int mod fire damage. Nothing about not working underwater. Nothing about starting fires when it hits flammable things. Part of 4e's design philosophy is that powers work and do what they say, and don't fail because the DM can't justify it working.

[Surrealistik]

A purely mechanical construct still takes in information about its surroundings, processes it, and acts based upon it. It functions as if it had a mind.

Look, it's fine to say "The construct's data processing works differently than a human mind, so psychic assaults on it don't work", but that's not how 4e works. In other games more emphasis is placed on function following form. A fireball in other systems behaves as fire will. It probably won't work underwater or in a void. In 4e a fireball is a ranged burst 3 that does 5d6+Int mod fire damage. Nothing about not working underwater. Nothing about starting fires when it hits flammable things. Part of 4e's design philosophy is that powers work and do what they say, and don't fail because the DM can't justify it working.

Sure, form follows function, I acknowledge that about 4E's design, and that's precisely why I'm in favour of psychic effects working as normal. What I'm saying is that you simply can't (plausibly) justify psychic effects working on certain targets based strictly on their definition in the rule compendium. However, I recommend expanding on that definition for those DMs who have a problem reconciling with this to consider the notion that the psychic 'energy' may be just as capable of physical destruction as it is of mental destruction; mental energy that rends and distorts reality as well as the minds of other beings.

[Suedars]

Oh, ok. I was misunderstanding your point. I think what will make sense in terms of justification will vary from group to group, as evidenced by our disagreement over whether "vanilla" psychic power fluff can justify them affecting constructs.

[John_D]

It's not that hard to come up with a justification for damage on the fly, especially in standard D&D where a psychic attack on a construct is MAGIC trying to affect something that is powered by MAGIC.

(From a Gamma World Game)
Player: Okay, I'm going to hit that droid with a psychic assault.
Me: Droids have simple, command-based minds, but they're still minds. You can see the ones and zeroes that make up its processes...
Player: I stick a 'two' in there! (everyone laughs)

[Surrealistik]

Naw, I mean it's almost comparable to trying to burn a fire elemental or drown a water elemental; it just won't work (yes I know low level fire elementals are inexplicably not fire immune in 4e). Even if you accept a construct's processor or an undead's animating force as some sort of crude analogue to a 'mind', it is still completely and totally different, which is why I recommend expanding the definition of what a psychic attack constitutes.

[John_D]

Even if you accept a construct's processor or an undead's animating force as some sort of crude analogue to a 'mind', it is still completely and totally different...

Why? We don't have constructs, undead, or psychic damage in real life so you're treading on very uncertain ground here.

e: Also it's pretty easy to come up with justifications for damaging elementals with their own elements if you use your imagination. Fire? Adding your fire causes it to flare up and burn out. Water? Using your mastery over water to tear the elemental apart.

I could do this all day

[Surrealistik]

Why? We don't have constructs, undead, or psychic damage in real life so you're treading on very uncertain ground here.

We do have mechanical automatons in real life, though we don't have psychic damage. That said, computers are vastly different from biological minds despite several superficial similarities, and thus almost certainly would not be subject to something that specifically injures the latter.


e: Also it's pretty easy to come up with justifications for damaging elementals with their own elements if you use your imagination. Fire? Adding your fire causes it to flare up and burn out. Water? Using your mastery over water to tear the elemental apart.

It's not about using your mastery over water to 'tear the elemental apart' it's about a specific case of trying to drown the thing in water which is a blatant impossibility.

As for fire, how would 'flaring it up and burning it out' even work? You mean trying to cause it to expand and explode outward such that it dissipates? You're looking for oxygen/hydrogen and the like, not more fire. You still can't burn a fire elemental to death regardless.

The fact is trying to use a strictly mind affecting attack to destroy a true automaton is essentially comparable to trying to kill something with something else that creature is blatantly immune to.

[Gillric]

As for fire, how would 'flaring it up and burning it out' even work? You mean trying to cause it to expand and explode outward such that it dissipates? You're looking for oxygen/hydrogen and the like, not more fire. You still can't burn a fire elemental to death regardless.

Technically, if you got it trapped in a sealed room and used more fire to consume all of the oxygen in the space the fire would then go out as it can not burn without oxygen.

[Surrealistik]

Sure, but you're not killing it directly with fire, ignoring the fact that this would be ridiculously circumstantial.

[John_D]

Oh okay I thought you were talking about a power that dealt water damage, but I should have realised there's no water damage type. If there's a water elemental type creature that doesn't have the aquatic trait (therefore making it immune to drowning) it's more down to bad creature design, I guess?

I figure if you're a fire creature you're constantly burning up stuff around you, right? If someone else casts a load of fire around you it's robbing you of the fuel and oxygen you need to survive, therefore dealing damage. That was straight off the top of my head, but if I was a creature made of fire I probably wouldn't want to go up against a guy who magically manipulates fire all day every day. ;)

Undead and constructs aren't computers! They are creatures animated by magic, being affected by magic.

[Surrealistik]

I figure if you're a fire creature you're constantly burning up stuff around you, right? If someone else casts a load of fire around you it's robbing you of the fuel and oxygen you need to survive, therefore dealing damage. That was straight off the top of my head, but if I was a creature made of fire I probably wouldn't want to go up against a guy who magically manipulates fire all day every day. ;)

As long as there's an adequate oxygen supply (and there usually is), I honestly can't see fire attacks doing much of anything. In either case, they certainly wouldn't be dealing damage to a fire elemental by their own accord.


Undead and constructs aren't computers! They are creatures animated by magic, being affected by magic.

They can be affected by magic, but that doesn't meant they're affected by something strictly mind affecting. Animating magic is _at least_ as different from an actual mind as computers are; same principle really.

[randomhero00]

What's really odd is knocking enemies prone while swimming. I mean, how does that happen?

[John_D]

They can be affected by magic, but that doesn't meant they're affected by something strictly mind affecting. Animating magic is _at least_ as different from an actual mind as computers are; same principle really.

Where does it say that animating magic is different from an actual mind and the same principle as a computer? You've assumed this. I've assumed that animating magic creates a facsimile of a mind that can be similarly affected by psychic damage, and the reason I've assumed this is it's supported by the rules.

[Surrealistik]

Where does it say that animating magic is different from an actual mind and the same principle as a computer? You've assumed this. I've assumed that animating magic creates a facsimile of a mind that can be similarly affected by psychic damage, and the reason I've assumed this is it's supported by the rules.

By 'same principle' I am referring to the degree of difference. It's so far removed from an actual mind (like a computer) that it's essentially the same idea.

Furthermore, 4e source material often refers to the unintelligent undead/constructs as being effectively mindless, to say nothing of past precedent in 3.5.

Lastly the rules only really demonstrate/support a conclusion of 4e's commitment to function over form, not an assumption that animating magic creates a facsimile of a mind that can be affected by psychic energy. These things were handwaved for the explicit purpose of broadening the scope of effective powers/builds.

[theNater]

We do have mechanical automatons in real life, though we don't have psychic damage. That said, computers are vastly different from biological minds despite several superficial similarities, and thus almost certainly would not be subject to something that specifically injures the latter.
Psychic damage targets "the mind"(PHB page 55). It does not specify biological minds. Anything that can make evaluations or decisions can be said to have a mind, even if that mind is utterly alien to human minds.

A computer's body differs from a human body to a great degree, but a well-swung axe will severely mess up either of them. The fact that a computer's mind differs from a human mind doesn't mean it can't be damaged by the same effects.

[Surrealistik]

Psychic damage targets "the mind"(PHB page 55). It does not specify biological minds. Anything that can make evaluations or decisions can be said to have a mind, even if that mind is utterly alien to human minds.

Honestly the semantic argument is silly, particularly when it is so obviously strained; arguing that something can be affected by damage/powers that specifically affects minds because it fits an arbitrarily broad definition of the word is absurd. By this reasoning, a modern computer or AI has a mind. Animating forces aren't necessarily minds even if they respond to stimuli and dictate behaviour, particularly if that dictation is entirely mechanical (as it is in the case of mindless undead/constructs).


A computer's body differs from a human body to a great degree, but a well-swung axe will severely mess up either of them. The fact that a computer's mind differs from a human mind doesn't mean it can't be damaged by the same effects.

It does if that effect specifically targets a mind as psychic attacks do. Computers don't have minds (not yet anyways).

[theNater]

Honestly the semantic argument is silly, particularly when it is so obviously strained; arguing that something can be affected by damage/powers that specifically affects minds because it fits an arbitrarily broad definition of the word is absurd. By this reasoning, a modern computer or AI has a mind. Animating forces aren't necessarily minds even if they respond to stimuli and dictate behaviour, particularly if that dictation is entirely mechanical (as it is in the case of mindless undead/constructs).



It does if that effect specifically targets a mind as psychic attacks do. Computers don't have minds (not yet anyways).
What does a biological mind have that an AI does not have?

Also, do you have any support for your implicit assumption that human behavior isn't mechanically determined? It's possible that it is, and we just don't fully understand the mechanisms at this time.

[Reluctance]

There's plenty of source material for people psychically interacting with computers. If I accept that the same source has equal effect on humans, animals, beings of pure magic, and creatures from outside reality, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch having it affect an animating awareness or even a sufficiently complex CPU.

If this an argument about how 4e is primarily effect-based with fluff as an afterthought, no dispute there. If this is discussing how 4e's broadness can be properly fluffed, there are plenty of ways.

[Surrealistik]

What does a biological mind have that an AI does not have?

Pretty much everything. The design is completely different, the components are completely different, the functioning is completely different, the capabilities are completely different, etc... Similarities between an AI and a biological mind are at this point extremely limited and superficial.


Also, do you have any support for your implicit assumption that human behavior isn't mechanically determined? It's possible that it is, and we just don't fully understand the mechanisms at this time.

Obviously it's impossible to determine at this point in time whether or not human behaviour is mechanical and deterministic; that question is presently more the domain of a philosophical discussion that is beyond the scope of this thread.

The salient point is that the mechanisms, capabilities and properties are completely different, and these huge, sweeping differences are what enable one thing to enjoy an immunity the other doesn't. Golems have a body, and that body has many analogues with a human one, but it is ultimately impervious to poison due to a lack of metabolism unlike a human body. The exact same principle is at work when it comes to psychic damage; there simply isn't a mind to affect, despite superficial analogues in that both have some form of stimuli responding element. The bottom line is that there just isn't any sort of consciousness for a psychic effect to harm, disrupt or frazzle, which is usually required for something to be said to have a 'mind'.


There's plenty of source material for people psychically interacting with computers. If I accept that the same source has equal effect on humans, animals, beings of pure magic, and creatures from outside reality, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch having it affect an animating awareness or even a sufficiently complex CPU.

A sufficiently complex CPU which could be said to actually have a mind, or an animating awareness that had elements of a consciousness sure. Mindless automatons/undead? Not so much. They don't have anything that could be properly considered a 'mind'. They don't have a consciousness.

[KillianHawkeye]

Golems have a body, and that body has many analogues with a human one, but it is ultimately impervious to poison due to a lack of metabolism unlike a human body. The exact same principle is at work when it comes to psychic damage; there simply isn't a mind to affect, despite superficial analogues in that both have some form of stimuli responding element.

Considering the fact that golems lack immunity to psychic effects, your statement would seem to be incorrect.

Anyway, you seem to be assuming a great deal about the way psychic attacks work if you can claim they shouldn't affect the simple minds of constructs and undead. Especially since they explicitly DO affect those creatures. I suggest re-reading the sidebar on page 42 of Psionic Power for examples of what psychic damage can represent.

[Surrealistik]

Considering the fact that golems lack immunity to psychic effects, your statement would seem to be incorrect.

As stated, this is more to do with the conscious design decision to maximize the number of builds/powers that are viable (a move which I agree with) and less with me being 'incorrect'. In otherwords, form is following function; because this is true, rather than the reverse, you can't use the in game stats to justify that position. My point is that so far as psychic damage is strictly defined in the rules compendium and Psionic Power, there is no plausible basis for it impacting mindless undead/constructs, and that definition should be expanded upon.


Anyway, you seem to be assuming a great deal about the way psychic attacks work if you can claim they shouldn't affect the simple minds of constructs and undead. Especially since they explicitly DO affect those creatures. I suggest re-reading the sidebar on page 42 of Psionic Power for examples of what psychic damage can represent.

It's not that they have simple minds (like animals) it's that they don't have minds at all. The sidebar you've mentioned features exclusively psychosomatic elements which would not impact such creatures. They have no sense of self, they don't feel pain, and they have no notion of belief.

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm sure they can tell themselves from their environment. Who says they don't feel pain, either?

[theNater]

Pretty much everything. The design is completely different, the components are completely different, the functioning is completely different, the capabilities are completely different, etc... Similarities between an AI and a biological mind are at this point extremely limited and superficial.



Obviously it's impossible to determine at this point in time whether or not human behaviour is mechanical and deterministic; that question is presently more the domain of a philosophical discussion that is beyond the scope of this thread.

The salient point is that the mechanisms, capabilities and properties are completely different, and these huge, sweeping differences are what enable one thing to enjoy an immunity the other doesn't. Golems have a body, and that body has many analogues with a human one, but it is ultimately impervious to poison due to a lack of metabolism unlike a human body. The exact same principle is at work when it comes to psychic damage; there simply isn't a mind to affect, despite superficial analogues in that both have some form of stimuli responding element.
Throughout all of this, the only thing you actually point out is that the decision-making functions are different, which I have not disputed. But different doesn't mean unassailable by the same techniques.

Take an axe to the target: computer or human, it will still cease to function.
Inject sand into the target's fluids: automobile or human, it will still cease to function.

Yes, golems and computers are generally unaffected by poisons. But we can point to specific differences to explain why. We can't just say "they're different, so what works on one can't work on the other".

The bottom line is that there just isn't any sort of consciousness for a psychic effect to harm, disrupt or frazzle, which is usually required for something to be said to have a 'mind'.
The claim that consciousness is what is attacked brings up two issues:

First, how do you know there isn't any sort of consciousness in these things? Do you have a device that measures consciousness, which you have applied to humans, computers, AIs, golems, and zombies?

Second, does a human become unassailable by psychic damage when they lose consciousness? For example, when they are asleep, knocked out, comatose, or in a persistent vegetative state?

[Leeham]

What's really odd is knocking enemies prone while swimming. I mean, how does that happen?

You know what's really wierd? Knocking a Gelatinous Cube prone...

[Surrealistik]

Throughout all of this, the only thing you actually point out is that the decision-making functions are different, which I have not disputed. But different doesn't mean unassailable by the same techniques.

Take an axe to the target: computer or human, it will still cease to function.
Inject sand into the target's fluids: automobile or human, it will still cease to function.

Yes, golems and computers are generally unaffected by poisons. But we can point to specific differences to explain why. We can't just say "they're different, so what works on one can't work on the other".

What I've actually pointed out is that those differences are adequate to immunize one while rendering the other vulnerable in much the same way that a lack of metabolism as a difference renders a golem invulnerable to poisons, while a human is not despite superficial similarities between their bodies. In the specific case of psychic damages, it's specific to a lack of actual consciousness, as I explained later.


The claim that consciousness is what is attacked brings up two issues:

First, how do you know there isn't any sort of consciousness in these things? Do you have a device that measures consciousness, which you have applied to humans, computers, AIs, golems, and zombies?

Second, does a human become unassailable by psychic damage when they lose consciousness? For example, when they are asleep, knocked out, comatose, or in a persistent vegetative state?

KOed humans still have an established consciousness, even if it is not aware/completely active.

Second undead/automatons lack consciousness in the same way computers or present AIs lack consciousness. They are not self-aware, they have no personality, or exhibit any capacity for actual understanding, adaptation or learning. To pre-empt the obvious counterpoint, yes, AIs can 'learn' in a very constrained and limited sense, but they do not actually 'understand' what they are learning. Again, if you want me to define what consciousness precisely means, that's a philosophical debate beyond the purview of this thread, and one I am honestly not interested in. That said however, consciousness is most certainly _not_ an extremely limited set of simplistic, predetermined reactions to an equally limited set of stimuli, which defines the behaviour of mindless undead and constructs.

Lastly, there is also past precedent (3.5, where such creatures were outright immune to mind affecting spells/effects) and even present 4.0 source material that references mindless undead such as zombies, and mindless constructs such as simple automatons.

I think I will leave my argument at that; I am really no longer interested in continuing to debate this, particularly as the argument is becoming repetitive, and far too pedantic/semantic.

[Lord Ascapelion]

You know what's really wierd? Knocking a Gelatinous Cube prone...

This could easily be flavored as the attack squashing the ooze flat or something and getting up from prone could be it reconstituting its shape.

As for getting knocked prone while swimming, it could flavored as the target getting knocked upside down and getting up would be regaining your bearings.

Arguing about psychic damage and fire elementals is kind of silly, really, because they're both fantastical concepts with no real-world definition. For fire elementals, I could see fire attacks, while doing less damage, being capable of over-burning the elemental, so it burns too quickly into its magical, elemental essence.

Also, Surrealistik, if the fact that psychic damage can harm constructs and undead bugs you so much, why not just houserule an immunity in your next game? (If you're the DM, that is.)

[Surrealistik]

Also, Surrealistik, if the fact that psychic damage can harm constructs and undead bugs you so much, why not just houserule an immunity in your next game? (If you're the DM, that is.)

It's not that psychic damage can harm them that bugs me so much as that its fluff definition doesn't plausibly justify being able to harm them. As repeatedly stated throughout this thread, I actually think it's best for the game that mindless constructs/undead be susceptible to psychic damage. The point of disagreement is entirely concerned with whether the existing fluff permits this, which it clearly does not. Therefore, I feel that the definition of psychic damage should be expanded to specify that it is capable of directly inflicting physical as well as mental harm, being a sort of distortive/disruptive energy (think the essence of the Far Realm).

[KillianHawkeye]

I still say the term "mindless" is misleading, and that even though golems and skeletons lack reasoning skills and motivation, they still have enough of a mind to be affected by psychic attacks. For example, they use thier minds to process external perception. They understand languages and can use weapons.

[Surrealistik]

I still say the term "mindless" is misleading, and that even though golems and skeletons lack reasoning skills and motivation, they still have enough of a mind to be affected by psychic attacks. For example, they use thier minds to process external perception. They understand languages and can use weapons.

They actually don't understand or speak any languages (horizontal line where 'languages' would be listed). While they can perhaps perceive and use weaponry, they do not have a consciousness that can be affected by psychic attacks. Furthermore, 'mindless' is not misleading so much as it is accurate: they simply do not have a mind; they do not have a consciousness. Mindless is one of the most common descriptors of such beings both in 4.0 and 3.5 source material.

[KillianHawkeye]

They may not have a conscious mind, but they DO have a mind nonetheless. That's why the term is misleading. They may not speak, but they have to understand the commands of their creators, no?

Anyway, I thought you were going to stop arguing. Rather than expanding the definition of psychic damage, maybe you should expand your definition of the mind to include the subconscious, since that easily solves the problems you are having with fluff and semantic nonsense.

[Surrealistik]

They may not have a conscious mind, but they DO have a mind nonetheless. That's why the term is misleading. They may not speak, but they have to understand the commands of their creators, no?

Anyway, I thought you were going to stop arguing. Rather than expanding the definition of psychic damage, maybe you should expand your definition of the mind to include the subconscious, since that easily solves the problems you are having with fluff and semantic nonsense.

I wasn't aware I was arguing so much as correcting.

I maintain any meaningful definition of the word 'mind' requires consciousness.

Yes, they may execute basic commands, but that does not insinuate the existence of a mind nor legitimate understanding. Computers can execute commands without actually comprehending them.

Also subconscious != the mental state mindless/unintelligent undead/constructs. You need a consciousness to have a subconscious.

That's more or less it without getting circular.

[BobTheDog]

Mindless is one of the most common descriptors of such beings both in 4.0 and 3.5 source material.

So, when I get "Mindless vandals attack cricket club" on a google search, am I to assume that those vandals are immune to psychic damage? For someone who insists that people are focusing too hard on the idea of "mind", you seem to cling to the idea of "mindless" a lot.

Sure, golems, zombies and skeletons are described as mindless in a lot of the fluff. Yet, they are not immune to psychic powers. I'm assuming the difficult question is: Why?

One answer has been proposed: they have a mind of some sort, and psychic power doesn't discriminate. But this one has been ruled out as "unrealistic", so I'll go with that...

Golems, zombies and skeletons (among other seemingly mindless but not psychic-immune creatures) are actually animated by imprisoning within them a conscious entity. Elemental creatures for constructs and souls for undead (because harvesting souls is nice and necromantic). The point is that the magic that binds these creatures is limited and only some basic features of consciousness are noticed by others: they can see, hear, sometimes smell, some of them can wield weapons etc. Nevertheless, there is a "full-sized" mind trapped in there somewhere, and psychic magic is able to dig deep enough and mess with that.

[Surrealistik]

One answer has been proposed: they have a mind of some sort, and psychic power doesn't discriminate. But this one has been ruled out as "unrealistic", so I'll go with that...

It was actually rejected on the basis that they don't actually have a mind, lacking any sort of consciousness, in the same way a computer or similar machine doesn't have a mind.

Excerpt from Open Grave - Secrets of the Dead, Page 13:

Undead Mentality
When discussing the psychology of the undead, it is
first necessary to distinguish between the three sorts
of undead minds.
Mindless Undead: The simplest kinds of undead,
such as skeletons and zombies, have no psychological
traits. These beings are mindless creatures capable
of no more thought or emotion than a clockwork
mechanism.


Golems, zombies and skeletons (among other seemingly mindless but not psychic-immune creatures) are actually animated by imprisoning within them a conscious entity. Elemental creatures for constructs and souls for undead (because harvesting souls is nice and necromantic). The point is that the magic that binds these creatures is limited and only some basic features of consciousness are noticed by others: they can see, hear, sometimes smell, some of them can wield weapons etc. Nevertheless, there is a "full-sized" mind trapped in there somewhere, and psychic magic is able to dig deep enough and mess with that.

I've heard of this for golems, and I can appreciate that reasoning. This is not true of zombies and skeletons, or normal automatons.

[theNater]

That said however, consciousness is most certainly _not_ an extremely limited set of simplistic, predetermined reactions to an equally limited set of stimuli, which defines the behaviour of mindless undead and constructs.
Doesn't that also define the behavior of simple animals? Is an individual ant immune to psychic damage? How about a starfish? Or a sponge?

In the D&D world, what about oozes? They are just as limited in their reactions to stimuli as zombies are, and more limited than most kinds of skeletons(based on their relative Int scores): are they immune to psychic damage?

[KillianHawkeye]

Well this really comes down to stats versus fluff, and the problem is the fluff. I don't know why, but these writers are using the word "mindless" like it's still 3.x Edition. In reality, skeletons are dumber than manticores but smarter than rust monsters, and they're not immune to psychic damage. I think it's fair to say that they have minds just like any other creature who can perceive and react to its environment. The only thing they may be lacking in is will. There's no motivation for them to act without external commands.

And can we please stop using computers as analogies? It's tired and not particularly relevant to D&D. Golems aren't computers, they never have been, and they never will be. And even if they were, if D&D suddenly had computers they would be classified as creatures and be treated as such. Would a modron be immune to psychic damage if statted up for 4E? They're basically computers, right? Are warforged immune to psychic damage? They're clearly nothing but robots. :smallsigh:

[Surrealistik]

Doesn't that also define the behavior of simple animals? Is an individual ant immune to psychic damage? How about a starfish? Or a sponge?

In the D&D world, what about oozes? They are just as limited in their reactions to stimuli as zombies are, and more limited than most kinds of skeletons(based on their relative Int scores): are they immune to psychic damage?


Well this really comes down to stats versus fluff, and the problem is the fluff. I don't know why, but these writers are using the word "mindless" like it's still 3.x Edition. In reality, skeletons are dumber than manticores but smarter than rust monsters, and they're not immune to psychic damage. I think it's fair to say that they have minds just like any other creature who can perceive and react to its environment. The only thing they may be lacking in is will. There's no motivation for them to act without external commands.

Nope. The Word of God (tm) is that skeletons and the like are basically clockwork automatons, regardless of missteps/illogic in the assignment of their Int ability.

Some creatures are comparably mindless; I would say oozes qualify, especially given their 3.5 precedence.


And can we please stop using computers as analogies? It's tired and not particularly relevant to D&D. Golems aren't computers, they never have been, and they never will be. And even if they were, if D&D suddenly had computers they would be classified as creatures and be treated as such. Would a modron be immune to psychic damage if statted up for 4E? They're basically computers, right? Are warforged immune to psychic damage? They're clearly nothing but robots. :smallsigh:

It's a perfect analogy, because a computer can respond to stimuli and execute commands without actually having consciousness or intelligence, and the same is true of mindless undead/constructs. The parallel here is basically unmistakable which is why I use it.

And no, Warforged obviously have a consciousness, which is why their lack of immunity to psychic damage makes sense.

[Cartigan]

I agree. I've used a lot of homebrewed constructs (I borrowed warjacks from the Iron Kingdoms, if you must know), and I've been giving them immunity to poison and psychic, and usually necrotic as well.

A couple of exceptions, though: possessed objects should probably be affected by psychic; flesh-based constructs should be affected by necrotic and maybe poison.
Necrotic is "Evil" damage - aka, negative energy. It has nothing to do with necrosis. Just like Radiant damage doesn't have anything to do with bright lights giving the enemy sunburn.

[WitchSlayer]

Sounds reasonable...

If you don't have a character that has almost all psychic attacks, then they'll just sit back and do nothing while everyone else does damage.

[Surrealistik]

Yeah, I don't think anything that doesn't already have psychic/necrotic immunity should be given it, so much as the definition of what those damage types encompass should be expanded in order to satisfy fluff demands if necessary.

[theNater]

Yeah, I don't think anything that doesn't already have psychic/necrotic immunity should be given it, so much as the definition of what those damage types encompass should be expanded in order to satisfy fluff demands if necessary.
Y'know, I think the big difference between us is that you'd rather redefine psychic damage so that it affects things that are mindless, while I'd rather redefine mind to the point that the fluff term "mindless" technically means "having a simplistic, rudimentary, or vestigal mind".

Since it's just one redefinition either way, I suppose everybody can pick their personal favorite.

[KillianHawkeye]

Y'know, I think the big difference between us is that you'd rather redefine psychic damage so that it affects things that are mindless, while I'd rather redefine mind to the point that the fluff term "mindless" technically means "having a simplistic, rudimentary, or vestigal mind".

Since it's just one redefinition either way, I suppose everybody can pick their personal favorite.

Wow, I was pretty much going to say the same thing!

I think anybody reading this thread now has thouroughly heard from both sides and should have enough info to make up their own minds on this issue.

[ashmanonar]

Wow, I was pretty much going to say the same thing!

I think anybody reading this thread now has thouroughly heard from both sides and should have enough info to make up their own minds on this issue.

Sorry, I don't clearly understand the concept of mind. Can you elaborate further?
:smallbiggrin:

[OracleofWuffing]

Sorry, I don't clearly understand the concept of mind. Can you elaborate further?
:smallbiggrin:

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. :smallbiggrin:

[KillianHawkeye]

Sorry, I don't clearly understand the concept of mind. Can you elaborate further?
:smallbiggrin:

:smallsigh:

I'm taking your big grin as sarcasm. Please let me know if that is not the case.

[Daftendirekt]

Poisons require metabolism to function. Just like how they don't work on undead, they won't work on constructs. I suppose you could rule that certain poisons are extremely corrosive.


That's what acid damage is for.