Fear & Mind Affecting

[Talderas]

I know. I know. This should be a relatively clear cut topic. Most people consider fear based effects to be mind-affecting effects.

There's a couple of things I want to lay out first.

1. The SRD significantly diverges from the DMG and MM as far structure goes when describing fear and fear attacks. For instance, the MM gives Frightful Presence a same but different category as fear attacks which constitute Cones and Rays as well as Fear Auras which fall under the Fear category. When I read the SRD by itself, I came to the conclusion that all Fear based effects are mind-affecting but when reading the PHB/DMG/MM I come to a different conclusion.
2. The description of fear condition in the DMG does not contain any wording regarding mind-affecting or a morale based effect.
3. The spell fear (from the PHB) uses both the Fear and Mind-Affecting descriptor.

Is this basically a case where fear based effects are adjudicated as mind-affecting on the basis of it seeming as if it is a morale effect? More or less I ask this since many fear affects also explicitly call out that they're mind-affecting (Fear spell, Frightful Presence, Fear Attacks). It would seem so much simpler to list under the description of the fear effect that it is a mind-affecting effect and be done with it.

So I'm looking for maybe a vastly clearer explanation than the muddied piece pool the books and the SRD provide.

[Deophaun]

The Rules Compendium states that all fear effects are mind-affecting in its opening paragraph.

[Talderas]

The Rules Compendium states that all fear effects are mind-affecting in its opening paragraph.

That's great but it causes the exact same problem as the SRD. The Rules Compendium puts rules that are in contradiction with what is published in the PHB/DMG/MM. Without an errata I cannot tell whether this is the proper interpretation or if that rule is just an editor or author injecting their interpretation without having the grounding for it.

[Kazyan]

That's great but it causes the exact same problem as the SRD. The Rules Compendium puts rules that are in contradiction with what is published in the PHB/DMG/MM. Without an errata I cannot tell whether this is the proper interpretation or if that rule is just an editor or author injecting their interpretation without having the grounding for it.

The Rules Compendium is explicitly designed to override the rules from other sources. It has literally no other purpose. Why does this argument come up so often?

[Psyren]

The Rules Compendium puts rules that are in contradiction with what is published in the PHB/DMG/MM. Without an errata I cannot tell whether this is the proper interpretation or if that rule is just an editor or author injecting their interpretation without having the grounding for it.

Rules Compendium is errata. It supersedes every prior source, including the core books.

[Talderas]

The Rules Compendium is explicitly designed to override the rules from other sources. It has literally no other purpose. Why does this argument come up so often?


Rules Compendium is errata. It supersedes every prior source, including the core books.

Kazyan, your question is answered by Psyren's post.

Psyren, a compendium is a collection of knowledge. That you seem to conflate this with an overwrite is not a good thing. The description of the Rules Compendium (as in the intent of the book) is described as "In addition to presenting the rules of the game, the Rules Compendium incorporates official errata as well as behind-the-scenes designer and developer commentary explaining how the rules system has evolved and why certain rules work the way they do."

The Rules Compendium is simply a collection of rules and the errata to those rules. If a contradiction exists between the PHB/DMG/MM plus their errata with the Rules Compendium then that is a problem. At that point, the Rules Compendium has stepped outside of its purpose and is presenting new rules rather than functioning as a compendium of the rules. At that point, since the Rules Compendium is a supplemental book, it is entirely up to the GM whether or not the additional rules provided in it are used.

[Answerer]

1. The SRD significantly diverges from the DMG and MM as far structure goes when describing fear and fear attacks. For instance, the MM gives Frightful Presence a same but different category as fear attacks which constitute Cones and Rays as well as Fear Auras which fall under the Fear category. When I read the SRD by itself, I came to the conclusion that all Fear based effects are mind-affecting but when reading the PHB/DMG/MM I come to a different conclusion.
The SRD contains nothing but what's in the PHB/MM/DMG/XPH/D&DG/UA, and those books' errata. That is the definition of the SRD. Have you checked the errata for the PHB/DMG? Because if there's a contradiction between your book and the SRD, it's got to be in the errata somewhere.

[eggs]

The Rules Compendium is simply a collection of rules and the errata to those rules. If a contradiction exists between the PHB/DMG/MM plus their errata with the Rules Compendium then that is a problem. At that point, the Rules Compendium has stepped outside of its purpose and is presenting new rules rather than functioning as a compendium of the rules. At that point, since the Rules Compendium is a supplemental book, it is entirely up to the GM whether or not the additional rules provided in it are used.From the introduction to RC:

"[Rules Compendium] updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence."

You might call it a problem, but the rules are very clear: Fear is a mind effect per RC, and RC's rules take precedence over everything else.

[Psyren]

I don't understand why there would be confusion here.

1) The first paragraph in RC states that it trumps all. Whether or not a DM owns the book is irrelevant; by that logic, errata doesn't exist if your internet connection goes down.


When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.

What you're basically saying is that your houserules are RAW if for some reason you can't access the official ones. If you claim to be playing D&D, you have to follow the most current rules of that game.


2) Even if your DM doesn't have and therefore refuses to use RC, the answer to your question is in the MM, pg. 309:


All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects.

Your only remaining question at that point would be whether the given effect counts as an attack. Since the majority of such effects force a saving throw, I would say they are attacks.

Ninja'd by Eggs

[mattie_p]

Because the introduction is clearly fluff, and fluff is not RAW! :smallbiggrin:

[Zherog]

The SRD contains nothing but what's in the PHB/MM/DMG/XPH/D&DG/UA, and those books' errata. That is the definition of the SRD.

[nit pick mode]

The SRD does not include UA, nor does it include any errata to the core books. The official SRD is a series of text documents published by WotC under the Open Game License. Websites such as d20srd.org use the OGL to then publish those text documents in a more organized manner. They also included the Open Game Content from UA to their webiste, then opted to apply errata even though errata is not technically open game content.

[/nit pick mode]

[Talderas]

You might call it a problem, but the rules are very clear: Fear is a mind effect per RC, and RC's rules take precedence over everything else.

If you own and use it. I'll elaborate more later.


What you're basically saying is that your houserules are RAW if for some reason you can't access the official ones. If you claim to be playing D&D, you have to follow the most current rules of that game.

Whether or not you own it is actually quite relevant. Post Rules Compendium, how was the game marketed? Was it marketed as saying you just need the PHB/DMG/MM to play? If so, any alterations in Rules Compendium when compared against the core+errata are supplemental material just as Tome of Battle or any other book and thus completely optional. If it was advertised as you just need the Rules Compendium and Monster Manual or in any way that said you needed the Rules Compendium then it is core RAW and all fear effects are mind-affecting effects. However, if it is not advertised as part of the core rules then it is just supplement RAW which means that the quoted line simply means that if you use this book it takes precedent over whatever may be in any other core or supplement book in the event of a conflict. According to Wizard's own site (https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/20120625), as of 6/25/2012, they still consider the core books to be PHB/DMG/MM not PHB/DMG/MM/RC.

Now, you may say that RC is just as necessary as ToB. That's still a subjective opinion and does nothing to dismiss the fact that anything new or different in RC still functions as a supplement wherever it diverges from Core.

Errata is a different story from what is presented with Rules Compendium. Errata is a published list of what will be future alterations in a potentially future print run that may or may not appear in the future. Errata is what the book is and not necessary what some print versions are.


[nit pick mode]

The SRD does not include UA, nor does it include any errata to the core books. The official SRD is a series of text documents published by WotC under the Open Game License. Websites such as d20srd.org use the OGL to then publish those text documents in a more organized manner. They also included the Open Game Content from UA to their webiste, then opted to apply errata even though errata is not technically open game content.

[/nit pick mode]

That's not really a nit pick. The licensing and publishing bit is actually quite important. Wizard is under no compulsion to provide the entire content of the Core books in the SRD. There's also no guarantee that the information provided by the SRD is accurate or even presented in the same fashion as the books which can cause erroneous interpretations. That is why I always defer to the book over the SRD for anything of key importance.

[Agincourt]

No, Talderas, if you aren't using the Rules Compendium, you're having bad-wrong-fun.

I don't own the Rules Compendium either, so I'll attack your question from another angle: Fear effects are always Mind-affecting because of how they mechanically work. A spell or spell-like ability makes a PC or NPC magically afraid. I don't see how that could work any other way than to be mind-affecting since it's all in a person's head.

[Talderas]

No, Talderas, if you aren't using the Rules Compendium, you're having bad-wrong-fun.

I don't own the Rules Compendium either, so I'll attack your question from another angle: Fear effects are always Mind-affecting because of how they mechanically work. A spell or spell-like ability makes a PC or NPC magically afraid. I don't see how that could work any other way than to be mind-affecting since it's all in a person's head.

Your angle does not address Extraordinary abilities that cause fear based effects. See Demoralize foe under the usage of Intimidate or the Staredown ability of CW Samurai or even the Frightful Presence ability of dragons and other creatures. I think I addressed these though. Mind-affecting effects include morale based things which I would point out that if fear is a morale based effect it isn't clearly stated as such and instead adjudicated as such (which is what RC essentially does). If the penalties from fear were labeled as a morale penalty (even though I don't recall ever seeing any penalty listed with a type) or even had the word morale in its description it would also be clear cut. So it bothers me a bit that for a system that is generally rather good at covering itself that there was such a flippant approach to penalties.

I will admit that I may be quite a bit more sensitive to flaws like this due to my exposure to Shadowrun which can easily and very quickly create multiple correct interpretations of the RAW. The rules gaps in the latest version of it are rather idiotic, including what is potentially an inability to actually make attack with bows even though plenty of rules are given for costing and skills for them.

[Agincourt]

Your angle does not address Extraordinary abilities that cause fear based effects. See Demoralize foe under the usage of Intimidate or the Staredown ability of CW Samurai or even the Frightful Presence ability of dragons and other creatures. I think I addressed these though. Mind-affecting effects include morale based things which I would point out that if fear is a morale based effect it isn't clearly stated as such and instead adjudicated as such (which is what RC essentially does). If the penalties from fear were labeled as a morale penalty (even though I don't recall ever seeing any penalty listed with a type) or even had the word morale in its description it would also be clear cut. So it bothers me a bit that for a system that is generally rather good at covering itself that there was such a flippant approach to penalties.


That's true, but my approach still applies, I think. If you don't have a mind, there's no reason to be afraid of the dragon's Frightful Presence. A skeleton has no idea the dragon can destroy it with barely a thought. And if you don't have a mind, I don't see how you can be intimidated.

[Psyren]

Look, the RC argument is completely irrelevant. The rule about fear being mind-affecting comes from the Monster Manual, a core book.

And it's not about having "bad-wrong-fun." It's about what game you're playing. You can disregard any rules you want, but if you take a book that says "these are the primary rules of D&D 3.5" and throw it in the trash, you're not playing D&D 3.5 anymore. You're playing "Talderas' Magnificent Tabletop Game" or even "Agincourt's Dice-Rolling Fantasy Extravaganza." Which you're more than welcome to do, naturally, but it's not really a game we can objectively discuss with you.

[Talderas]

Look, the RC argument is completely irrelevant. The rule about fear being mind-affecting comes from the Monster Manual, a core book.

Do you have a citation for that? There are two fear related abilities referenced in the MM glossary. The first is Fear (which is the one that states all Fear attacks are mind-affecting) however this is talking about Su and Sp Fear abilities (auras or fear attacks as cones and rays) and does not include Ex. The other note is for Frightful Presence (Ex), which is a specific type of ability. Frightful presence specifically states that Frightful presence is a mind-affecting ability so it is no basis for any other Ex fear based effect. One could suggest that any Ex ability that works in a fashion similar to Frightful Presence (meaning you taking some action triggers a will save against fear) is a mind-affecting ability but any other Ex ability that has a different mechanic is a fear effect with an undefined mind-affecting trait.

[mattie_p]

Do you have a citation for that? There are two fear related abilities referenced in the MM glossary. The first is Fear (which is the one that states all Fear attacks are mind-affecting) however this is talking about Su and Sp Fear abilities (auras or fear attacks as cones and rays) and does not include Ex. The other note is for Frightful Presence (Ex), which is a specific type of ability. Frightful presence specifically states that Frightful presence is a mind-affecting ability so it is no basis for any other Ex fear based effect. One could suggest that any Ex ability that works in a fashion similar to Frightful Presence (meaning you taking some action triggers a will save against fear) is a mind-affecting ability but any other Ex ability that has a different mechanic is a fear effect with an undefined mind-affecting trait.

If you have any specific fear effect you would like to discuss, please cite your source. All fear effects you have specifically mentioned are called out on Page 309 of the MM as mind-affecting.

[Talderas]

If you have any specific fear effect you would like to discuss, please cite your source. All fear effects you have specifically mentioned are called out on Page 309 of the MM as mind-affecting.

Right. I'm simply pointing out that I don't see any evidence (outside of the RC contradiction to Core) that says Fear is a mind-affecting effect. Most instances of it that I see explicitly call it so or reference the ability in some way that makes it fall under the mind-affecting mantel. For example, Demoralize Foe under the Intimidate skill usage suggests that it is a mind-affecting effect only because the name of the usage is "Demoralize" and consequent can fall under the morale effect portion of what constitutes a mind-affecting effect. Then again it also explicitly states that those immune to fear but not those that are immune to mind-affecting effect.

Spells cause a curious issue as well. As it should be well known, Fear and Mind-Affecting are two separate descriptors. Anything with the Fear descriptor will have a save against fear. Most (I say most because I do not know of any that do not) spells that have the Fear descriptor also have the Mind-Affecting descriptor. That is until you apply the Fearful Empowerment ability of the Dread Witch which adds the Fear descriptor to any spell with a visual effect. Two of their sample spells are Fireball and Summon Monster. Neither of these spells contain the Mind-Affecting descriptor however when empowered by the ability they inflict fear. If all fear descriptors are mind-affecting then mind-affecting would not be a necessary descriptor for any fear spell.

[Psyren]

Do you have a citation for that?



the answer to your question is in the MM, pg. 309:

It doesn't limit itself to spells; any fear attack is mind-affecting. Your one potential avenue of ambiguity is defining what constitutes an attack. but anything that prompts a saving throw should qualify.

[Deophaun]

Right. I'm simply pointing out that I don't see any evidence (outside of the RC contradiction to Core) that says Fear is a mind-affecting effect.
A citation outside of the RC has been pointed out to you multiple times. If you still do not "see" it, there is nothing else we can do to help you. The fact that it was in the RC alone should have put an end to this. By RAW, all fear effects are mind affecting. You are free to house rule otherwise. I don't see the point in arguing over it.

[Curmudgeon]

The Rules Compendium states that all fear effects are mind-affecting in its opening paragraph. Well, this misstatement has certainly got the discussion rollicking off course! Here's the actual quote from Rules Compendium page 53:
Fear attacks can have various consequences, but all of them are mind-affecting fear effects. The scope of this is limited to fear attack (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_attack&alpha=)s.
attack

Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll. If there's no attack roll, a fear effect needs to explicitly state that it's mind-affecting. One example of a fear effect that's not mind-affecting is Mummy Despair. Despite being labeled a "special attack" it doesn't qualify as such (no attack roll); it's automatic on sight unless you save.

[DeltaEmil]

Well, this misstatement has certainly got the discussion rollicking off course! Here's the actual quote from Rules Compendium page 53: The scope of this is limited to fear attack (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_attack&alpha=)s. If there's no attack roll, a fear effect needs to explicitly state that it's mind-affecting. One example of a fear effect that's not mind-affecting is Mummy Despair. Despite being labeled a "special attack" it doesn't qualify as such (no attack roll); it's automatic on sight unless you save.So does this mean that evasion and improved evasion is completely useless against fireball, because fireball doesn't have an attack roll, unless the fireball user has to shoot the fireball through a tiny hole?

That's stupid.

[Psyren]

"Something with an attack roll" is not the only definition for an attack, though. Another easy way to tell is whether the action forces a save or not. From Rules Compendium:


When you’re subjected to an unusual or magical attack, you make a saving throw (or save) to avoid or reduce the effect.

This means that any effect that forces a save is an attack, whether it explicitly calls itself an attack or not. Therefore, any fear effect that forces a save is a fear attack. This includes Frightful Presence and the Mummy's Despair ability you mentioned.

[eggs]

Well, this misstatement has certainly got the discussion rollicking off course!" it doesn't qualify as such (no attack roll); it's automatic on sight unless you save.
You're fixating that word choice while disregarding the context and larger structure of the entry, which discusses fear auras and frightful presences as subsets of "Fear Attacks," and appears to either be treating the word "attack" casually instead of in its game-jargon sense, or to be a page-long entry specifically pertaining to the interaction of Lastai's Caress and Touch of Vecna.

[Deophaun]

One example of a fear effect that's not mind-affecting is Mummy Despair. Despite being labeled a "special attack" it doesn't qualify as such (no attack roll); it's automatic on sight unless you save.
Odd choice, considering the mummy's despair is used as an example on pg 309 in the MM of a fear attack of the aura variety.

[Talderas]

It doesn't limit itself to spells; any fear attack is mind-affecting. Your one potential avenue of ambiguity is defining what constitutes an attack. but anything that prompts a saving throw should qualify.

Your citation references Fear as a Su or Sp ability which I had addressed in the post. It does not apply to Ex Fear abilities nor does it apply to Fear caused by spells nor does it apply to Fear caused by any source that is not Supernatural or Spell-Like. You're extending the rule line to cover things that the context lacks the scope of covering.

--


A citation outside of the RC has been pointed out to you multiple times. If you still do not "see" it, there is nothing else we can do to help you. The fact that it was in the RC alone should have put an end to this. By RAW, all fear effects are mind affecting. You are free to house rule otherwise. I don't see the point in arguing over it.

A citation which references Supernatural and Spell-like abilities. Context matters and a rule line which is under a heading will only apply to that heading.

RC alone does not matter. RC is not recognized as a core book by WotC. It may contain all the core rules organized, commented up, and improved but that in no way makes it a core. It is still a supplement book and as a supplement it is entirely optional. The opening line merely means that if you use a rule or aspect from RC that it holds the trump.

[Psyren]

Your citation references Fear as a Su or Sp ability which I had addressed in the post.

My citation says "fear attacks." The nature of those attacks is irrelevant; if it's an attack (which it is if a saving throw or attack roll are involved) and it causes fear, it's mind-affecting, period.

[Answerer]

Even if it was no-save, Fear is a debilitating/negative status condition; anything that inflicts it is an attack.

[Deophaun]

Stuff
Your question has been answered. Whatever you do with it, I wish you happy gaming.

[mattie_p]

Your question has been answered. Whatever you do with it, I wish you happy gaming.

No! We're not done arguing yet! You can't stop the internet!

[Curmudgeon]

"Something with an attack roll" is not the only definition for an attack, though.
However, that is the only official definition for the D&D game, as specified by Wizards of the Coast.

[candycorn]

However, that is the only official definition for the D&D game, as specified by Wizards of the Coast.

Incorrect. That's the only official glossary entry.

There are many official references to non-attack roll abilities being attacks, officially, by the D&D game, as specified by Wizards of the Coast.


Many creatures have unusual abilities. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities. The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack.

When a special ability allows a saving throw, the kind of save and the save DC is noted in the descriptive text. Most saving throws against special abilities have DCs calculated as follows:

10 + ½ the attacker’s racial Hit Dice + the relevant ability modifier.
Thus, the former entry includes things that are modes of attack. The name itself denotes, an Attack, which is by its nature Special. This is how english works. We have an adjective describing a noun. "Yellow Buses" are buses. "Green Apples" are apples. "Special Attacks" are attacks.

And every Fear-based ability I have seen in the SRD under a monster entry is a Special Attack, and is thus, an attack in its own right. That includes Fear Auras (Ex and Su), Spell-like abilities, and even spells.

Since the DC for a Special Attack is set by the attacker's Hit Dice, then it's hard to say that the attacker is not attacking with an attack.

In addition:
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

The game, in the glossary (which, incidentally, is not exhaustive in its definitions. Instead, it summarizes), lists the common "melee or ranged attack" description as the summary for an attack.

That does not invalidate any other section that refers to abilities as attacks.

[Acanous]

Intimidate to Demoralize is a skill check, not an attack, yes? Further, it's not Su or Spell-like.
Does that mean it doesn't count as mind-affecting?

[Deophaun]

Intimidate to Demoralize is a skill check, not an attack, yes?
By what candycorn cited, the demoralize use of intimidate would be an attack because it's an offensive combat action.

[Psyren]

No! We're not done arguing yet! You can't stop the internet!

Eh, pretty sure candycorn won this one with that second cite.

[TuggyNE]

I think this is the first time I've seen Curmudgeon actually wrong on something. *makes a note*

[Curmudgeon]

Incorrect.
...
SRD, Special Attacks
The System Reference Document is derived from multiple sources. The problem with using that alone is that you're not paying attention to the hierarchy of those sources. Yet Wizards of the Coast has explicitly defined that hierarchy to resolve issues such as this.
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. That "SRD" quote derives from Monster Manual (on page 6). Because it disagrees with the primary source definition (Player's Handbook: rules for playing the game) of what an "attack" is, those Monster Manual "special attacks" aren't RAW attacks if they fail to meet the definition.
In addition:
You appear to have entirely slipped a gear in that second citation. Perhaps it's clearer what they're talking about in the original Player's Handbook version (from page 171):
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. For instance, invisibility is dispelled if you attack anyone or anything while under its effects. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents (such as disarm and bull rush) are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Summon monster I and similar spells are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone. This rules text only defines what "attack" means in a spell description. It has no applicability outside of spell descriptions. Its purpose is so you know how to read something like the following:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes ... So yes, a fear effect which requires a saving throw to resist would end the Invisibility spell, because that's considered an "attack" as far as the Invisibility spell description is concerned. It's just not an attack according to the standard definition.
I think this is the first time I've seen Curmudgeon actually wrong on something. *makes a note* You might want to check those notes for accuracy. I have been wrong before (and more than once), but I think I've got the RAW correct on this one. candycorn's confusion stems from an over-reliance on the SRD, where rules nuances in many places got lost as WotC stripped out examples, sources, and proprietary content. As a general principle, if there's a rules issue you shouldn't rely on the SRD alone; check the original books and errata files to get the whole RAW text.

[Deophaun]

TThat "SRD" quote derives from Monster Manual (on page 6). Because it disagrees with the primary source definition (Player's Handbook: rules for playing the game) of what an "attack" is, those Monster Manual "special attacks" aren't RAW attacks if they fail to meet the definition.
Except that the Monster Manual's description matches with the Rules Compendium's description, and the Rules Compendium explicitly overrules anything in previously published core books. Frightful Presence is listed as a "Fear Attack" for crying out loud.

So, the best case scenario for your strict reading of "attack" is that "fear attack" is in the same category of terminology as "special attack" in terms of being a non-attack attack. That way, everybody can be right and equally confused.

Edit: And you still have the problem of your definition making evasion the most useless class ability of all time (right along side mettle). I do have to wonder if you've previously argued its worthlessness in various threads that have extolled its virtues.

[olentu]

Bah, what sort of nonsense is going on in this thread. Hmph, "fear attacks" are given particular features in the rules and as such can not be assumed to be the common English usage of the words or even worse some sort of vile amalgamation of a D&D term and a common word.

[Curmudgeon]

... and the Rules Compendium explicitly overrules anything in previously published core books.
Oh, does it now? Since I just quoted the Primary Sources Errata rule, the official position of Wizards of the Coast is that it takes an errata file to override any primary source.

The only source of Rule Compendium's authority is itself. There has never been any rescinding of the Primary Sources rule (which has appeared in many Errata files). The Official D&D Errata (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20060531a) web page hasn't been changed to make mention of Rules Compendium. I've checked and I found no pronouncement of any kind by WotC (outside of that book) which says that it's granted any such priority. The interview with Chris Sims (author name on the cover) here (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20071005a) doesn't say anything about changing the rules without errata.
Chris Sims: Rules Compendium doesn’t replace the core rulebooks. What it does is collect all the rules you need to play the game at the table in one place.
...
Wizards: When it came to collecting and assembling the rules, were there particular mechanics you were interested in clarifying, fine-tuning, or outright revising with official errata?

Chris Sims: With a whole lot more rules than could fit in 160 pages, we were interested mainly in those rules that you need to reference during play. (Sims never contradicted the "with official errata" note regarding rule changes -- just snuck those changes without errata into Rules Compendium, mainly without noting them as changes.)

So, basically, every DM has to decide which changes (if any) from RC they'll accept into their game, since the official WotC position remains that none of them are RAW. :smallsigh:

[Deophaun]

Oh, does it now? Since I just quoted the Primary Sources Errata rule, the official position of Wizards of the Coast is that it takes an errata file to override any primary source.

I just checked, and yup, the Rules Compendium is an official WotC product. It is, surprisingly, not made by a third party. :smallsigh:

(Sims never contradicted the "with official errata" note regarding rule changes
What is there to contradict?

-- just snuck those changes without errata into Rules Compendium, mainly without noting them as changes.)
That's assuming that the Rules Compendium is not official errata. It is. WotC said so, specifically, in the introduction to the book they published. They need say no where else. There is no D&D Constitution that requires a 2/3rds majority vote for ratification of amendments, no separation of powers. All WotC has to say is "Quod scripsi scripsi." And they did. Otherwise the rule compendium itself is pointless. And in fact, as I recall, some of your past arguments for how the game is has hinged precisely on wording in the RC that contradicted stuff in the DMG. So no, sorry, not buying it. Not from you.

[Talderas]

My citation says "fear attacks." The nature of those attacks is irrelevant; if it's an attack (which it is if a saving throw or attack roll are involved) and it causes fear, it's mind-affecting, period.

You citation regards fear attacks in the context of supernatural and spell-like abilities. The citation does not come in a section titled Fear, Fear (Ex, Su, Sp), or Fear (Ex, Su, Sp, Spells), or any other manner which would include anything that isn't Supernatural or Spell-like. When it comes to rules you must respect an established hierarchy. A rule cannot apply outside of the context in which it is contained. This is why the SRD is not a good source to reference or cite when dealing with hierarchy issues regarding rules.

As far as fear goes, here's the basic summary of how the PHB/DMG/MM reference it.

PHB: Through intimidate, those immune to fear are immune to the effects of demoralize. Spells from the spell list with the Fear descriptor also contain the mind-affecting descriptor.
DMG: When describing the effects of fear contains nothing regarding immunity or what fear is.
MM: All supernatural and spell-like fear abilities are mind-affecting. Frightful Presence (Ex) is mind-affecting.

What the rules do not say is that Extraordinary fear effects are mind-affecting. The rules do not say that fear based spells are mind-affecting. The rules do not say that demoralize foe is mind-affecting though you can make the argument that since the ability name contains the word morale it is a mind-affecting ability. I generally shy away from adjudicating based solely on the name of something.

The Dread Witch ability Fearful Empowerment is a supernatural ability that targets a spell. The spell then targets the creature. This is why Fearful Empowerment can, in theory, create non-mind-affecting fear effects through spells since the spell affecting the creature does not contain the mind-affecting descriptor since there are no rules that state spells with the Fear descriptor are mind-affecting.

--


That's assuming that the Rules Compendium is not official errata. It is. WotC said so, specifically, in the introduction to the book they published. They need say no where else. There is no D&D Constitution that requires a 2/3rds majority vote for ratification of amendments, no separation of powers. All WotC has to say is "Quod scripsi scripsi." And they did. Otherwise the rule compendium itself is pointless. And in fact, as I recall, some of your past arguments for how the game is has hinged precisely on wording in the RC that contradicted stuff in the DMG. So no, sorry, not buying it. Not from you.

Rules Compendium is not errata. Rules Compendium contains some core rules and their errata. It contains other rules. Rules Compendium is not acknowledged as part of the core ruleset. A book cannot claim to be a primary authority without external acknowledgment of that authority. WotC still only acknowledges PHB/DMG/MM as the core and primary authority for the D&D game. So RC's claim to trump all rules only applies if and when you are using the rules contained within it (meaning that you have acknowledged and assented to that authority) that contradict what is published in the core rules or supplemental rules. If RC's authority has not been acknowledge, then the rules within it that contradict what is in the primary authority hold no value. All supplements are not required to play Dungeons and Dragons correctly so while they may constitute the larger rule set they only constitute the extended rule set and that extended rule set may be applied piecemeal. If the rule is not in the errata for PHB/DMG/MM then it is not errata to the core rules and is in fact a new rule presented by RC.

Whether or not a product is an official product has no bearing on whether it is an acknowledge primary product. Unglued and Unhinged are official MtG products but that doesn't mean they're permitted for use in tournament play.

[Psyren]

And ego trumps correctness it seems.

Deophaun, I implore thee, escape while ye may. It's really not worth it.

[Asheram]

From the Rules Compendium

The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.

... I can not see why you (Talderas) won't acknowledge the Rules Compendium book. It's WOTC, it's D&D, it's D&D 3.5.

The Core Ruleset isn't the bible, it isn't holy and it changes with time.