anathema (spell)

[Venger]

so, this spell from p28 of champions of ruin allows you to destroy the divine connection between your god and any of his/her/its worshippers that is a lower level than you. it can be cast from anywhere, has no save or SR (though it's permanent, so it can be dispelled)

my question:

it's an enchantment (compulsion) spell, but unlike every other enchantment spell, it lacks the mind-affecting tag.

does that mean it works against people who are immune to mind affecting? (undead, constructs, high level characters, etc)

or is it understood that it's mind-affecting since it's enchantment? every enchantment spell I can think of is mind-affecting (one of the reasons it's most people's 2nd banned school) but I can't find an actual rule anyplace that says "all enchantment spells are mind-affecting"

which is it?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't think this is the only enchantment that lacks the mind-affecting tag, though I can't recall anything specific off the top of my head. In any case, if it doesn't have the tag, immunity to mind-affecting doesn't affect the spell. You might check the errata, if there is one, to make sure they didn't add the tag after printing.

[ArcturusV]

Well... I mean from how you describe the spell... it's NOT mind effecting at all anyway. More of a spiritual effecting than a mind effecting. So I guess if someone had spiritual tampering resistance it should apply? Only thing I can think of is the sort of things that generally mess with possessions and such like the Paladin's Aura, Circles of Protection, etc. But just on the logic of it nothing about how the spell is described there makes me think it'd be mind effecting, or that immunity to mind tampering (like being Undead) would apply.

[Venger]

I don't think this is the only enchantment that lacks the mind-affecting tag, though I can't recall anything specific off the top of my head. In any case, if it doesn't have the tag, immunity to mind-affecting doesn't affect the spell. You might check the errata, if there is one, to make sure they didn't add the tag after printing.

that was my thought process exactly. there's no rule saying all ench is mind affecting, but I can't think of a single enchantment spell that's not.

I can't find an errata of champions of ruin. I'm not sure one exists. either that or I just can't find a link on the site or over on gleemax.

[ArcturusV]

Actually.. I got curious. I saw this in the Player's Handbook, as they are describing Spell Schools:

"All enchantments are mind-affecting spells." Page 173, Player's Handbook for 3.5.

[Flickerdart]

Actually.. I got curious. I saw this in the Player's Handbook, as they are describing Spell Schools:

"All enchantments are mind-affecting spells." Page 173, Player's Handbook for 3.5.
Fortunately, specific trumps general.

[JBento]

Fortunately, specific trumps general.

I don't think there's any specific instance here. Specific would be if Anathema said "Unlike other Enchantment spells, Anathema isn't mind-affecting."

On the other hand, the spell is only going to work if the DM lets it (you need to ask your god for it, and you BETTER use it on the person you said you were going to), so it's a non-issue.

[Flickerdart]

I don't think there's any specific instance here. Specific would be if Anathema said "Unlike other Enchantment spells, Anathema isn't mind-affecting."
It's not [Mind-affecting]. A spell does not have tags that it doesn't have. If the description of Enchantments was enough, then none of them would need the tag.

[nedz]

I don't think this is the only enchantment that lacks the mind-affecting tag, though I can't recall anything specific off the top of my head. In any case, if it doesn't have the tag, immunity to mind-affecting doesn't affect the spell. You might check the errata, if there is one, to make sure they didn't add the tag after printing.

According to the standard search tool there are
266 Enchantment spells
330 with the Mind-Affecting descriptor (not all are Enchantment)
249 Enchantment spells with the Mind-Affecting descriptor

So that just leaves 17 Enchantment spells without the Mind-Affecting descriptor

Ed: Actually there is one which is Mind-Affecting and Chaotic, so 16

[JBento]

It's not [Mind-affecting]. A spell does not have tags that it doesn't have. If the description of Enchantments was enough, then none of them would need the tag.

RE-RE-EDIT: The rule is clear: all enchantments are mind-affecting spells. Regardless of the existing redundancies (another one is that the rules compendium goes out of its way to say that charms and compulsions are mind-affecting, despite them all being enchantment anyway), that makes all enchantment spells mind-affecting effects unless the spell says otherwise.

ADDED EDIT: Since the spell is a [Compulsion], this is all moot, because that tag automatically makes it mind-affecting.

[nedz]

Since the spell is a [Compulsion], this is all moot, because that tag automatically makes it mind-affecting.

Compulsion is a sub-school of Enchantment not all of which have the Mind-Effecting tag. Why would some have the tag, and others not ?

[Flickerdart]

ADDED EDIT: Since the spell is a [Compulsion], this is all moot, because that tag automatically makes it mind-affecting.
Evidently not. There is only one way to tell if an effect is mind-affecting - whether or not it has the [Mind-affecting] tag.

[JBento]

Evidently not. There is only one way to tell if an effect is mind-affecting - whether or not it has the [Mind-affecting] tag.

You can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it true. From the Rules Compendium:

pg.28: Charms and compulsions are mind-affecting effects.
pg.53: Fear attacks (...) are mind-affecting fear effects.
pg.121: All enchantments are mind-affecting spells.
pg.122: All patterns are mind-affecting spells.

The fact that some spells reinforce this fact and others don't doesn't change anything: ALL of these things are mind-affecting effects.

You might as well say that BAB doesn't do anything, because the BAB tables in the class descriptions don't mention you add it to your attack roll.

EDIT: Getting late here, so I'm off for the day. To be continued tomorrow, assuming that this thread doesn't drop off the first page or that I don't forget to look it up if it does... :smallredface:

[Ernir]

I'm on the "Enchantments always mind-affecting" wagon. That means that my interpretation is that the [mind-affecting] tag on most enchantment spells is redundant, or repeated for clarity.

Whether that's a good idea or not is another issue entirely.

[Flickerdart]

You might as well say that BAB doesn't do anything, because the BAB tables in the class descriptions don't mention you add it to your attack roll.
Were-apples to dire oranges.

You can argue your side all you want, but the generalization clearly does not apply to a number of spells, and while I could see WotC making an omission like that once or twice, 16 times is incredibly unlikely.

[avr]

... and while I could see WotC making an omission like that once or twice, 16 times is incredibly unlikely.
Have you looked at any sample characters created by WotC? 16 errors in 266 cases sounds significantly better than average.

I'm not sure who this spell is compelling exactly, but whoever it is is having their mind affected by RAW as far as I can see.

[Flickerdart]

Have you looked at any sample characters created by WotC? 16 errors in 266 cases sounds significantly better than average.
Sample characters? Sure. Actual rules that were never given errata? Not so much.

[Draz74]

Flickerdart, I think by RAW you've got no room for argument on this one. There's no "specific" in the "specific trumps general" in this case -- the spell itself does not state that it is either [Mind-affecting] or non-[Mind-affecting], so the ruling defaults to the broader rules -- which (apparently) state that all Enchantments and all [compulsion]s are [Mind-affecting].

Sure, in general a spell doesn't have a descriptor if its description doesn't include that descriptor. But nothing prevents a rule from adding a descriptor to a spell even if it's not written in that spell. It's just a rarity, i.e. only done in one or a few cases. (One might even say, "specific trumps general." :smallwink:)

It might as well be like that one metamagic feat that adds the [Cold] descriptor to a spell. (And if it already was [Cold], that doesn't really matter.) In this case, the Enchantment school adds the [Mind-affecting] descriptor to all its spells. The fact that most of them already have the tag is irrelevant.

RAI, you very well may be correct. But RAW, no.

[Flickerdart]

Flickerdart, I think by RAW you've got no room for argument on this one. There's no "specific" in the "specific trumps general" in this case -- the spell itself does not state that it is either [Mind-affecting] or non-[Mind-affecting], so the ruling defaults to the broader rules -- which (apparently) state that all Enchantments and all [compulsion]s are [Mind-affecting].
The lack of the tag is specific. That's how a spell states what tags it has - by having tags.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The lack of the tag is specific. That's how a spell states what tags it has - by having tags.

"The rules don't say I'm wrong" is only a valid argument if you can prove that the rules don't say your opposition is right.

The general rule "all enchantments are mind affecting" exists. For it to not apply there must be a specific exception.

There is no specific exception here. Only an absence of redundancy.

I think this was probably an editing error in the magic overview section of the PHB and that the general rule was probably supposed to be "most" or "nearly all" enchantments are mind affecting. Nevertheless the general rule is "all" and there is no exception here.

[Kornaki]

If all spells in the players handbook are mind-affecting tagged, then is it clear whether that is a rule that every enchantment spell is mind affecting, or could it just be a statement of fact?

Looking at the srd

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm

We also have the statement

Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools

Would you interpret that as a rule? What if we found an example of a conjuration spell that did not have any of the subschools?

[lord_khaine]

Im with Flickerdart on this one, seems clear to me Anathema isnt mindaffecting.

[Thiyr]

It is a mind affecting spell. What flickerdart is arguing doesn't work, as "specific trumps general" doesn't come into play. There is no specific in this instance. There is just a lack of repeating the general. To be a case of specific, it would have to state the specific instance, in much the same way that a a planetar is proficient with its greatsword due to being an outsider, even if it it doesn't have anything which would state proficiency in its stat block (not even an "outsider traits" bit, like undead or elementals do).


edit: to put it in the terminology of another game entirely, the mind affecting tag for enchantment spells is like reminder text on an MtG card. it isn't rules text, so its absence doesn't change how it works.

[JBento]

Kelb, it's not just the PHB - the same is said in the Rules Compendium.

I can think of another redundancy off the top of my head, assuming that what is often tauted here concerning you being your own ally is RAW.

The Lion's Roar maneuver specifies the target as "you and allied creatures within 60ft." Clearly, you are within 60ft of yourself. If you ARE your own ally, then here's the case of a redundancy in the very same line.

[The Dark Fiddler]

pg.28: Charms and compulsions are mind-affecting effects.
pg.53: Fear attacks (...) are mind-affecting fear effects.
pg.121: All enchantments are mind-affecting spells.
pg.122: All patterns are mind-affecting spells.

Yes, nobody is arguing that enchantments aren't mind-affecting. The argument is over whether they're all [Mind-Affecting], which they're not.

Even if it was saying all enchantment spells are [Mind-Affecting], then the lack of the tag in the spell description would be enough to overrule that.

[JBento]

Yes, nobody is arguing that enchantments aren't mind-affecting. The argument is over whether they're all [Mind-Affecting], which they're not.

Even if it was saying all enchantment spells are [Mind-Affecting], then the lack of the tag in the spell description would be enough to overrule that.

But... it IS saying all enchantement spells ar emind-affecting. That's LITERALLY what it says. And the lack of anything isn't enough to overrule anything else. If you want to overrule, you actually have to rule against it. Lack of redundancy isn't overruling.

[Thiyr]

But... it IS saying all enchantement spells ar emind-affecting. That's LITERALLY what it says. And the lack of anything isn't enough to overrule anything else. If you want to overrule, you actually have to rule against it. Lack of redundancy isn't overruling.

Agreed. Again, I point to the proficiency bit for a similar situation that I doubt anyone would rule this way.

[The Dark Fiddler]

But... it IS saying all enchantement spells ar emind-affecting.

But not [Mind-Affecting]. I don't see the problem.


Agreed. Again, I point to the proficiency bit for a similar situation that I doubt anyone would rule this way.

That's different, proficiency is a thing in the rules. If, instead, the rules for proficiency required "[Proficiency]" in a weapon, and the outsider type only gave "proficiency," then that'd be a similar situation.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Hinging your entire argument on the absence of a set of brackets seems more than a little dubious to me.

I'm reasonably certain I'm not the only one that feels this way.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Hinging your entire argument on the absence of a set of brackets seems more than a little dubious to me.

Why? Mind-affecting is description, while [Mind-Affecting] is an actual part of the rule. Plenty of things can be mind-affecting without being [Mind-Affecting], since [Mind-Affecting] just affects what is and isn't affected by immunities, boosts for certain types of abilities, and other similar interactions.

[JBento]

Except that, by your own interpretation, it doesn't do that all. Undead and Constructs aren't immune to [Mind-Affecting], they're immune to mind-affecting.

Likewise, there's no mention of [Mind-Affecting] on spells such as Mind Blank. So, by your own ruling, [Mind-Affecting] does diddly-squat and is therefore irrelevant to, well, everything. Good thing the rules actually call lots of stuff as mind-affecting, eh? :smallamused:

[The Dark Fiddler]

Except that, by your own interpretation, it doesn't do that all. Undead and Constructs aren't immune to [Mind-Affecting], they're immune to mind-affecting.

Likewise, there's no mention of [Mind-Affecting] on spells such as Mind Blank. So, by your own ruling, [Mind-Affecting] does diddly-squat and is therefore irrelevant to, well, everything. Good thing the rules actually call lots of stuff as mind-affecting, eh? :smallamused:

Well, that's unfortunate, and I should learn to read up on rules I'm going to argue.

I still think, though, that the lack of the [Mind-Affecting] tag on Anathema is enough to show it doesn't have it, on the specific-versus-general rule. It's obvious that that argument has reached an impasse, though.

[Wookie-ranger]

Just to chime in.
By RAW it would appear that it is a [mind-affecting] spell. but personally i think that the problem is not with the spell (or lack of the tag) but with the "All enchantments are mind-affecting spells." Page 173, Player's Handbook.
It really does not make a lot of sense to give an entire school an automatic sub-school. I think that many Drunk monkeys WotC writers do not even know about this general rule. I sure didn't.

another reason why this spell should not work:

Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType)
Bold mine.
Mind-affecting or not, it does specify that undead are immune to compulsions. You could even make an argument that because "compulsion" are defined as a sub-school of "mind-affecting" all compulsions are automatically mind-affecting even if the lack the tag.

By RAI,
Well.... to be honest, what rule would you interpret? You know, as in Rules As Interpreted.

[sonofzeal]

Just a note:

As far as I can tell, there's exactly one other Compulsion spell that lacks "[Mind-Affecting]" - Ray of Hope (decent single-target 1st lvl buff spell, BoED pg 105). Not sure why it's a Compulsion, but oh well.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Just to chime in.
By RAW it would appear that it is a [mind-affecting] spell. but personally i think that the problem is not with the spell (or lack of the tag) but with the "All enchantments are mind-affecting spells." Page 173, Player's Handbook.
It really does not make a lot of sense to give an entire school an automatic sub-school. I think that many Drunk monkeys WotC writers do not even know about this general rule. I sure didn't.

another reason why this spell should not work:

Bold mine.
Mind-affecting or not, it does specify that undead are immune to compulsions. You could even make an argument that because "compulsion" are defined as a sub-school of "mind-affecting" all compulsions are automatically mind-affecting even if the lack the tag.

By RAI,
Well.... to be honest, what rule would you interpret? You know, as in Rules As Interpreted.

:smallconfused: ......... compulsions are listed in a parenthetical aside that's describing the various types of mind-affecting effects in that entry. Everything in the parentheses is mind-affecting and the entry would mean the exact same thing if you removed the parenthetical aside altogether. You'd just have to go digging to find out what all counts as mind-affecting if it was absent.

[nedz]

Here are the spells. There are 18 in the list, so I obviously made an error with a couple of them: I had to do the comparison manually.

The two from [SpC] {Mesmerizing Glare and Ray of Stupidity} are database errors or something, since they do have the tag in the actual book.

Immediate Assistance — Complete Mage: genuinely doesn't have the tag, and just gives an immediate re-roll on a skill chance.

I don't have the source books for the others — if someone does then these should be verified.


Addiction Book of Vile Darkness
Anathema Champions of Ruin Forgotten Realms (3.5)
Drug Resistance Book of Vile Darkness
Evil Eye Book of Vile Darkness
Freezing Glance Frostburn
Immediate Assistance Complete Mage
Masochism Book of Vile Darkness
Mesmerizing Glare Spell Compendium
Morality Undone Lords of Madness
Proud Arrogance Races of Destiny
Puppeteer Magic of Faerun Forgotten Realms (3.0)
Rage Deities and Demigods
Ray of Stupidity Spell Compendium
Sacrificial Skill Book of Vile Darkness
Sadism Book of Vile Darkness
Sap Strength Book of Vile Darkness
Spread of Savagery Book of Vile Darkness
Turn Anathema Complete Champion

[Wookie-ranger]

:smallconfused: ......... compulsions are listed in a parenthetical aside that's describing the various types of mind-affecting effects in that entry. Everything in the parentheses is mind-affecting and the entry would mean the exact same thing if you removed the parenthetical aside altogether. You'd just have to go digging to find out what all counts as mind-affecting if it was absent.
bold mine

yeah, well. that is exactly what i mean.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Here are the spells. There are 18 in the list, so I obviously made an error with a couple of them: I had to do the comparison manually.

The two from [SpC] {Mesmerizing Glare and Ray of Stupidity} are database errors or something, since they do have the tag in the actual book.

Immediate Assistance — Complete Mage: genuinely doesn't have the tag, and just gives an immediate re-roll on a skill chance.

I don't have the source books for the others — if someone does then these should be verified.


Addiction Book of Vile Darkness
Anathema Champions of Ruin Forgotten Realms (3.5)
Drug Resistance Book of Vile Darkness
Evil Eye Book of Vile Darkness
Freezing Glance Frostburn
Immediate Assistance Complete Mage
Masochism Book of Vile Darkness
Mesmerizing Glare Spell Compendium
Morality Undone Lords of Madness
Proud Arrogance Races of Destiny
Puppeteer Magic of Faerun Forgotten Realms (3.0)
Rage Deities and Demigods
Ray of Stupidity Spell Compendium
Sacrificial Skill Book of Vile Darkness
Sadism Book of Vile Darkness
Sap Strength Book of Vile Darkness
Spread of Savagery Book of Vile Darkness
Turn Anathema Complete Champion

Only 4 of those might not be directly affecting the mind of the taget(s); Anathema, Freezing glance, immediate assistance, and turn anathema. This is patently obvious at just a glance. The other 14 can be seen, quite plainly, to affect the mind of the target(s) just by their names.

Edit: upon inspection, evil eye probably doesn't deserve the mind-affecting tag but the rest of the BoVD enchantments do. Given its effect, evil eye is probably misplaced as an enchantment to begin with. Morality undone was updated in one of the fiendish codices. If the database has the book but doesn't list that version then the spell does have the mind-affecting tag now. Same goes for rage having been reprinted in the 3.5 PHB after Deities and demigods.

bold mine

yeah, well. that is exactly what i mean.

Wait, what? mind-affecting = [Mind-Affecting]; Y/N?

[Wookie-ranger]

Wait, what? mind-affecting = [Mind-Affecting]; Y/N?

Yes. :smallconfused: ?
why would it not be?
Is there ANY definition, in ANY book, ANYWHERE that would suggest that they are not the same???

Parenthesis or not is irrelevant. At least it should not be!!! I find it ... silly (to say it nicely and not get another Warning Point) ... to assume that the same word, used the same way, in the same context could have a COMPLETELY different meaning, just because then (and only then) would it support an argument!
To clarify how this sounds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0)


Just to give an example of how "fluid" the nomenclature for WotC is; look at the Human "bonus feat".
In the description of the race it clearly says "extra feat" (p.13, PHB)
but:
In the description of how to acquire feats feats it says that it is a "bonus feat" (p.87, PHB)
Well, what is it now?
This is just one example.
If there are such big discrepancies, the presence or absence of parenthesis should not be seen as a valid argument that the same word means something completely different.


EDIT:
I was reading over the spell and found this part:
"You cannot pronounce an anathema against someone who is already dead."

this might be a good point that undead are immune against this spell.

[Venger]

dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead)≠undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType)

[Thiyr]

Why? Mind-affecting is description, while [Mind-Affecting] is an actual part of the rule. Plenty of things can be mind-affecting without being [Mind-Affecting], since [Mind-Affecting] just affects what is and isn't affected by immunities, boosts for certain types of abilities, and other similar interactions.

I'd just like to point out that the [Mind-Affecting] tag is just a description as well (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor)

[Starbuck_II]

Just a note:

As far as I can tell, there's exactly one other Compulsion spell that lacks "[Mind-Affecting]" - Ray of Hope (decent single-target 1st lvl buff spell, BoED pg 105). Not sure why it's a Compulsion, but oh well.

It compulses you to be hopeful.

[TuggyNE]

But not [Mind-Affecting]. I don't see the problem.

When is there ever any possible distinction? Something that affects the mind is [mind-affecting]; something that is [mind-affecting] directly affects the mind.


By RAW it would appear that it is a [mind-affecting] spell. but personally i think that the problem is not with the spell (or lack of the tag) but with the "All enchantments are mind-affecting spells." Page 173, Player's Handbook.
It really does not make a lot of sense to give an entire school an automatic sub-school. I think that many Drunk monkeys WotC writers do not even know about this general rule. I sure didn't.

I'd agree (absence of reinforcing text does not indicate evidence of absence, but auto-labeling an entire school with a descriptor is kind of careless), but that's technically not what sub-school means.


Mind-affecting or not, it does specify that undead are immune to compulsions. You could even make an argument that because "compulsion" are defined as a sub-school of "mind-affecting" all compulsions are automatically mind-affecting even if the lack the tag.

Again, that's not what sub-school means. Also, while it does serve as a useful indicator of intent, a list of examples of common [mind-affecting] spell categories is not the same as a strict definition. (For one thing, I'm fairly sure there are spells not included in the list that have [mind-affecting].)

[Flickerdart]

When is there ever any possible distinction? Something that affects the mind is [mind-affecting]; something that is [mind-affecting] directly affects the mind.
No. While [Mind-affecting] effects affect the mind, not everything that affects minds is [Mind-affecting], in the same way that not all healing is (Healing).

[nedz]

Again, that's not what sub-school means. Also, while it does serve as a useful indicator of intent, a list of examples of common [mind-affecting] spell categories is not the same as a strict definition. (For one thing, I'm fairly sure there are spells not included in the list that have [mind-affecting].)

The sub-schools of Enchantment are Charm and Compulsion.
There are [mind-affecting] spells in the school of Illusions, among others.

[TuggyNE]

No. While [Mind-affecting] effects affect the mind, not everything that affects minds is [Mind-affecting], in the same way that not all healing is (Healing).

OK. Specific counter-example, please?

(You could argue that mental ability damage/drain/burn is mind-affecting, but while I can see the logic, I think it's mostly a physical effect that happens to indirectly affect the mind through attacking its base.)

[Flickerdart]

OK. Specific counter-example, please?

(You could argue that mental ability damage/drain/burn is mind-affecting, but while I can see the logic, I think it's mostly a physical effect that happens to indirectly affect the mind through attacking its base.)
Conjuration spells that command the creature in question. Telepathic Bond. Suspend Life (which puts you in a trance). Psychic Vampire. Destiny Dissonance.

[Starbuck_II]

No. While [Mind-affecting] effects affect the mind, not everything that affects minds is [Mind-affecting], in the same way that not all healing is (Healing).

Wild Shape heals but is not a [healing] effect.

[Crake]

People in this thread need to learn the difference between [](spell descriptors) and () (subschools)

[TuggyNE]

Conjuration spells that command the creature in question. Telepathic Bond. Suspend Life (which puts you in a trance). Psychic Vampire. Destiny Dissonance.

Hmm. Conjuration spells I'm not sure about the proper explanation for; the others honestly seem like bugs. Still, point taken; WotC is, at best, not especially great about assigning descriptors sensibly.

On the other hand, that makes it more plausible (if you agree that for example telepathic bond should have [mind-affecting]) that the Enchantment spells without it are also bugs.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ wookie-ranger:

I see. Miscommunication error. We were in agreement with each other to begin with.