No Such Thing As Immunity: Mind Blank

[Nettlekid]

D&D is pretty notorious for throwing around the word "immunity" and then not really sticking to the definition. Something could be immune to Sneak Attack, but Greater Crystals of Demolition or Truedeath, or the ACF Penetrating Strike make you rethink that. Immune to fire? Searing Spell. Immune to fear? Dread Witch. These are niche cases, but they prove that if you really want to, you can beat an immunity. Which makes me want to do something about Mind Blank, and "immune to mind-affecting" in general. Because mind-affecting is fun. Whether you want to reshape the world with your illusions or be your own Lelouch and Geas an army of minions, at high levels when these effects are either only accessible or really get wild, everything and its cohorts will be sporting Mind Blank in some form or another. Illusions get doubly shafted with True Seeing, but clever people working with Invisible Obscuring Mist are pretty good at dealing with that. But Mind Blank (and "immune to mind-affecting") still holds strong. How do we get around it?

I'd especially like class features or feats that you can use to just ignore a creature's immunity to mind-affecting. You can always say "Oh, use Shatter Mind Blank or Dispel Magic on them" and while that will work, it relies on CL checks and things that are troublesome to make reliable. That's a go-to answer for all magic problems, not Mind Blank specifically. Nor does it help with like, mindless undead and other immune creatures in that respect. But there must be a way to let Lelouch rule Level 20, right?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Well, Dread Witch arguably beats Mind Blank.

[Marnath]

Mage's disjunction automatically destroys all spells in effect within it's radius. The will save only applies to items, not spells. You probably don't want to do that though since you destroy all your loot(and possibly your own stuff, it's a big radius) which is probably less than ideal in a lot of situations.

[Aegis013]

Metafaculty Psionic seer power can trump Mind Blank. Expanded Psionics Handbook pg. 116.

[Nettlekid]

Dread Witch does beat Mind Blank, I would think, but only for Fear. Illusions and Enchantments don't get helped for that, which is what I'm looking for.

Really? You're suggestion Disjunction? That spell that everyone hates and everyone agrees not to use? And like I said, that would affect all magic, whereas I'm looking for something that can trump "immune to mind-affecting" specifically.

Ah, now Metafaculty is exactly what I mean. The actual effect isn't what I'm looking for (I don't really care about scrying/location-finding, more about mental domination) but the fact that it explicitly states that it overcomes Mind Blank makes it a perfect example of what I'm looking for.

[Aegis013]

Ah, now Metafaculty is exactly what I mean. The actual effect isn't what I'm looking for (I don't really care about scrying/location-finding, more about mental domination) but the fact that it explicitly states that it overcomes Mind Blank makes it a perfect example of what I'm looking for.

I don't think there is anything that overcomes Mind Blank in the particular way you're looking for. That's why it's touted as a must have buff and anybody going into combat with a high level caster (or anybody with sufficient wealth) expects the foe to have Mind Blank.

[Malroth]

my banned spell list. Mind blank, protection from evil/good/law/chaos , true seeing, death ward, Energy immunity, protection from arrows.

[Phelix-Mu]

Hmm, I can't quite remember the Heroes of Horror taint rules at the moment, but I was wondering if maybe you could depravity something into insanity, and then talk it into dropping its mind blank? Sounds like a bit of a stretch, but, as with Dread Witch, if you can find a small chink in something's immunity to mind-affecting, you can possibly use it as leverage to get more dramatic effects in.

Was there not a metamagic feat that added some fear affect onto the spell? Or maybe I am misremembering the Dread Witch class features....

[SaintRidley]

Hmm, I can't quite remember the Heroes of Horror taint rules at the moment, but I was wondering if maybe you could depravity something into insanity, and then talk it into dropping its mind blank? Sounds like a bit of a stretch, but, as with Dread Witch, if you can find a small chink in something's immunity to mind-affecting, you can possibly use it as leverage to get more dramatic effects in.

Was there not a metamagic feat that added some fear affect onto the spell? Or maybe I am misremembering the Dread Witch class features....

Fell Frighten in Libris Mortis. Adds fear to a damaging spell, leaves the foe shaken for 10 rounds if they take damage. Takes a slot two levels higher to use.

[Khatoblepas]

Dread Witch does beat Mind Blank, I would think, but only for Fear. Illusions and Enchantments don't get helped for that, which is what I'm looking for.

Remember, Mind Blank DOESN'T help against Illusion (Figment), Illusion (Glamer) and Illusion (Shadow) spells - the best ones. Those three subschools are NOT mind-affecting, so they can even affect undead and golems! Any other illusion spell isn't really worth it.

To subsume someone's will when they have Mind Blank up, look no further than the Necrotic Cyst spells - they're domination (http://dndtools.eu/spells/libris-mortis-the-book-of-the-dead--71/necrotic-domination--1489/), they're better domination (http://dndtools.eu/spells/libris-mortis-the-book-of-the-dead--71/necrotic-tumor--1494/), all in one convenient package. You just need to be sneaky in order to implant a necrotic cyst in someone. (Using the Conceal Spellcasting skill trick, or try to make it look like you're casting another spell. You're an enchanter. Bluffing should be in your blood).

It's only THEN you order them to lower their Mind Blank and Protection from X and mindrape them!


my banned spell list. Mind blank, protection from evil/good/law/chaos , true seeing, death ward, Energy immunity, protection from arrows.

One of these things is not like the other ~~. Finite DR10/magic against arrows is game breaking?

[Darrin]

Use the sword spell. Just shove the material component repeatedly into his skull until he stops moving. That should take care of the mind blank for you.

[Karnith]

One of these things is not like the other ~~. Finite DR10/magic against arrows is game breaking?
Perhaps he meant Wind Wall?

[Kuulvheysoon]

my banned spell list. Mind blank, protection from evil/good/law/chaos , true seeing, death ward, Energy immunity, protection from arrows.

My gods, why?

Also, Protection from arrows? DR 10/magic really isn't all that impressive, especially considering that it's only against ranged.

[JoshuaZ]

One of the things Pathfinder did that's sort of nice is changing some of the spells that grant immunities to things that instead provide bonuses.

[Slipperychicken]

My gods, why?

Also, Protection from arrows? DR 10/magic really isn't all that impressive, especially considering that it's only against ranged.

He probably tried to have a PC killed (or at least raise the stakes) through mundane arrow-volleys during a battle, then the PC cast it and stopped caring about the archers. A similar thing happened in one of the games I played in, although it was more an issue with DR in general leaving low-level archers useless and softening the "math-hammer" which is supposed to keep armies effective against high-level PCs.

[Miriad]

Dread Witch does beat Mind Blank, I would think, but only for Fear. Illusions and Enchantments don't get helped for that, which is what I'm looking for.




But the Dread Witch can add the [Fear] Descriptor to any spell. Wouldn't that make those specific illusion spells work?

[Psyren]

Pathfinder Mind Blank nerfs it down to a bonus vs. mind-affecting if you'd rather use that. Still makes it strong against enchantment but not auto-win anymore. It does still block scrying though.

[SaintRidley]

But the Dread Witch can add the [Fear] Descriptor to any spell. Wouldn't that make those specific illusion spells work?

Greater Master of Terror only seems to apply to the Fear effect, though.

So you could slap on [Fear] (twice a day total when you hit 5th level in the class, and only to spells with a visual manifestation so Fireball is yes, Charm person is no) and you could make the fear effect go through, but the rest of the mind-affecting stuff wouldn't because you only break immunity to fear.

[ericgrau]

My gods, why?

Also, Protection from arrows? DR 10/magic really isn't all that impressive, especially considering that it's only against ranged.
Defenses in general aren't that special, because they're too specific and take time to enact. Protection from evil is a 1st level spell that beats a 9th level spells and yet it isn't even that great compared to other 1sts.

Mind blank is more special because it's 24 hours than because of anything else really. So it doesn't take time to raise. But as an 8th level spell it's never low cost to cast like lower level spells eventually are. There's a real decision about which things you want to prepare for: if mind affecting attacks come up less than 10% of your time, then it might not be worth 10% of your high level slots. Before level 19, it can be as much as 30-50% of your important slots. It's a good option to have, but not one you should always use.

So even mind blank isn't that great and none of those spells need nerfing. If anything I'd say they're on the weak side. Mind blank is merely annoying to a mental mage who wants some reliability and the ability to focus more on mind spells without having to resort to a backup tactic. But since any mage can have a backup tactic and since foes don't have the resources to prepare for everything, the OP's goals are more for convenience and super-specialization than anything.

[Jeff the Green]

Greater Master of Terror only seems to apply to the Fear effect, though.

So you could slap on [Fear] (twice a day total when you hit 5th level in the class, and only to spells with a visual manifestation so Fireball is yes, Charm person is no) and you could make the fear effect go through, but the rest of the mind-affecting stuff wouldn't because you only break immunity to fear.

Solution: Spell Thematics. While you can't make spells invisible, it doesn't say anything about the opposite!

[Azoth]

Doesn't Mindbender eventually get to enchant/illusion creatures normally imune to mind affecting abilities?

[TuggyNE]

Solution: Spell Thematics. While you can't make spells invisible, it doesn't say anything about the opposite!

I assume the trauma of Invisible Spell has caused you to block its existence from your mind. I'm sorry to have to remind you of it. :smalleek:

[Killer Angel]

my banned spell list. Mind blank, protection from evil/good/law/chaos , true seeing, death ward, Energy immunity, protection from arrows.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a... bizarre list.
Can you explain?
On a personal note, I would also add "why True Seeing?" It's powerful, but it's still 1 minute / level, with a cost of 250 gp.

[tiercel]

I guess I haven't worried too much about it because:

A) It's very rare that I've ever played a game high enough level that mind blank was a serious consideration and,

B) if you are playing at a high enough level that mind blank is on the table, so are all kinds of other buffs -- so how many high-level encounters DON'T start with targeted greater dispel magic (if not disjunction)?

Of course then we get into "defeating being dispelled" tactics, but that's another kettle of fish.

[Jeff the Green]

I assume the trauma of Invisible Spell has caused you to block its existence from your mind. I'm sorry to have to remind you of it. :smalleek:

I mean Spell Thematics won't let you make your spells invisible, but will let you do the opposite, not that invisible spells are impossible. :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

I mean Spell Thematics won't let you make your spells invisible, but will let you do the opposite, not that invisible spells are impossible. :smalltongue:

Heh. Fair enough! (I wish they were….)

[Talderas]

Dread Witch does beat Mind Blank, I would think, but only for Fear. Illusions and Enchantments don't get helped for that, which is what I'm looking for.

I've pointed this out before, but unless you're using splatbook content, the fear effect is not mind-affecting. That doesn't mean that the vessel by which the fear effect is applied is mind affecting. Most things that cause the fear effect are mind-affecting but if you look at the core rules and the errata fear is, by itself, not mind-affecting. Rules Compendium calls fear mind-affecting with no real basis for doing so. So to give an edge case example of what I'm talking about. A 3rd level dread witch could use Fearful Empowerment to add the Fear descriptor to a Fireball. Since the Fireball does not have the mind-affecting descriptor this spell is not mind-affecting and would affect someone with Mind Blank (ignoring the extra splat rules added by RC). A paladin would still be immune to the fear effect. At 4th level, the same fearful fireball would also pierce the Paladins' Aura of Courage.

Now here's the part that sucks. The 4th level Greater Master of Terror ability only pierces immunity to fear. That means that spells that have the [Fear] and [Mind-Affecting] descriptors (like the spell Fear) won't function against those immune to mind-affecting since you're immune to the spell due to mind-affecting immunity and not due to fear immunity.

Now, it's pretty obvious how to house rule around that little problem but beyond that, you're diving into interpretation grounds and trying to define what mind-affecting means. This is one of the things that Rules Compendium added that only mucked things up rather than actually help.

[JBento]

So sorry to disappoint you, but from the srd:

"All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects." Also take note that every effect that allows a save (and is not (harmless)) or requires an attack roll is considered an attack (special or otherwise).

EDIT: Also, Death Ward is prohibited? :smalleek:

[Karnith]

So sorry to disappoint you, but from the srd:

"All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects." Also take note that every effect that allows a save (and is not (harmless)) or requires an attack roll is considered an attack (special or otherwise).
Specifically, that is in the Special Abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm) section of the SRD, under the "Fear" heading. In full, the relevant section reads
Spells, magic items, and certain monsters can affect characters with fear. If a fear effect allows a saving throw, it is a Will save (DC 10 + ½ fearsome creature’s racial HD + creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects. A failed roll usually means that the character is shaken, frightened, or panicked.

[Talderas]

So sorry to disappoint you, but from the srd:

"All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects." Also take note that every effect that allows a save (and is not (harmless)) or requires an attack roll is considered an attack (special or otherwise).

EDIT: Also, Death Ward is prohibited? :smalleek:

The SRD is in error in this instance. The SRD is only content posted under the OGL for d20 and is not the primary source for D&D. While it is mostly reliable, there are cases where it deviates from what is found in D&D. The Monster Manual only talks about Supernatural and Spell-like abilities being mind-affecting while the SRD lumps all fear together. There are no other descriptions in either the PHB, DMG, or MM regarding fear that call fear mind-affecting. In this case, even though the line "All fear attacks are mind-affecting" it is contained under the header for Supernatural and Spell-like fear abilities. You cannot take that line and apply it to fear effects that aren't from those two categories.

How rules are formatted does matter when properly interpreting them. This is where most of the discrepancies between SRD and D&D come from.

[JBento]

Except that it's not. It's merely updated to match what is in the Rules Compendium, which is the primary source for game rules found in it (i.e., its rulings trump rulings found elsewhere barring "specific beats general").

[D4rtagnan]

Umm, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Nightmare Spinners yet. According to their description they can be adapted to run off enchantments rather then Illusions. Their level cap ability being the ability to by-pass mind affecting immunity.

[Talderas]

Except that it's not. It's merely updated to match what is in the Rules Compendium, which is the primary source for game rules found in it (i.e., its rulings trump rulings found elsewhere barring "specific beats general").

Rules Compendium is not a primary source. WotC still states that the primary sources are PHB/DMG/MM. The only source that declares Rules Compendium a primary source is itself.

Tout that point as much as you want to but when it comes to rules a rule cannot declare itself the authoritative body in order to usurp other rules.

[JBento]

Rules Compendium is not a primary source. WotC still states that the primary sources are PHB/DMG/MM. The only source that declares Rules Compendium a primary source is itself.

Tout that point as much as you want to but when it comes to rules a rule cannot declare itself the authoritative body in order to usurp other rules.

WotC WROTE the RC. The RC states it's the primary source. Therefore, WotC states the RC is a primary source.

[Talderas]

WotC WROTE the RC. The RC states it's the primary source. Therefore, WotC states the RC is a primary source.

Correction. WotC published RC. WotC's public stance still states that the primary authoritative sources are PHB/DMG/MM. The problem is either bad editors not catching that line or WotC never updating their public stance. So the end result is that since WotC still states the PHB/DMG/MM to be primary sources you defer to them when there is a contradiction so if RC contradicts one of those three sources then you discard RC.

The primary source declaration has to be authoritatively stated. A book cannot usurp primary source status in contravention of what the authority states.

[JBento]

Let me just reach into my Tome of Battle, then, and replace most of its pages with text from Complete Arcane, shall I? :smallamused:

[Talderas]

Let me just reach into my Tome of Battle, then, and replace most of its pages with text from Complete Arcane, shall I? :smallamused:

I'm not sure what you're even trying to present. That would achieve nothing. The pages from Complete Arcane are still Complete Arcane rules and the pages from Tome of Battle are still Tome of Battle rules. It doesn't matter what book they are physically located in whatever world you're presenting. The rules from Complete Arcane in Tome of Battle are still Complete Arcane rules.

You're free to grant authority to RC as a primary source base on one sentence in it but the truth is that WotC never did update its definition for primary sources. You can point to format flawed OGL SRD and RC as evidence that fear should be mind-affecting but since they are in contradiction with what WotC declares as primary sources, the primary sources still take precedence in spite of the self-declaration of primary source status contained in RC. Rules have hierarchies and those hierarchies do need to be followed when discussing the rules as written.

As per the primary sources, a fear effect is only mind affecting if it is Supernatural or Spell-like ability or contains a mind-affecting descriptor. As I said, you are free to disregard the primary sources on this and make all fear mind-affecting (including extraordinary sources and spells that lack a mind-affecting descriptor) but that is a house rule since you're overriding WotC's declaration of primary sources.

[danzibr]

my banned spell list. Mind blank, protection from evil/good/law/chaos , true seeing, death ward, Energy immunity, protection from arrows.

One of these things is not like the other ~~. Finite DR10/magic against arrows is game breaking?

Perhaps he meant Wind Wall?

Also, Protection from arrows? DR 10/magic really isn't all that impressive, especially considering that it's only against ranged.
Ha, I got a kick out of that. I wonder if it was meant as a joke.

My banned spell list: Mind Blank, Mage's Disjunction, Wish, Miracle, Magic Missile.

[Story]

Polymorph Any Object, Gate, Genesis, True Mind Switch, Love's Pain, Resistance.

[Nettlekid]

Umm, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Nightmare Spinners yet. According to their description they can be adapted to run off enchantments rather then Illusions. Their level cap ability being the ability to by-pass mind affecting immunity.

If there were actual text or a table that said what the adaptation suggests, that would be ideal. But the adaptation is just that, an adaptation, not an ACF. Which is a pity. It's the same way Shadowcraft Mages are all Gnomes even though there's an adaptation to make them not-Gnomes. Same holds true for the Unarmed Swordsage, but everyone uses that so it's less "iffy" than this.

So, no one seems to have found a good way to beat Mind Blank, have they? Dispel is unreliable and Disjunction is unfair. Dread Witch can apply fear, but not other mind-affecting effects which just happen to be coupled with that fear. Is there no way that at level 20, a Geas-brandishing wizard can command armies with impunity?

[Talderas]

So, no one seems to have found a good way to beat Mind Blank, have they? Dispel is unreliable and Disjunction is unfair. Dread Witch can apply fear, but not other mind-affecting effects which just happen to be coupled with that fear. Is there no way that at level 20, a Geas-brandishing wizard can command armies with impunity?

A dread witch can't even apply fear if you follow the RC interpretation since that makes the fear effect mind-affecting. Dread Witch lets you beat fear immunity, not mind-affecting immunity. You have the same issue with ravages from BoED and undead. Undead can be afflicted with ravages but if the ravage deals ability damage to its physical abilities then they are unaffected by it.

[Nettlekid]

A dread witch can't even apply fear if you follow the RC interpretation since that makes the fear effect mind-affecting. Dread Witch lets you beat fear immunity, not mind-affecting immunity. You have the same issue with ravages from BoED and undead. Undead can be afflicted with ravages but if the ravage deals ability damage to its physical abilities then they are unaffected by it.

I think since Positoxins from Libris Mortis explicitly damage/drain physical ability scores from the undead that are normally immune to that type of damage, it might fall under a case of specific trumps the general rule. Considering that the SRD calls fear mind-affecting and so does the Rules Compendium, and if you're not going to listen to the Rules Compendium for a reading of the rules then what is the point of the book? If I were DMing, I would say that the fear attacks of a Dread Witch could make a creature warded by Mind Blank afraid, but if they combined those fear effects with another mind-affecting effect (like a Fearful Empowered Color Spray) then only the fear, and not the other mind-affecting effect, would get through. Which makes the conversation moot for the point of this thread, which is to beat Mind Blank.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO GEAS EVERYONE.

[Twilightwyrm]

If there were actual text or a table that said what the adaptation suggests, that would be ideal. But the adaptation is just that, an adaptation, not an ACF. Which is a pity. It's the same way Shadowcraft Mages are all Gnomes even though there's an adaptation to make them not-Gnomes. Same holds true for the Unarmed Swordsage, but everyone uses that so it's less "iffy" than this.

So, no one seems to have found a good way to beat Mind Blank, have they? Dispel is unreliable and Disjunction is unfair. Dread Witch can apply fear, but not other mind-affecting effects which just happen to be coupled with that fear. Is there no way that at level 20, a Geas-brandishing wizard can command armies with impunity?

Unfortunately, even those cases you mention where so called "Immunities" are overcome, they hardly do so with impunity. Fire Immune creatures still only take half damage from a searing spell, penetrating strike still only does half damage, the Dread Witch's fear effects can still be resisted, and are in fact even better resisted by creatures with just a flat bonus against fear effects. As it stands, Mind Blank ends up being a spell that cannot be easily circumvented, much like Ironguard, or the Lich's immunity to spells and effects that change its form.

[Psyren]

Correction. WotC published RC. WotC's public stance still states that the primary authoritative sources are PHB/DMG/MM. The problem is either bad editors not catching that line or WotC never updating their public stance. So the end result is that since WotC still states the PHB/DMG/MM to be primary sources you defer to them when there is a contradiction so if RC contradicts one of those three sources then you discard RC.

The primary source declaration has to be authoritatively stated. A book cannot usurp primary source status in contravention of what the authority states.

You're right! Only 11 base classes exist in D&D 3.5. Throw out your splat books people, they're all useless homebrew.

This slavish dedication to the Primary Source rule is not helping to make the rules any clearer. PS must take a backseat to Specific Trumps General, else there is no point doing anything outside of core.

Or for another example - ToM pg 139 has a table specifically stating that it supersedes DMG pg. 290. But the DMG was printed first, making it the primary source. Right? So that text in ToM is just so much wasted print, right? Right?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

A dread witch can't even apply fear if you follow the RC interpretation since that makes the fear effect mind-affecting. Dread Witch lets you beat fear immunity, not mind-affecting immunity. You have the same issue with ravages from BoED and undead. Undead can be afflicted with ravages but if the ravage deals ability damage to its physical abilities then they are unaffected by it.Dread Witch lets [Fear] spells affect individuals who are normally immune to [Fear]. With RC in play, creatures immune to [Mind Affecting] are normally immune to [Fear]. Therefore Dread Witch lets [Fear] spells affect those who are immune to [Mind Affecting].

[Talderas]

You're right! Only 11 base classes exist in D&D 3.5. Throw out your splat books people, they're all useless homebrew.

That's true. Samurai, Hexblade, Warlock, Shadowcaster are all standard classes and not base classes.


This slavish dedication to the Primary Source rule is not helping to make the rules any clearer. PS must take a backseat to Specific Trumps General, else there is no point doing anything outside of core.

Or for another example - ToM pg 139 has a table specifically stating that it supersedes DMG pg. 290. But the DMG was printed first, making it the primary source. Right? So that text in ToM is just so much wasted print, right? Right?

Of course it does. It's a specific rule. It's not a generic rule like the declaration at the beginning of RC to claim PS status. If you're going to discuss rules then you must work from the rules as written. Otherwise the entire conversation is entirely subjective as people throw their own RAI, houserules, or homebrew on top of it. That is a basic fundamental truth in any discussion. If all parties aren't operating from the same definitions there can be no discussion. It's why anyone who utters the state "It's just semantics," has conclusively proven that they have no interest in a discussion.

Do I agree with the rules as written? No. There are many areas where I disagree with them. Do I think an ability that lets you bypass a certain immunity should function still if another immunity would still prevent it? Yes. Do I think RAW permits that? No.

[Psyren]

That's true. Samurai, Hexblade, Warlock, Shadowcaster are all standard classes and not base classes.

The PHB actually just says "The eleven classes" so your attempt at differentiating these is meaningless.



Of course it does. It's a specific rule. It's not a generic rule like the declaration at the beginning of RC to claim PS status.

"When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence."

That is plenty specific to me - i.e. it specifically overrides both core and splat material. You can do as you like at your table, of course.

[nedz]

Except that it's not. It's merely updated to match what is in the Rules Compendium, which is the primary source for game rules found in it (i.e., its rulings trump rulings found elsewhere barring "specific beats general").

Previously; We have found differences between the SRD and the RC.
The SRD appears to be book+errata for the 5 core books.

[Talderas]

"When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence."

That is plenty specific to me - i.e. it specifically overrides both core and splat material. You can do as you like at your table, of course.

You're ignoring the rules hierarchy, but that's fine. Continue to use the flawed description of fear that makes it a lot less useful.

[Psyren]

You're ignoring the rules hierarchy, but that's fine. Continue to use the flawed description of fear that makes it a lot less useful.

I notice you didn't respond to the first half of my post. Couldn't come up with anything?

I'm not ignoring the rules hierarchy at all. Nowhere does it say the PS rule trumps the StG rule. And if you assume it does, many other rules cease to function... such as having more than 11 classes.

[Phelix-Mu]

I wish I understood the precise distinction in dispute. *eats popcorn*:smallcool:

[Nettlekid]

You're ignoring the rules hierarchy, but that's fine. Continue to use the flawed description of fear that makes it a lot less useful.

How do you see the Rules Compendium as being useful at all if that's the attitude you take towards it? "If it agrees with what's in core, then you can use it because it works. If it disagrees with core, you have to use core." What's the point of the Rules Compendium, then? I'm assuming you have no Swift actions because those didn't exist in core, and instead use 1 quickened spell per turn. Gee, your Warblades must be upset that there's no such rule for their Counters and Boosts. Maybe if you look up the definition of Swift action in the PHB you'd find that-Oh. Nope. Nothing.

The splatbooks are there because they add to what's been done, sometimes explicitly changing what has been previously asserted.

[ShriekingDrake]

@Talderas: I don't think I understand where you're coming from as you describe the rules hierarchy. While I don't think that I agree with your conclusions, I'd like to hear more about your perspective.

Could you explain more clearly--I'm sure you think that you already have, but I can be a bit obtuse at times--the rules hierarchy you're relying upon and its source?

I have the sense--at least based upon what I've read you to say--that as there is no description of how to incorporate errata within the Primary Sources, that those are improvements that have no--or perhaps little--weight in the official game. Is that right?

The Rules Compendium says this:
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 supple- ment 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. Could you help me understand how we should be interpreting this quote in the context of the hierarchy you've described?

In the end, we all play with the rules as they work for our games . . . and that's just great. But I don't understand quite how you would apply the hierarchy you've described in the context of many sources of materials published after the Primary Sources that specifically intend to augment, improve, update, and change the primary sources.

[Deophaun]

You're ignoring the rules hierarchy, but that's fine. Continue to use the flawed description of fear that makes it a lot less useful.
Where is this rules hierarchy published? The only place I've seen that actually talks about the primary source rule is in the WotC errata, and it says nothing like what you've been saying here. Is there another place?

[Talderas]

@Talderas: I don't think I understand where you're coming from as you describe the rules hierarchy. While I don't think that I agree with your conclusions, I'd like to hear more about your perspective.

Could you explain more clearly--I'm sure you think that you already have, but I can be a bit obtuse at times--the rules hierarchy you're relying upon and its source?

I have the sense--at least based upon what I've read you to say--that as there is no description of how to incorporate errata within the Primary Sources, that those are improvements that have no--or perhaps little--weight in the official game. Is that right?

The rules hierarchy follows a pretty simple set.

Word of God
Errata
Core Books (PHB/DMG/MM)
Splat Books
Other stuff we're not concerned with.

Errata directly overwrites the referenced passages in core or splat books for which it is errata. Resolving the two is not an issue. The particular bits about fear being mind-affecting are not in the core books nor are they contained in errata. The only reason errata is ranked higher than core/splat books is to deal with old print versions of the book. Errata would and should be contained in the newest print run of a particular book so the errata for a book is actually part of the book and not precisely above it. So the above hierarchy is the vertical hierarchy and as a vertical hierarchy the higher levels always trump the lower.

This above listed hierarchy is partially what primary vs secondary source (which is a word of god rule) is referencing but it is also describing horizontal hierarchy, when two books at the same level contain contradicting rules. So the primary source defines the rules for content whether this is core content or new content added by splat books. Any source which would generate a rules conflict would defer first to the higher source (PHB/DMG/MM) and if no higher source exists on the rules it then defers to the primary source at the same level. Primary vs secondary source also permits some cases of lower tier sources to override (not contradict) rules of the higher tier sources when introducing new content.


The Rules Compendium says this: Could you help me understand how we should be interpreting this quote in the context of the hierarchy you've described?


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 supple- ment 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.

That's quite simple and I'll use a computer system to explain. Let's say I have an active directory forest called DnD.com. Under that forest I have 1.dnd.com, 2.dnd.com, 3.dnd.com, 35.dnd.com, 4.dnd.com. Each of these child domains is referencing the core ruleset for DND. Each of these child domains may have any number of their own child domains. RulesCompendium.35.dnd.com, TomeOfBattle.35.dnd.com, TomeOfMagic.35.dnd.com. So how does this matter? An administrator of dnd.com can make whatever changes he wants to any of the domains I listed. An administrator of 35.dnd.com and make changes to 35.dnd.com and any of its child domains. An administrator of 3.dnd.com cannot make changes to 35.dnd.com or any of its child domains.

So that brings us to RulesCompendium.35.dnd.com an administrator for that domain can only make changes to that domain. If he were to make changes to 35.dnd.com or tomeofmagic.35.dnd.com his changes would simply not occur since he doesn't have the authority (permission) to do so. Only if dnd.com, 35.dnd.com, or tomeofmagic.35.dnd.com gave him permission would he be able to modify those rules.

[Psyren]

Rules Compendium, to use your analogy, does indeed have root administrator privileges to 35dnd.com. For you to deny that would mean denying that WotC wrote the book (and wrote the passage within that book that explicitly grants it administrator privileges, including over core material), which is plainly ridiculous.

And I notice you still haven't rebutted the fact that, by your logic, D&D 3.5 only has 11 classes.

[tiercel]

1) If you have/use the Rules Compendium, it trumps other rules -- as it says itself. You could avoid this by not having or using it, of course, but if you're making a RAW argument and RC is in the picture, its rules on fear apply.

2) If we are talking Core ONLY, well.... my actual printed Monster Manual (Core Rulebook III v3.5) has a section on fear in the back that refers to "fear attacks" (Su or Sp) that says "All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects." I don't have errata taped inside my printed book, but given that d20srd.org has the exact same phrase in its Special Ablities>Fear section...

I suppose you could try to argue that actual fear spells or fear (Ex) abilities somehow use different rules than the specifically cited (Su or Sp) "fear attacks" but I think I'd want some kind of explanation why some fear is mind-affecting when other fear specifically is.

3) RAW arguments for TO purposes can be amusing sometimes (to see where the cracks in the system are), but anyone who tried to seriously argue that fear isn't mind-affecting for an actual game would be laughed away from any gaming table I've been at. Not only is it philosophically silly, it's mechanically problematic (since you'd be able to scare mindless undead, oozes, etc using any old fear effect, since they are immune to "mind-affecting" but not specifically to fear).

[ericgrau]

My banned spell list: Mind Blank, Mage's Disjunction, Wish, Miracle, Magic Missile.
Lol, something tells me nobody's list is going to match up with anybody else's. Don't get me wrong, I like magic missile, but still.

I can understand disjunction the most because of how messy it is to deal with, but even then I think it's more because people complain about their toys being taken away than anything.

[Deophaun]

Any source which would generate a rules conflict would defer first to the higher source (PHB/DMG/MM) and if no higher source exists on the rules it then defers to the primary source at the same level.
And where does this come from? Citation? Quote?

[Karnith]

Lol, something tells me nobody's list is going to match up with anybody else's. Don't get me wrong, I like magic missile, but still.It's an ongoing joke in the thread, which started after someone else's list included Protection from Arrows. Hence another person's list that included Resistance.


I can understand disjunction the most because of how messy it is to deal with, but even then I think it's more because people complain about their toys being taken away than anything.
Well, permanently losing your magic items and constantly needing to buy new ones is just annoying on the player's part and the DM's part ("I'm going to go to town to re-buy all that stuff I lost in the last combat. Again."). It's also widely perceived as unfair because the players are losing what are supposed to be permanent resources, while the enemies that they face are unlikely to be in the campaign for more than one combat session. If a player hits an enemy with a disjunction in combat, it's not going to effect the enemy beyond that encounter (probably because they're about to die for having lost all of their stuff). If an enemy hits a player, that player isn't just going to be vulnerable for the rest of combat, but until they hit the next magic mart.

EDIT:
And where does this come from? Citation? Quote?
I believe that he's citing the Primary Sources rule, which is found in most errata for the 3.5 books.

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. A monster’s statistics block supersedes the descriptive text.
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 PC races, and the 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.
His argument is that the core books are primary sources, and splat books are secondary sources (even though the Rules Compendium specifically states that it is the primary source for the rules contained within), and hence the core books take precedence over splatbooks.

The logical extension of this, of course, is that most material in splatbooks is not usable. If you follow this logic, there can only be 11 classes (as specified in the Player's Handbook), no splat adds any spells to the spell list of the core classes (because the Player's Handbook spell lists take priority over other books), players can only take skills and feats in core, and so on and so forth.

[Deophaun]

I believe that he's citing the Primary Sources rule, which is found in most errata for the 3.5 books.
Except, of course, the quoted section says nothing of the sort. I just wanted to be sure there wasn't another place that expanded those rules.

[Karnith]

Except, of course, the quoted section says nothing of the sort. I just wanted to be sure there wasn't another place that expanded those rules.
Well, hence the "I believe that..." part. I think that he's specifically referencing the part that says this:
The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. [...] 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.
If there is somewhere else in which this is clearly delineated, though, I would very much like to see it.

[nedz]

It's an ongoing joke in the thread, which started after someone else's list included Protection from Arrows. Hence another person's list that included Resistance.


It's also a well known Trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking), still funny though :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

You heard right folks. The PHB gives ALL THE RULES for playing the game. You don't need any splats for any other systems, congratulations! The PHB has everything you need. Incarnum, invocations, vestiges, you name it, the PHB has it :smalltongue: