Should Intelligent Undead (or Plants) be Immune to Mind-affecting Effects? [Archive]

Deepbluediver

2013-05-14, 11:26 AM

Edit2: Before you skip the entire thread and post a comment like "because it doesn't have a brain", please dig out your diagram of an air elemental and locate the brain on it. Now do the same for a vampire. Now remind yourself which one has immunity and which one doesn't. Thanks.
It's getting a little repetitive responding to the same short comments over and over again.

INTRO
I've had this debate before it recently came up in the comic that a certain Lich, a devilishly polite vampire, and everyone's favorite dwarf might be immune to most of the defenses that Draketooth clan constructed. But I didn't want to derail some one else's thread, so I'm making my own and inviting input from anyone who would like to contribute.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268153) was my first attempt at the discussion and rules alterations.

START
It says in the SRD that Undead have as a racial trait:

Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).

Which seems odd to me in the case of intelligent undead (like Xykon and the vampires). I said as much in response to a proposed theory about undead creatures getting stuck in the Lotus-eater trap the heroes are currently in, and I got this (not unexpected) response:

Doesn't seem so tricky to explain to me--an intelligent undead is not thinking with a lump of pink putty, like most organic creatures do, so it's not difficult to believe that something designed to affect an organic creature wouldn't affect them. Particularly in the case of intelligent, non-fleshy undead like Xykon.

To which my default comeback is: Ok, but what about Elementals then? They don't get any special protection from Mind-affecting abilities.

Also, they are labeled as MIND-affecting, not BRAIN affecting.

It seems to me that anything with a sentience, and maybe even basic thought patterns/instincts (like zombies) should be able to be affected by Enchantments and Illusions, at least to some degree.

The same type of spell (Charm Monster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmMonster.htm), for example) can effect everything from Humanoids and Animals to Abberations, Outsiders and Elementals. So why should Undead get a free pass?

Edit: Proposal Version 2.0 (the first version is spoilered below)

Mental Physiomorphology*: Any creature that is significantly different from the caster's type gains a +4 racial bonus to its saves against mind affecting spells. The categories of creatures are as follows:

Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants
Dragons, Magical Beasts
Elementals, Outsiders, Fey
Plants, Animals, Vermin
Constructs, Undead
Abberations
Oozes

Racial features: Oozes, non-living Constructs, and non-intelligent Undead are considered "Mindless".

Mindless: the creature lacks any kind of individual thought patterns at all, usually because it does not have a brain and/or is controlled by magic. It recieves a +8 racial bonus to resist any mind affecting abilities. Any mind-affecting ability that manages to penetrate does not have it's usual affect, instead it inteferes with the magical compulsions driving the creature, causing it to become Confused for 1d6 rounds, plus 1 additional round per spell level.

Spell Changes
Any spell that directly alters the behavior of a creature is moved to the Enchanting school: Control Undead, Control Plants, Cause Fear, etc.

*to my knowledge, this isn't a real word; I just wanted something that sounded "science-y" :)

Proposed Rules Changes
Plants, Elementals, Vermin, Abberations, and free-willed Undead are "Brainless".
Constructs, Oozes and non-intelligent Undead are "Mindless".

Brainless: the creature lacks a brain and/or complex nervous system. It is driven by either primal instinct or a magically-linked soul. This grants a +4 racial bonus to resist any mind affecting abilities.

Mindless: the creature lacks any kind of individual thought patterns at all, usually because it does not have a brain and/or is controlled by magic. It recieves a +8 racial bonus to resist any mind affecting abilities. Any mind-affecting ability that manages to penetrate does not have it's usual affect, instead it inteferes with the magical compulsions driving the creature, causing it to become Confused for 1d6 rounds.

Spell Changes
Any spell that directly alters the behavior of a creature is moved to the Enchanting school: Control Undead, Control Plants, Cause Fear, etc. Spells that could formerly affect numerous types of creatures (such as Dominate Monster) are reworked into seperate versions based on the division of types listed above.

To the above, I would like to add splitting various spells like Charm Person, Charm Monster, and anything else in that vein into an individual spell for each creature type. So you would end up with differnent spell for Charm Humanoid, Charm Dragon, Charm Elemental, Dominate Dragon, Dominate Undead, etc etc etc.

Edit2: For the above rules-proposal, what do you think of adding the following clause- If the creature casting the spell or using the ability is of the same type as their target, the bonus from the "Brainless" quality does not apply. The justification being, one creature of the same type (elementals, just for an example) understands other creatures of a similar physiology in a way that different creatures (for example, a humanoid targeting a plant creature) never could.
Let me hear your thoughts and opinions.

BaronOfHell

2013-05-14, 11:44 AM

Morbis Meh

2013-05-14, 11:57 AM

I am in agreement that the moment an undead being becomes intelligent they are no longer immune to mind affecting spells because they still are able to think and perceive so why should they get the same benefits of a lowly, mindless zombie who only cares for its next meal?

Nymrod

2013-05-14, 12:02 PM

Then there is Requiem, a Libris Mortis feat which allows bardic music to overcome the mind-affecting immunity of undead.
Plus you can use negative energy to override their free will easily, both with command undead and with a number of necromantic spells.

So yeah, it's kind of fuzzy. Blanket immunities suck anyway imo.

Keneth

2013-05-14, 12:21 PM

So why should Undead get a free pass?

Because. :smallconfused:

Some creature types have impenetrable minds and that's ok with me. Why should all creatures be subject to any type of specific effect? It's like saying dragons shouldn't have energy immunity because their bodies are still made of flesh.

Pathfinder fixed the issue somewhat by splitting illusions into different types, and some (such as figments and glamers) still affect creatures immune to mind-affecting effects, and even those that are mindless. There's also Threnodic Spell if you really want to affect undead with mind-affecting spells. I'm sure you can find something similar in 3.5.

I'm not saying it makes sense, but immunities and resistances are there to provide challenge to the players.

thatryanguy

2013-05-14, 12:40 PM

IMO: Mind effecting spells and such rely on the magic being able to manipulate a physical brain. Things like undead, elementals, etc. don't rely on a functioning brain, all their thought power is spiritual, and the spirit itself is a single, whole entity without parts.

Nymrod

2013-05-14, 01:00 PM

Because. :smallconfused:

Some creature types have impenetrable minds and that's ok with me. Why should all creatures be subject to any type of specific effect? It's like saying dragons shouldn't have energy immunity because their bodies are still made of flesh.

Pathfinder fixed the issue somewhat by splitting illusions into different types, and some (such as figments and glamers) still affect creatures immune to mind-affecting effects, and even those that are mindless. There's also Threnodic Spell if you really want to affect undead with mind-affecting spells. I'm sure you can find something similar in 3.5.

I'm not saying it makes sense, but immunities and resistances are there to provide challenge to the players.

But immunities do not provide a challenge. They are just binary. You make a point not to overspecialize and that's it. An actual party playing D&D knows that undead are immune and would just not waste those slots anyway. All that immunities do is force you to pick a variety of combat spells even if you'd much rather play the illusionist or the pyromancer.

tyckspoon

2013-05-14, 01:06 PM

Pathfinder fixed the issue somewhat by splitting illusions into different types, and some (such as figments and glamers) still affect creatures immune to mind-affecting effects, and even those that are mindless.

Not new, that was one of the things that was just carried straight over from 3.5 into Pathfinder. Figments and Glamers create an external image or other sensation and do not operate on any single target's mind. Shadow effects are quasi-real already. They are generally not Mind-Affecting (if they are, the spell is probably miscategorized.) Patterns and Phantasms have a direct effect on the subject's mind in addition to the visual/auditory/whatever appearance of the illusion and are always Mind-Affecting.

Coidzor

2013-05-14, 01:19 PM

Frank and K would say no, probably not. I'm inclined to agree with most of their line of thinking in the Tome of Necromancy.

Dark Minded (subtype) (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19527634/Tome_of_Necromancy?post_num=6#331892434)
Undead creatures with an intelligence score have an intelligence that can be influenced, though they are dead and cannot be influenced by appeals to emotion. A dark minded creature has the following traits:
- Not immune to mind affecting affects.
- Immune to morale and fear effects.
- Heals normally
- Any Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate attempts to influence a dark minded creature are made with a -10 penalty.
- A Dark Minded creature continues to advance in age categories, growing older and wiser over time. It does not accrue any penalties to its attributes for advancing in age categories, and a Dark Minded creature has no maximum age.

Deepbluediver

2013-05-14, 01:25 PM

One possibility I can imagine is that undeads don't actually have a mind, but is merely a "construct" acting in accordance to the memories and believes of the former host of the body, which is now undead.

This would e.g. mean that Xykon never escaped death, I suppose.

Hmm...I've never thought about it that way before. I guess it's a possibility, but it seems like it would be really a tough distinction to make. Especially since intelligent undead can learn and continue to develop (I presume so anyway, I've never heard anything that seems to indicate otherwise).

So maybe it's a balancing issue as well? (We saw how easily Belkar was defeated by Malack after all).

Balance is certainly a concern. In the previous thread on this issue some one pointed out that an enchantment spell can effectively replicate a Disintegrate spell and Summon Monster all rolled into one.

The problem with that line of thinking is that there are MANY balance issues or weird quirks with the magic system in D&D, and I have yet to see a simple magic fix I like (I've got a few ideas though, let me know if you're interested). But immunity isn't really a good form of balance, IMO. It's really just one more broken mechanic on top of the others.

For example, the "Saves" against Illusion and the ability to "Choose" to disbelieve. Apparently if it's all in the mind, then they are really just a subset of enchantment effects. And if they are actually manipulation of light and sound, how am I stopping my eyes from seeing?

Some creature types have impenetrable minds and that's ok with me. Why should all creatures be subject to any type of specific effect?

See, now we're actually thinking alike. I don't think it's a good idea for the same spell to be able to affect all the types of creatures I mentioned up there.

I would rather see Charm Humanoid, Charm Dragon, Charm Outsider, and yes maybe even things like Charm Undead, all as seperate spells that need to be learned or prepared seperately.

The Mindless quality can still be in effect, but its applied to individual creatures rather than entire types. And rather than offering immunity, it should have a reduced or different effect.
In the previous thread I suggested that Mind-affecting spells on Mindless creatures simply confused them; my rational was that zombies, constructs, and the like are magically powered, and an enchantment spell was basically interfering with their magical system of commands.

It's like saying dragons shouldn't have energy immunity because their bodies are still made of flesh.
I'm not saying it makes sense, but immunities and resistances are there to provide challenge to the players.

The highlighted part of your post sounds like a perfectly logical assessment to me.
I'm not sure the comparison is perfectly accurate in any event; most dragons are immune to one type of energy, not an entire school of magic. Plus, I don't think they should be immune. Resistant, yes, but not immune.

Resistances are fine, and sometimes stacking them becomes an interesting arms race. But immunities just shut down abilities hard, and that's rarely fun for anyone. This turns gameplay into a series of moments like "I'm an enchanter hear me roar! CCCUUURRRBBBSSSTTTOOOMMMP- oh we're fighting constructs? I guess I'll just sit back here and plink away with my crossbow."

I'm alright with a certain amount of "it's just the magic works" justification, but in this case there's seems to be a halfhearted attempt to justify it rationally (i.e. the Mindless racial trait) followed by a swift abandonment of Wizard's own train of logic.

BaronOfHell

2013-05-14, 01:35 PM

From the point of view of someone who's worked a lot on infighting between different monster types, immunities is some of the worst qualities one can introduce, because it opens up the possibility of infinite battles.

Generally speaking, while some abilities should be of much lower value in certain situation than in others, it should never be straight out impossible for any method to work. It has to depend on the defender as well as the offender, or you get situations where skill suddenly doesn't matter anymore.

Skill dependency is one of the main ingredients of entertainment in games.

The problem with that line of thinking is that there are MANY balance issues or weird quirks with the magic system in D&D, and I have yet to see a simple magic fix I like (I've got a few ideas though, let me know if you're interested).
Thanks for the offer, I am not very much into D&D game though, but mainly games inspired by D&D (the most D&D I've played consisted of a small group some years ago clearing out a few dungeons)

But immunity isn't really a good form of balance, IMO. It's really just one more broken mechanic on top of the others.
Completely agreed.:smallsmile:

Shadowknight12

2013-05-14, 02:10 PM

This was the first houserule I ever invented, and the one I stick with no matter what. Only mindless creatures (Int: -) are immune to mind-affecting effects, because they lack minds. Everyone else, from construct to undead, is fair game (unless the spell specifies type, like humanoid, animal or the like).

Keneth

2013-05-14, 02:25 PM

All that immunities do is force you to pick a variety of combat spells even if you'd much rather play the illusionist or the pyromancer.

I think preparing yourself for a specific challenge is a challenge by itself. And like I said, there are (and should be) ways of circumventing your own limitations. But I simply don't think that the same tactics should be usable on everything. If you wanna play a pyromancer, that's fine, but why should you expect special treatment because you chose to specialize? Is that your attitude in real life as well?

Not new, that was one of the things that was just carried straight over from 3.5 into Pathfinder.

Huh, I imagine that. I was under a strong impression that it was a Pathfinder development. My bad. It just goes to show how long it's been since I've played 3.5.

Resistances are fine, and sometimes stacking them becomes an interesting arms race. But immunities just shut down abilities hard, and that's rarely fun for anyone.

Well that's... an opinion. And it's fine, I can see where you're coming from. But you and I just have very different philosophies. Where you see a wall that's ruining your fun, I see a chance for the characters to grow and climb over that wall.

gorocz

2013-05-14, 02:51 PM

My theory:

I'd say that it's the good ol' difference between body and soul, and the duality of living. When you die, your soul escapes the body and goes to an outer plane. When you're made undead, it's not your soul that's thinking for you, it's magic.

I'm guessing for mindless udnead, it's whatever type of magical control is used to control it, or when roaming free just pure alignment based behavior.

For intelligent undead, they get a magical imprint of their past life and build on it (possibly affected by the changed alignment)... I'm presuming intelligent undead can have character growth, they don't stay the same as their imprint but it's different from the soul. That could be the reason why did Malack think he'd be practically annihilated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html). You evict all the magic from the body (by means of destroying it) and then resurrect it, thus returning the original soul into the body. You can't return to the same point after that. If the person dies again and is made an intelligent undead again, it wouldn't be the same as before the resurrection. It'd be a new imprint...

Now for elementals - they have a soul. But their body and their soul are the same thing, so they can be affected by mind affecting spell, but can't be resurrected (because the soul was inseparable part of their body, they have to be True Resurreceted, which basically creates a new body through their soul).

Keneth

2013-05-14, 03:17 PM

I'd say that it's the good ol' difference between body and soul, and the duality of living. When you die, your soul escapes the body and goes to an outer plane. When you're made undead, it's not your soul that's thinking for you, it's magic.

That's interesting. Intelligent undead actually do have souls in Pathfinder, was this different in 3.5? I hardly ever employed intelligent undead back when we were still using 3rd ed., so I can't remember anything specific on the subject matter.

factotum

2013-05-14, 03:29 PM

To which my default comeback is: Ok, but what about Elementals then? They don't get any special protection from Mind-affecting abilities.

Also, they are labeled as MIND-affecting, not BRAIN affecting.

OK, let's say that the negative energy that powers the undead creature also has the effect of blocking mind-altering effects, then.

Here's another question: let's say that an artificially intelligent robot existed in the D&D universe. Would you also expect that robot to be affected by an illusion spell?

Deepbluediver

2013-05-14, 03:32 PM

But immunities do not provide a challenge. They are just binary. You make a point not to overspecialize and that's it. An actual party playing D&D knows that undead are immune and would just not waste those slots anyway. All that immunities do is force you to pick a variety of combat spells even if you'd much rather play the illusionist or the pyromancer.

That's a good way to say it, IMO.

From the point of view of someone who's worked a lot on infighting between different monster types, immunities is some of the worst qualities one can introduce, because it opens up the possibility of infinite battles.

There was a thread recently where one poster was describing his poor experience with a GMs homebrewed system (you might know it, I cant find the link atm) and in the blog posts he added one of his complaints about high level characters was that they where immune to everything (literally everything). Which meant, ironically enough, that they couldn't actually fight each other (or they could but it would never accomplish anything)

I thought it was a pretty good example of the "invincibility is boring" argument.

I think preparing yourself for a specific challenge is a challenge by itself. And like I said, there are (and should be) ways of circumventing your own limitations. But I simply don't think that the same tactics should be usable on everything. If you wanna play a pyromancer, that's fine, but why should you expect special treatment because you chose to specialize? Is that your attitude in real life as well?

I play games to do things I specifically can't do in real life.

That being said, I have less of a problem with something like a fire elemental being immune to fire because it's one variation of a single creature type. Five different types of creatures have a blanket immunity to any and all mind-affecting spells, SLAs, items, etc.

The comparison should be less Enchanter vs. Pyromancer, and more like Enchanter vs. Evoker. If I can't kill it with fire, I'll try lighting!
As it stands, Enchanting doesn't really have that option.

Well that's... an opinion. And it's fine, I can see where you're coming from. But you and I just have very different philosophies. Where you see a wall that's ruining your fun, I see a chance for the characters to grow and climb over that wall.

Well, I see immunities as a wall that is infinitely tall; you can go around it and still be playing the game, but you're no longer on the path you wanted to take.
I like to torture metaphors in ways that would horrify the geneva convention :P

My theory:

I'd say that it's the good ol' difference between body and soul, and the duality of living. When you die, your soul escapes the body and goes to an outer plane. When you're made undead, it's not your soul that's thinking for you, it's magic.

I'm guessing for mindless undead, it's whatever type of magical control is used to control it, or when roaming free just pure alignment based behavior.

For intelligent undead, they get a magical imprint of their past life and build on it (possibly affected by the changed alignment)... I'm presuming intelligent undead can have character growth, they don't stay the same as their imprint but it's different from the soul. That could be the reason why did Malack think he'd be practically annihilated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html). You evict all the magic from the body (by means of destroying it) and then resurrect it, thus returning the original soul into the body. You can't return to the same point after that. If the person dies again and is made an intelligent undead again, it wouldn't be the same as before the resurrection. It'd be a new imprint...

Now for elementals - they have a soul. But their body and their soul are the same thing, so they can be affected by mind affecting spell, but can't be resurrected (because the soul was inseparable part of their body, they have to be True Resurreceted, which basically creates a new body through their soul).

That sounds kind of like what BaronOfHell was saying earlier. And it's still a nice theory if things worked that way, but I've never seen any evidence that this was supposed to be the implication for D&D.

Also, Oozes and Plant-creatures, as far as I can tell, do not have the non-duality clause an Outsider or Elemental does, and yet are still immune. And non-sentient creatures like animals are not.

If I'm wrong on any count, please let me know and link me to what I've missed.
But this sort of highlights my biggest issue with the immunity; there's no easily identifiable characteristic(s) why any particular group ends up in either category (immune vs. non); it's all very arbitrary and inconsistent. As I said, I would rather have a variety of spells based on the particular type of creature they target, and apply the "Mindless" designation much more rarely, with a reduced and/or altered effect.

Ellye

2013-05-14, 03:43 PM

Here's another question: let's say that an artificially intelligent robot existed in the D&D universe. Would you also expect that robot to be affected by an illusion spell?I'm not the OP, but...

If the robot operates based on audio-visual input (basically having sight and hearing), I see no reason why it shouldn't be affected by illusions.

Enchantments, on the other hand, I would keep them immune.

Nymrod

2013-05-14, 03:52 PM

I don't get why a fire elemental should be immune to fire damage. If you would hit it with fire stronger than the one it is made off it should disperse.

I could see how negative energy is all that drives the undead mind; would explain how command undead and necromancy controls them. This is the problem with dominate monster though. I can dominate a negative energy plane elemental like a xeg-yi or a trilloch with a mind-affecting enchanting spell; why is an undead different?. Is it the fact that it's mind works in a different complex way? I can still dominate an aboleth and that one is even stranger than an undead.

Should a robot be affected by a mind-affecting effect? Sure. If a spell can overcome the inherent differences in the way an aboleth brain works from that of a human so as to affect it, why can the spell not understand programming language? Not to mention that there are plenty of illusions that alter the signal instead of the perception and those do not affect the mind at all (glamers and figments).

Deepbluediver

2013-05-14, 04:08 PM

OK, let's say that the negative energy that powers the undead creature also has the effect of blocking mind-altering effects, then.

Why? And how? Magic is a tricky thing to define, but as far as I can tell in D&D it's really just a form of energy, without sentience, purpose, or knowledge of it's own. If that's the case, why can't I say that that magical-fire also blocks mind-altering effects? What makes negative energy so special that it imparts a permenant Mind-blank effect?

Here's another question: let's say that an artificially intelligent robot existed in the D&D universe. Would you also expect that robot to be affected by an illusion spell?

It depends on how you interpret D&D rules, and what your AI robot is like, exactly. As I mentioned earlier, you can apparently disbelieve illusion, which seems to indicate that they are in actuallity enchantments. But in the PHB, they are an entire seperate school, and the game makes it seem more like they are sound and light, which I would expect the robot to be able to pick up and interpret if he has the appropriate sensors.

Also, how exactly does the AI function?
My theory for enchantments is that they target thoughts and/or instincts. This is arguably the single defining characteristic in the creature types that it does effect (and some that it doesn't, but see point A at the start of the thread). It's also my rationale as to why more creature types should be effected. Oozes and plant-creatures have instincts just like animals. Constructs and the undead have thoughts in their head, even if those thoughts are not their own. Ergo, they are all vulnerable to one degree or another to magic that targets those characteristics.

Next, an enchantment or illusion spell is magic. Necromancy and constructs are magic. Technology as we know it is not magic. But I've never seen a functional true AI. If I'm allowed to use AI in my game, then I'm basically making up whatever rules I want anyway, so why shouldn't it be victim to mind-affecting stuff?

To provide a counter question: How does a zombie (or construct) know what the command "Walk" means, and how do they obey it?

kiryoku

2013-05-14, 04:24 PM

The thing your talking about is the brain or mind. Undead do not have one. Their thoughts and mind are made of magical energy now. A construct Alien to the original mind. Making it impossible to get to that "mind" now. That is how I think they ment to put it for how their "mind" changed. Its not because the magic just dosn't work. Its just the object it used to affect no longer is there.

Edit: also they lack the brain chemistry that most emotions are based off of. SO yes a lot if not all the spells would fail against them.

Nymrod

2013-05-14, 04:30 PM

The thing your talking about is the brain or mind. Undead do not have one. Their thoughts and mind are made of magical energy now. A construct Alien to the original mind. Making it impossible to get to that "mind" now. That is how I think they ment to put it for how their "mind" changed. Its not because the magic just dosn't work. Its just the object it used to affect no longer is there.

A fire elemental does not have a brain. It can be charmed and dominated.

Keneth

2013-05-14, 04:35 PM

Well, I see immunities as a wall that is infinitely tall; you can go around it and still be playing the game, but you're no longer on the path you wanted to take.

If you can't find a way in 3.5 and/or Pathfinder that lets you bypass specific immunities without entirely changing your modus operandi, then you're not trying hard enough. There's no wall you can't climb. :smalltongue:

Nymrod

2013-05-14, 04:37 PM

If you can't find a way in 3.5 and/or Pathfinder that lets you bypass specific immunities without entirely changing your modus operandi, then you're not trying hard enough. There's no wall you can't climb. :smalltongue:

So the point is to metagame around in game obstacles?

kiryoku

2013-05-14, 04:43 PM

Hmmm I thought they did it was just all fire stone water and air. o-o like a brain just not the same physical matterial as humans.

Deepbluediver

2013-05-14, 04:51 PM

The thing your talking about is the brain or mind.
Well, which is it? If the spells are targeting a physical object, see the "so why elementals?" line of questioning.

And how, exactly, do you define a "mind"? I defined it as thoughts and instincts, because that seemed to be the one commonality amongst all creature types.

Undead do not have one. Their thoughts and mind are made of magical energy now. A construct Alien to the original mind. Making it impossible to get to that "mind" now. That is how I think they ment to put it for how their "mind" changed.

Magical energy is not sentient; it does not have thoughts, memories, or motivations. There has to be something else at work here.

A fire elemental does not have a brain. It can be charmed and dominated.

Its kind of a unique example, but the Worm that Walks is an aberration with an immunity to critical hits thanks to haveing no discernable anatomy. As far as I can tell, this does not make it immune to Mind-affecting spells. I could probably come up with a few others if I spent some time trawling the various monster manuals and splatbooks. The whole sctick behind aberations is basically "anatomy so weird we have no frelling clue how it works".

So the point is to metagame around in game obstacles?

I don't think that's what he's saying.
And I don't have a problem with the occasional high resistance or maybe a very specific immunity, but as I said in this case it seems to be thrown around willy-knilly, with no rhyme or reason to it.

Hmmm I thought they did it was just all fire stone water and air. o-o like a brain just not the same physical matterial as humans.

So what exactly is the spell targeting then? My point was that the original spell effects so many different creatures that there is no single attribute that links them all. And yet there are some creatures it still can't target. Why?

kiryoku

2013-05-14, 05:06 PM

I think this might be a case of they just straight winged it again without thinking the players would be smart enough to understand it. Thats the best I can think of. Honestly the only reason is they wanted some creatures to be immune to it. Undead already have a host of spells that let you control them with no saves. so its not like your missing out that much.

GolemsVoice

2013-05-14, 05:07 PM

Also, Oozes and Plant-creatures, as far as I can tell, do not have the non-duality clause an Outsider or Elemental does, and yet are still immune. And non-sentient creatures like animals are not.

Oozes are, as far as I know, little more tan zombies, acting solely on instinct, as do plants. They're hard-wired to think, or rather, act a certain way, and they can't change that behaviour even if they wanted. Which they don't, since they, likely, don't even want. They do not choose.

Now, I think gorocz was on to something here. Maybe it's not so much mind vs. brain or body vs. soul but induced consciousness vs. innate consciousness. Undead have an alien force put inside their brain which does the thinking for them, even if they keep some of their personality. Maybe this interferes with the spells?

Deepbluediver

2013-05-14, 05:13 PM

Now, I think gorocz was on to something here. Maybe it's not so much mind vs. brain or body vs. soul but induced consciousness vs. innate consciousness. Undead have an alien force put inside their brain which does the thinking for them, even if they keep some of their personality. Maybe this interferes with the spells?

I don't object to certain creatures, or even creature types, having resistance to mind-affecting spells because of the way they operate. It's the flat-out immunity for no good reason that I don't like. The "magic that always works with no saves" is also on my list of things to hate on, but that's worth a whole 'nother thread.
Here's an excerpt from the sort of thing I suggested in my first thread, that I linked at the top of the page:

Proposed Rules Changes
Plants, Elementals, Vermin, and free-willed Undead are "Brainless".
Constructs, Oozes and non-intelligent Undead are "Mindless".

Brainless: the creature lacks a brain and/or complex nervous system. It is driven by either primal instinct or a magically-linked soul. This grants a +4 racial bonus to resist any mind affecting abilities.

Mindless: the creature lacks any kind of individual thought patterns at all, usually because it does not have a brain and/or is controlled by magic. It recieves a +8 racial bonus to resist any mind affecting abilities. Any mind-affecting ability that manages to penetrate does not have it's usual affect, instead it inteferes with the magical compulsions driving the creature, causing it to become Confused for 1d6 rounds.

Spell Changes
Any spell that alters the behavior of a creature is moved to the Enchanting school: Control Undead, Control Plants, Cause Fear, etc.

Edit: I've posted a copy of this in the OP as well, for new people joining the thread.

Keneth

2013-05-14, 05:26 PM

So the point is to metagame around in game obstacles?

No, metagaming would be getting wings to fly over the wall you've never seen or heard of before. Let's torture this metaphor for a bit longer until I get bored. Geneva be damned.

You either research your enemies or find out the hard way that your abilities don't work, and then you advance your character accordingly. That's organic character growth.

Nymrod

2013-05-14, 05:32 PM

gorocz

2013-05-14, 07:52 PM

That sounds kind of like what BaronOfHell was saying earlier. And it's still a nice theory if things worked that way, but I've never seen any evidence that this was supposed to be the implication for D&D.

Also, Oozes and Plant-creatures, as far as I can tell, do not have the non-duality clause an Outsider or Elemental does, and yet are still immune. And non-sentient creatures like animals are not.

If I'm wrong on any count, please let me know and link me to what I've missed.
Wait a second - "[they] do not have the non-duality clause an Outsider or Elemental does, and yet are still immune." is a bit mixed statement - Elementals and Outsiders are not immune because they have a soul because they have the non-duality clause. Oozes are mindless, soulless, they don't have emotions. Basically the same case as constructs, so I don't see a problem in the fact that they can't be affected.

Plant type creatures are more difficult, especially since I always picture Treebeard as an epitome of them... But this could be explained that they didn't have conciousness, soul or emotions before they were awakened (only natural reflexes), they are basically living constructs (not in the sense of constructs with soul, as Warforged, for example, but in a sense that they are, sometimes intelligent, constructs made of living matter). I'd say the general rule of thumb would be if you can True Resurrect it to the same form, you can affect its mind (soul)... I don't think you'd be able to resurrect an awakened tree, but ymmv.

Here's another question: let's say that an artificially intelligent robot existed in the D&D universe. Would you also expect that robot to be affected by an illusion spell?

Constructs could easily be artificially intelligent. People often misuse this term for a robot that is capable of feeling emotions or whatnot, but artificial intelligence is basically a change in the set of instructions from "if you see an enemy, beat on it until it doesn't move" to "if you see an enemy, apply known instructions and logged experience with fighting similiar foes to devise a plan to kill it". The difference is just that one is more sophisticated than the other (has Int score and possibly higher Wis score, (if you apply heuristics or such) in terms of D&D). None of these could be affected by mind affecting spells in any way.

So the point is to metagame around in game obstacles?
The point is to overcome obstacles and be clever about what you do. If you have information that you're going to be fighting fire elementals beforehand, you shouldn't rely on fire spells to kill them. You have choices so you are supposed to be using them, not presume that you can defeat any challenge without thinking twice about it beforehand... Metagaming would be knowing that medium sized fire elemental has average hp of 26, so a 10th level sorcerer is likely to kill it with a single lightning bolt. Not trying to fireball a fire elemental is just common sense.

And regarding undead and their mind-affecting-spell immunity - I can see how someone without meta knowledge could, for example, try to fight a vampire with Dominate Person (even though they should know that there are spells that do that specifically designed for undead). A reasonable DM would somehow make it possible for the players to escape (reasonably damaged) or even give them this information beforehand in some way (players could try to find some information about undead if they know they're gonna face them). If they crash into a wall because the wall's too high, you shouldn't make the wall fall on their heads (unless they deserve it (for example if they didn't jump at all, or if they're trying to jump a wall repeatedly even though they don't even see its top)), you should make them be able to choose a different part of the wall that's lower or even let them get a ladder, if it occurs to them.

I like if players don't metagame, but then DM also shouldn't make challenges impossible without it...

TuggyNE

2013-05-14, 08:05 PM

Deepbluediver's suggested changes make a lot more sense to me than the status quo, honestly, although the bonuses might even get bumped up a bit more. :smallwink:

Hmm, I just thought of something. A creature with a climb or swim speed can take 10 on climb or swim checks as well as getting a +8 racial bonus; what if Mindless creatures no longer auto-fail [mind-affecting] saves on a 1? Maybe Brainless too, not sure.

NZNinja

2013-05-14, 10:39 PM

factotum

2013-05-15, 02:18 AM

If I'm allowed to use AI in my game, then I'm basically making up whatever rules I want anyway, so why shouldn't it be victim to mind-affecting stuff?

So what you're basically saying here is that the person who writes the game rules can do anything they darned well like...which is what they did when they said *all* undead aren't affected by mind-altering spells.

You can't have it both ways here. Either the discussion ends with "Because the rules say so", which makes this thread pointless, or you have to include all situations. I still believe that mind-affecting spells are made to affect particular kinds of mind, and things that don't have a mind similar enough to that--plants, robots, undead--don't get affected. It might be possible for someone to research a mind-affecting spell that *only* targeted undead minds if this were the case, and I'd be happy to allow someone playing in any game I was DMing to do that!

TuggyNE

2013-05-15, 02:47 AM

I still believe that mind-affecting spells are made to affect particular kinds of mind, and things that don't have a mind similar enough to that--plants, robots, undead--don't get affected. It might be possible for someone to research a mind-affecting spell that *only* targeted undead minds if this were the case, and I'd be happy to allow someone playing in any game I was DMing to do that!

If you really want to go this route, you'll probably have to come up with a more robust solution for describing which spells apply to what, and apply it to aberrations, elementals, fey, outsiders, magical beasts, and so on.

Or, you could just take the psionics approach and label it all mind-affecting but have augments to affect different groups of types.

Salbazier

2013-05-15, 09:16 AM

Here's another question: let's say that an artificially intelligent robot existed in the D&D universe. Would you also expect that robot to be affected by an illusion spell?

Yes. After all it is actually easier to fool an AI than a human.

Deepbluediver

2013-05-15, 09:38 AM

You could say that for an enchantment to work on a creature the caster must have a rudimentary understanding of that creature's reasoning patterns. Which means you need to study it and have the appropriate knowledge skills. For some creatures I'd just rule that understanding out saying that no scholar has ever managed to study the creature and if the player wants to use his spells he'd have to study them himself.

That was my original line of thinking behind seperating out the various versions of a spell by creature type. Cause Fear is probably generic enough that we don't need seperate versions, but for something like Charm or Dominate, I fully support having different spells that are basically "Charm Dragon", "Charm Elemental", "'Dominate Undead", etc.

Wait a second - "[they] do not have the non-duality clause an Outsider or Elemental does, and yet are still immune." is a bit mixed statement - Elementals and Outsiders are not immune because they have a soul because they have the non-duality clause. Oozes are mindless, soulless, they don't have emotions. Basically the same case as constructs, so I don't see a problem in the fact that they can't be affected.

Frankly, when I think about it, I'd probably be more comfortable with oozes being immune to mind-affecting stuff than constructs. Constructs have to be able to interact with humanoids via language and command, while oozes barely have survival instincts.

Now, I would have sworn I could remember at least one intelligent ooze; I can picture what I'm thinking of (it sort of looks like a giant, single tan-colored cell) but for the life of me I can't find it in any of the MMs; maybe it was a magical beast or outsider.

So what you're basically saying here is that the person who writes the game rules can do anything they darned well like...which is what they did when they said *all* undead aren't affected by mind-altering spells.

You can't have it both ways here. Either the discussion ends with "Because the rules say so", which makes this thread pointless, or you have to include all situations.

I'm not trying to have it both ways; I'm the one trying to come up with a single unifying system that makes sense for everything. If there was no real rational for WotC determining who was or wasn't immune to Mind-affecting stuff, then there should be no problem with me changing it. But people don't say that, they say "You can't do that because X", when "X" is inconsistent and doesn't really make sense.

I still believe that mind-affecting spells are made to affect particular kinds of mind, and things that don't have a mind similar enough to that--plants, robots, undead--don't get affected. It might be possible for someone to research a mind-affecting spell that *only* targeted undead minds if this were the case, and I'd be happy to allow someone playing in any game I was DMing to do that!
See above in that I fully support different spells for different creature types. But they should still be enchantment-based spells, IMO.

Also, you're treating an AI robot as somehow different from magic, yet from our prespective a real AI is every bit as fictional as dragons.

Again, I'll ask this: what do a humanoid, an animal, a dragon, an elemental, an outsider, and every flavor of aberration all have in common that lets them be targeted by the same spell? (and if you're going to say something like "a mind" please define what you mean by that, because from my perspective a lich seems to think a lot more like a human than a bear or a walking pile of slugs).
The problem is less with the creatures that are immune and more with the ones that aren't. If the spell can effect everything listed above, why not anything else intelligent as well?

And I'm still waiting for an answer on how a zombie knows how to walk. Have you ever watched those vidoes with walking robots? It's apparently incredibly difficult to program. And yet a supposedly "mindless" zombie manages it quite well.

My rational for the "resistance-then confusion" mechanic was this: A spell like Cause Fear basically lights up all the "danger! flee!" reactions in your brain. It could be either instinctive (in a humanoid or animal) or based purely on the fact that anything with an intellect (like an elemental or lich) can recognize danger. But in some creatures (like a zombie or ooze) they don't really have a fully developed "flight or fight" response. But they do know how to walk or move to get from one location to another. So the spell latches on to the mental-commands it recognizes, and screws up the rest.

So a zombie doesn't flee because it doesn't know what "flee!" means, but it does get conflicting signals, which causes unpredictable reactions.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-15, 03:37 PM

I can't say that I like the idea of removing immunity to mind-affecting whilst leaving the dozen other options specifically intended to deal with this sort of foe. Not even for the sake of someone who has specialised in mind-affecting effects to the exclusion of all else, because this is the sort of thing that happens when you overspecialise.

I think one of the reasons it might not work is that you just can't imagine the thought patterns of such an entity. One powered entirely by negative energy and dead, a plant, a sentient blob of corrosive slime, an artificial construction powered and animated by magic.

That this would mean intelligent undead should be able to dominate intelligent undead (because they know what that's like) seems fair to me. As for how people dominate animals? Well, everyone was a child once. :smallbiggrin:

TuggyNE

2013-05-15, 05:36 PM

I think one of the reasons it might not work is that you just can't imagine the thought patterns of such an entity. One powered entirely by negative energy and dead, a plant, a sentient blob of corrosive slime, an artificial construction powered and animated by magic.

That this would mean intelligent undead should be able to dominate intelligent undead (because they know what that's like) seems fair to me. As for how people dominate animals? Well, everyone was a child once. :smallbiggrin:

As far as that goes, "no, there is no possible way you could ever understand how an Inevitable thinks, not even if you use epic Divination magic to directly induce understanding in yourself" seems quite strange. Saying, on the other hand, that humanoids have a great deal of trouble figuring it out makes more sense, but then you have to assign different types to different "mental functioning" groups, figure out how hard it is for each group to understand other groups, and so on and so forth, which is pretty complicated.

I think it's simpler to just slap large racial save bonuses on.

Snails

2013-05-15, 05:47 PM

Deophaun

2013-05-15, 08:20 PM

Magical energy is not sentient; it does not have thoughts, memories, or motivations. There has to be something else at work here.
A bit off topic, but I actually disagree here, and say that magic has to be sentient or at least have a will in order to be magic. Otherwise, Arthur C. Clarke's dictum applies, and it's just science by a different name. The Force is, perhaps, the most clearly magical magic of all magic, because, at least in Star Wars's expanded universe, it is constantly referenced as having agency. In the Slayer's anime, magic is an extension of powerful entities, and thus cannot be used against their source ("It's like asking Shabrinigdo, 'Hey, help me kill you.'") D&D, however, does side more with the "science by a different name" interpretation (just look at the idea of wizards researching spells), but that's something I've never really liked about the fluff. It's how you get the Tippyverse.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-16, 01:22 PM

As far as that goes, "no, there is no possible way you could ever understand how an Inevitable thinks, not even if you use epic Divination magic to directly induce understanding in yourself" seems quite strange. Saying, on the other hand, that humanoids have a great deal of trouble figuring it out makes more sense, but then you have to assign different types to different "mental functioning" groups, figure out how hard it is for each group to understand other groups, and so on and so forth, which is pretty complicated.

I think it's simpler to just slap large racial save bonuses on.

Because keeping track of bonuses is easier than just saying, 'no, you can't understand something you've never been'? :smallconfused:

If you're using direct divination magic to induce understanding of another class of being in yourself, I think the entire effect of the spell is to bypass said immunity. So you have an epic spell that lets you bypass immunity to mind-affecting. Seems logical enough.

graymachine

2013-05-16, 01:51 PM

The explanation I first thought of upon reading the OP conforms to your first response by BaronOfHell; an intelligent undead is not actually the person that the body use to belong to. Just like unintelligent undead, they are an artificial construct made out of Negative Energy that has just been taken one step further. The 'mind' of the undead is a construct of Negative Energy that is a copy of the original. Practically speaking it is the same person for all intents and purposes, but it in no way functions as a normal mind for the mechanics of illusion magic, therefore immunity.

EDIT: This justifies requiring, for example, all liches to be Evil, regardless of the character's previous alignment.

Deophaun

2013-05-16, 04:58 PM

Practically speaking it is the same person for all intents and purposes, but it in no way functions as a normal mind for the mechanics of illusion magic, therefore immunity.
Except, they aren't immune to illusion magic, only spells with the [mind affecting] tag.

Grells, meanwhile, are immune to illusions, but it has nothing to do with their alien minds.

TuggyNE

2013-05-16, 05:34 PM

Because keeping track of bonuses is easier than just saying, 'no, you can't understand something you've never been'? :smallconfused:

So why does a human's charm person spell work on an elf?

graymachine

2013-05-16, 05:37 PM

Except, they aren't immune to illusion magic, only spells with the [mind affecting] tag.

Grells, meanwhile, are immune to illusions, but it has nothing to do with their alien minds.

Well, I meant [mind-affecting]. Illusion was simply using the word in its general sense rather than the game-relevant term.

MachFarcon

2013-05-16, 06:46 PM

So It's been a while since I've been on this site, but I figured this topic (while still young and on topic) is a good of a place as any to start my return.

Normal undead are easy as far as Mind-affecting things go. They do not possess any sort of mental facilities. They are driven solely by ingrained instincts or by an external force (unless the mind-affecting effect is cast on the external force).

Intelligent Undead are a bit different. Vampires are undead. So are Liches.
Liches don't really care about little mortals waving their hands and shouting random phases. Why? Because unless the Mind-affecting doesn't have a save (and thus could even fool a god) they are far far above any sort of magical condition that would rob them of their senses. Liches simply don't have one care to give. If a being that achieved immortality by stuffing it's very soul inside a prism and then quite literally goes about burning entire towns if it wished, and some how still can be affected, then why use a sword?

What I'm trying to say is that unless the mind-affecting condition literally over rides any consciousness, then any sort of intelligent undead has moved beyond death itself. And that's why they can't be affected.

On a slight side note: S far as vampires go, it depends on your flavor of vampire.

Just my two copper.

TuggyNE

2013-05-16, 07:47 PM

Intelligent Undead are a bit different. Vampires are undead. So are Liches.
Liches don't really care about little mortals waving their hands and shouting random phases. Why? Because unless the Mind-affecting doesn't have a save (and thus could even fool a god) they are far far above any sort of magical condition that would rob them of their senses. Liches simply don't have one care to give. If a being that achieved immortality by stuffing it's very soul inside a prism and then quite literally goes about burning entire towns if it wished, and some how still can be affected, then why use a sword?

What I'm trying to say is that unless the mind-affecting condition literally over rides any consciousness, then any sort of intelligent undead has moved beyond death itself. And that's why they can't be affected.

Not sure I understand your argument, really. "Little mortals waving their hands and shouting random phrases" could be anything from a endure elements spell to shapechange, and I don't think I need to tell you how vastly different in effect those can be.

Instead, let's look a bit at what sorts of things mind-affecting spells do. They can override basic motor control (hold person), insinuate an abstract concept of great friendship (charm person), absorb someone's attention (hypnotic pattern), force obedience (dominate person), terrify (fear), and probably other things as well. Intelligent undead may or may not care about friendship, but I don't think you can just write that off immediately, so immunity to charming is not trivially obvious. There's already several ways to force even intelligent undead to obey you, so that is not off limits either. For that matter, undead can be scared of some things (either viscerally, like positive energy from Turn Undead, or rationally, like an immensely powerful dragon). Since undead still need to make Concentration checks to cast/use skills in bad weather or bumpy roads, they are still distractible. Finally, undead can be effectively paralyzed by e.g. halt undead.

So, while the mechanics are different, undead are still subject to pretty much the same things. Wouldn't it be more sensible to unify the concept of "it's harder for X caster/Y spell to affect Z target" under a more complete system, rather than just using patchwork immunities and "totally not actually fear/paralysis/domination/whatever, you guys"?

Deepbluediver

2013-05-16, 07:56 PM

A bit off topic, but I actually disagree here, and say that magic has to be sentient or at least have a will in order to be magic.

'K....why? I know that defining magic is tough, but why does it somehow make undead immune and not also Magical Beasts (the creature type), Dragons, or heavily enchanted humanoids?

D&D, however, does side more with the "science by a different name" interpretation (just look at the idea of wizards researching spells)

Right, so within the rules of D&D, there's no good reason for it to be actively preventing Mind-affecting spells and effects in some creatures but not others, yes?

but that's something I've never really liked about the fluff. It's how you get the Tippyverse.

You're gonna have to explain that one to me. We get the Tippyverse because magic, or at least most magic, is frelling bjorked in terms of balance. I certainly don't expect this one change to fix all of the problems in D&D, but one step at a time.

And if magic is somehow actively working against abuse? What rational or set of parameters are we to use to decide what is and isn't rules-legal?

So why does a human's charm person spell work on an elf?

Or an animal or an elemental or an outsider or an aberation...I think I'm starting to sound like a broken record here is anyone else getting that impression?

Lots of people are offering theories, even good theories, for alternative reasons magic doesn't effect undead. The problem is, most of them aren't backed up by anything specific in the rules, don't really match up well to all the other weird stuff with similar traits that it (enchanting and illusion magic) has no apparent problem with. If you want to homebrew and remake your own setting, thats fine, but then by the same token there's no good reason (or reason with precedent) why I can't rule that Intelligent undead aren't immune.

So maybe I should rephrase it a bit and ask what makes undead MORE DIFFERENT than everything else listed above.

Normal undead are easy as far as Mind-affecting things go. They do not possess any sort of mental facilities. They are driven solely by ingrained instincts or by an external force (unless the mind-affecting effect is cast on the external force).

Whether the force that drives you is internal or external, why shouldn't certain spells be able to target it? That's kind of what I'm getting at. More on this to follow, in my response to the next bit.

Intelligent Undead are a bit different. Vampires are undead. So are Liches.
Liches don't really care about little mortals waving their hands and shouting random phases. Why? Because unless the Mind-affecting doesn't have a save (and thus could even fool a god) they are far far above any sort of magical condition that would rob them of their senses. Liches simply don't have one care to give. If a being that achieved immortality by stuffing it's very soul inside a prism and then quite literally goes about burning entire towns if it wished, and some how still can be affected, then why use a sword?

In reference to the bolded part, I'm not sure I buy that. What makes a Lich want to burn down a town? Something has to drive it to get up, move about, comic horrific acts of evil, etc. If they where truly emotionless, lacking in any thought or instinct, even for survival, then they would just be statues.

The reason I assume that Mind-affecting spells target thoughts and instincts is that this is the only common characteristic I can indentify amongst all the myriad of different creatures that Illusions and Enchantments (and other effects) work perfectly well on.

And these same (or at least similar) instincts are present in Undead, Constructs, Plant-creatures, etc. Now, I don't claim that spells need to affect all creatures the same way. That's why, ideally, we'd have seperate spells for targeting Humanoids, Magical Beasts, Undead, etc. And some creature types would have resistance and some would even have entirely different effects.
This is the ultimate proposal that I was leading up to, and I apologize for not having it in my original post to start with. I have since corrected this, please feel free to go back and check it out.

What I'm trying to say is that unless the mind-affecting condition literally over rides any consciousness...

Yes, I guess that's basically what I'm saying, since that's what it seems to do in every case except for those specifically outlined (Undead, Oozes, Constructs, etc)

Just my two copper.

Anywho, welcome back to the forums. I always love a good debate, because I believe it helps me strengthen my own arguments, and can make me think of ways to alter my initial ideas. For example, I added Elementals to my selection of creature types in the original proposal after discussing how different their physiology is, and now I'm considering doing the same for Abberations (or at least some abberations)

Deophaun

2013-05-17, 05:57 AM

'K....why? I know that defining magic is tough, but why does it somehow make undead immune and not also Magical Beasts (the creature type), Dragons, or heavily enchanted humanoids?
This would be the "bit off topic" part that I mentioned in the post.

You're gonna have to explain that one to me. We get the Tippyverse because magic, or at least most magic, is frelling bjorked.
And it's borked in this regard because it can be controlled, standardized, and mass produced. It is physics with a different version of thermodynamics. If it could not be those things, if magic were unpredictable, willful, and peculiar, then you couldn't have the Tippyverse, as it couldn't scale regardless of how powerful it is.

MachFarcon

2013-05-17, 05:51 PM

Well, I was thinking about the whole "mind-affecting" thing and I had, in my humble (and most likely incorrect) option, an epiphany.

Does the mind-affecting affect the senses( I.E. Eyes, ears, touch, etc) or does it affect the soul (or some metaphyical/spiritual equivalent)?

If it fools the senses, then there's not real reason that it couldn't affect affect the undead. Since they have to use a sense of some kind, it should affect them.

If it affects the soul, then a soul might not be affected since most undead don't have souls.

Anywho, welcome back to the forums. I always love a good debate, because I believe it helps me strengthen my own arguments, and can make me think of ways to alter my initial ideas.

Thanks man. I'm always up for a good debate.

Just my two copper.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-17, 07:06 PM

So maybe I should rephrase it a bit and ask what makes undead MORE DIFFERENT than everything else listed above.

Living minds really don't want to comprehend death?

Lord Vukodlak

2013-05-17, 08:07 PM

So what exactly is the spell targeting then? My point was that the original spell effects so many different creatures that there is no single attribute that links them all. And yet there are some creatures it still can't target. Why?
There is a single attribute that links them. They're all alive. An elemental is alive it may be made from fire or something but it is still a living creature. A Vampire isn't alive nor are most constructs(even intelligent ones). Notably Warforged and other "Living Constructs" are subject to mind-affecting.

So a better question is why are intelligent plants immune to mind-affecting. Every other intelligent living creature type is subject to mind-affecting. Vermin and Oozes aren't immune to mind-affecting they're usually mindless but once given an intelligence score they lose that immunity.

The Undead type doesn't grant the mindless trait, like Vermin and Oozes. It grants immunity to mind affecting. Which means the immunity is due to being undead and has nothing to do with if it has a mind or not. And only minority of undead are actually mindless most have an intelligence score of some kind.

otakumick

2013-05-17, 11:55 PM

The point is to overcome obstacles and be clever about what you do. If you have information that you're going to be fighting fire elementals beforehand, you shouldn't rely on fire spells to kill them.

No, you should absolutely rely on fire spells, in fact you should take their fire and add it to your own and hit them with that... and then when they complain that thats impossible as they lay dieing you laugh and tell them that you are older than they are.

TuggyNE

2013-05-18, 12:24 AM

No, you should absolutely rely on fire spells, in fact you should take their fire and add it to your own and hit them with that... and then when they complain that thats impossible as they lay dieing you laugh and tell them that you are older than they are.

I feel like that's a paraphrase of some quote I ought to know. Tough.

Also, Searing Spell. :smallamused:

Deepbluediver

2013-05-18, 09:45 AM

There is a single attribute that links them. They're all alive. An elemental is alive it may be made from fire or something but it is still a living creature. A Vampire isn't alive nor are most constructs(even intelligent ones). Notably Warforged and other "Living Constructs" are subject to mind-affecting.

You start out with a great argument here. You would probably need to redefine "life" differently than the standard biology-textbook way, but with a little work you could probably get it to include most of the creature types in question but exclude Undead (by referencing something like reproduction, maybe).

And then you go and shoot yourself in the kneecap by bringing up warforged, which I probably wouldn't have thought to counter with since I don't really like them (conceptually) as a race. And now I've got another example (even if it's setting specific) of something where a mind-affecting spell relies on mental instruction rather than physiology in any way. :smallsmile:

So a better question is why are intelligent plants immune to mind-affecting. Every other intelligent living creature type is subject to mind-affecting. Vermin and Oozes aren't immune to mind-affecting they're usually mindless but once given an intelligence score they lose that immunity.

Which is why I suggested splitting things into two categories: Brainless and Mindless. Brainless creatures have a different enough physiology that it makes Mind-affecting spells more difficult, while Mindles creatures aren't immune, but they don't have quite the same reaction as normal.
And I still don't really agree that intelligent undead don't have a soul of some sort. It might be blackened or corrupted, or it might even just be part of a soul that doesn't necessarily link back to whoever was originally that person, but it needs something to give it drive, purpose, and personality.

And also, splitting up all the specific control-type spells into seperate versions based on creature type would something I can completely get behind. It just really bugs me that something like Control Plants ends up labeled as a Transmutation spell. I realize that some of the spell-schools are badly categorized, but I think that we should determine what goes into enchanting based on it's effect rather than the exact mechanics. There is also some weird stuff like Cause Fear being a Necromancy spell; why? Because fear is bad and Necromancy is evil? I call BS.

The Undead type doesn't grant the mindless trait, like Vermin and Oozes. It grants immunity to mind affecting. Which means the immunity is due to being undead and has nothing to do with if it has a mind or not. And only minority of undead are actually mindless most have an intelligence score of some kind.

But all undead are (as far as I know) immune to mind-affecting, whether or not they have an intellect. See the SRD entry for Lich (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm), for example. That's why I assumed that a magic spell that can target thoughts or instincts (i.e. something mental or mentally-related) could also target magically empowered beings. I can't target an oak tree or a statue and command them to get up and walk around because they don't have any ability to hear me, concieve of what I'm saying, or do that under normal circumstances anyway. But a vampire, a construct, or a plant-creature might.

Now, if you want to declare that Undead are immnue to MC "just because", then fine; you're free to do that. But then by the same token, there's no good reason that I can't do the opposite in my games. Which is sort of what my original enquiry was aimed at.

No, you should absolutely rely on fire spells, in fact you should take their fire and add it to your own and hit them with that... and then when they complain that thats impossible as they lay dieing you laugh and tell them that you are older than they are.

See, now I would consider "producing fire" to be a fairly limited one-trick pony; more-so than Enchanting or Illusions. And although its the most common energy type in D&D, I suspect there are still fewer creatures that are completely immune to fire than are immune to Mind-affecting.

Now, if you where willing to broaden the concept a little, and say that you simply had control over thermal energy, you could give your character both fire and ice spells, and probably some unique mechanics that would let them absorb heat or create other defenses, and that would probably be a fairly well-rounded blaster.

I feel like that's a paraphrase of some quote I ought to know.

You come pretty close with these two, I think. Also, I haven't really had my morning cup of coffee yet, so take it with a grain of salt. :smallwink:

"I'd be tempted to say this is impossible, but that is a word used only by idiots who lack the patience and reason to consider their own surroundings."
—psionic Minmax, Goblins! webcomic

"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, MtG

Raineh Daze

2013-05-18, 09:59 AM

Deepbluediver

2013-05-18, 10:21 AM

Warforged were explicitly called 'living constructs' in that post, so I don't know how their existence conflicts with 'they're not alive' as a reason. :smallconfused:

Ok, so whats the determining factor between a regular construct and a "living construct", and how is it absent from intelligent undead?

It seems to me like-
Corpse=Statue
Mindless Undead=Constructs
Intelligent Undead=living Constructs.

And I admit I'm not very familiar with Warforged; I'm asking this question because I honestly don't see the difference.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-18, 10:25 AM

otakumick

2013-05-18, 03:43 PM

I feel like that's a paraphrase of some quote I ought to know. Tough.

Also, Searing Spell. :smallamused:

The anime Bastard!! Dark Schneider vs. Ifrit...
It's a very good series, unfortunately I couldn't find that particular part on youtube.

Lord Vukodlak

2013-05-18, 04:19 PM

And then you go and shoot yourself in the kneecap by bringing up warforged, which I probably wouldn't have thought to counter with since I don't really like them (conceptually) as a race. And now I've got another example (even if it's setting specific) of something where a mind-affecting spell relies on mental instruction rather than physiology in any way.

As others have said Living Constructs are as the name implies alive, they have a constitution score. So you don't have an example, quite the opposite. A construct is immune to mind-affecting. Turn it into a living construct and suddenly its subject to mind-affecting. Which implies a physiological aspect.

So my original point still stands except for plants all intelligent living creature types are subject to mind-affecting.(even constructs). So instead of asking why undead and constructs are immune ask why are plants immune.

Now, if you want to declare that Undead are immnue to MC "just because", then fine
I'm not declaring anything wizards already declared undead are immune to mind-affecting. If you want to declare that they aren't immune that's fine but it isn't supported by the rules.

Deepbluediver

2013-05-19, 10:17 AM

Constitution score. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_livingconstructsubtype&alpha) There's a bunch of other effects (including healing working, resurrection working, and not dying at 0 HP) but that's the big thing.

So basically:

Corpse = Statue
Undead = Construct
Living Creature = Living Construct

I think this is part of why I didn't really like the idea of Warforged. If you've got a "living" construct, with a mind (and presumably) a soul of sorts (unless it's explicetly stated they don't), and it is vulnerable to all the normal effects that other living creatures are subject to, but its body is composed of stone or metal or whatever it is warforged are made from, then it's starting to sound a lot more like an elemental than either a humanoid or a construct.

As others have said Living Constructs are as the name implies alive, they have a constitution score. So you don't have an example, quite the opposite. A construct is immune to mind-affecting. Turn it into a living construct and suddenly its subject to mind-affecting. Which implies a physiological aspect.

Fair enough, I guess, though it seems odd (to me at least) that a Warforged can have so many characteristics of a living humanoid and still be thought of as construct-like.
Question: what exactly are the requirements for being/making a warforged? Can I make one out of a flesh-golem? Have I then created Frankenstein's monster or have I played god and literally made a regular humanoid?

I'm about to go somewhat off topic here, so I've spoilered the next bit for anone who doesn't want to read it.
I've never been happy with the creatures, creature types, or templates that remove an ability score and replace it with Ø. This is because the 6 ability scores form the most very basic foundation of creature-creation, and removing any one of them often generates weird issues further down the line with everything that used to interact with that ability. (like constructs getting bonus HP based on size or Undead basing certain effects on Charisma)

Since HP has always been a somewhat abstract concept anyhow, I am wondering what might be the effects of giving Undead and Constructs back their Con and Int scores. For living creatures, Con can still represent "Health and Stamina", but for non-living ones, it can represent durability and physical integrity. You could still have a classification similar to "Mindless", called "Unliving Body" or something that makes them immune to Poison, Disease, Fort-save based effects, can't be healed, etc. You can make them tireless, though it seems to me like a machine operating at full capacity would eventually begin to break down unless it was repaired.

And I think a creature can still be considered mindless and totally lack any instinct, ambition, or drive with an Intellect score. It's intellect simply represents the complexity of the tasks it can be instructed to perform. For example, a Skeleton (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/skeleton.htm) with an Int of 2 wouldn't be any smarter than a trained animal (though perhaps less easily distracted), a skeleton with and Int of 10 would be able to perform most tasks an average human could, and a Skeleton with and Int of 18 could do your calculus homework with his left hand and your physics homework with his right (he still can't help you with your philosophy homework however, because mindless creatures aren't really good at contemplating ethics, morality, or the ultimate question of life :smallamused:).

So my original point still stands except for plants all intelligent living creature types are subject to mind-affecting.(even constructs). So instead of asking why undead and constructs are immune ask why are plants immune.

Yes, the point about plant-creatures is a good one. I'll add a line or two regarding them to my original post.

Also, what do you think about replacing the "Brainless" description with rule that just gave a save bonus to any creature you target with an enchantment spell that is of a different type? The more we talk about this, the more it seems like there are many different creatures with radically different physiology, mental-pathways, and/or instincts and desires. But it seems like one plant creature would understand another plant creature better than a human would.

If individual creature types where too much, we could combine types into a couple of categories based on relative similarity and make the rule for anything outside your group. That way most PCs wouldn't feel cheated, since they get a boost against many of the enemies they are likely to face.

Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants
Dragons, Magical Beasts
Elementals, Outsiders, Fey
Plant, Animals, Vermin
Constructs, Undead
Abberations, Oozes

(did I miss anything)?

I'm not declaring anything wizards already declared undead are immune to mind-affecting. If you want to declare that they aren't immune that's fine but it isn't supported by the rules.

You're right, sorry. My goal is still to find a (relatively) simple set of rules and an explanation that is consistent, and makes sense, which I feel that WotC did not achieve.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-19, 10:41 AM

A simple fix would be to make plants operate like oozes or something. Not immune intrinsically, but generally not intelligent enough to register. :smallsigh:

Difference between a living construct, an elemental, and a humanoid: one's created, one is an outsider from an elemental plane, and the other's a normal living thing. It's... an easy enough distinction. :smallconfused:

I like null ability scores. No ability to reason, just to follow programming? No intellect. Can't exert a physical force on something? No strength. Can't move? No dexterity. Not, in fact, alive? No constitution.

How tough and hard they are is represented by... HP, DR, Hardness, Natural Armour...

Lord Vukodlak

2013-05-19, 11:56 AM

Question: what exactly are the requirements for being/making a warforged? Can I make one out of a flesh-golem? Have I then created Frankenstein's monster or have I played god and literally made a regular humanoid?
No you can't make one out of a flesh golem. There are no actual rules for making them at least for PC's. In Eberron the Creation Forges that produced them were dismantled after the war was over. Well except for two that operate in secret. But in essence they are intended for PC's to play not to make.
A new born warforge is much like a child and over the first few months of life is taught some basics of existance and its vocation. They don't come off the assembly line ready to fight.

I think this is part of why I didn't really like the idea of Warforged. If you've got a "living" construct, with a mind (and presumably) a soul of sorts (unless it's explicetly stated they don't), and it is vulnerable to all the normal effects that other living creatures are subject to but its body is composed of stone or metal or whatever it is warforged are made from, then it's starting to sound a lot more like an elemental than either a humanoid or a construct. Actually its stated they don't know if warforged have souls. They can be resurrected but unlike humans they can't recall an afterlife. Warforged have things akin to skin, muscle, bone and even blood it's simply made from different materials its only superficially similar to a goelm

The traits of a living construct can be found in the Wizards Glossary. As you
can see while they share many humanoid vulnerabilities they retain several construct immunities.

Unlike other constructs, a living construct has a Constitution score. A living construct does not gain bonus hit points by size but gains (or loses) bonus hit points through a Constitution bonus (or penalty) as with other living creatures.
Unlike other constructs, a living construct does not have low-light vision or darkvision.
Unlike other constructs, a living construct is not immune to mind-influencing effects.
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, disease, nausea, fatigue, exhaustion, and energy drain.
A living construct cannot heal damage naturally.
Unlike other constructs, living constructs are subject to critical hits, effects requiring a Fort save, death from massive damage, nonlethal damage, stunning, ability damage, ability drain, and death effects or necromancy effects.
Unlike other constructs, a living construct can use the run action.
Living constructs can be affected by spells that target living creatures as well as by those that target constructs. Damage dealt to a living construct can be healed by a cure light wounds spell or a repair light damage spell, for example, and a living construct is vulnerable to a harm spell. However, spells from the healing subschool provide only half effect to a living construct.
A living construct responds slightly differently from other living creatures when reduced to 0 hit points. A living construct with 0 hit points is disabled, just like a living creature. He can only take a single move action or standard action in each round, but strenuous activity does not risk further injury. When his hit points are less than 0 and greater than -10, a living construct is inert. He is unconscious and helpless, and he cannot perform any actions. However, an inert living construct does not lose additional hit points unless more damage is dealt to him, as with a living creature that is stable.
Can be raised or resurrected.
Does not need to eat, sleep, or breathe, but can still benefit from the effects of consumable spells and magic items such as heroes' feast and potions.
Does not need to sleep, but must rest for 8 hours before preparing spells.
Warforged themselves have additional traits of composite plating and light fortification though that can be changed or altered by feats at 1st level.

One could classify a Warforged as Humanoid and simply give them the living construct subtype and aside from being subject to "person" spells. You'd essentially have the same thing but primitive living constructs have racial hit dice unlike warforge which are entirely class based.

A simple fix would be to make plants operate like oozes or something. Not immune intrinsically, but generally not intelligent enough to register.
Unintelligent plants tend not to be creatures.

Deepbluediver

2013-05-19, 06:15 PM

Difference between a living construct, an elemental, and a humanoid: one's created, one is an outsider from an elemental plane, and the other's a normal living thing. It's... an easy enough distinction. :smallconfused:

I realize there are some inherent disagreements going on here, but I'm not quite sure I understand the distinctions. If a creature is physiologically or mentally similar, then what does it's origin matter? It's like saying I can't use Mind-affecting spells on another human because they where born in another country.

I admit that it's magic and anything is possible, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
As was pointed out earlier, magic unrestrained is how we get the tippyverse, but I like to be able to understand exactly why a spell does or doesn't act in a certain way or affect a certain creature. And having several broad categories of creature (including undead) just be flat-out immune feels an awful like that reason is "because I said so". I'd actually feel better about having some creature types, like constructs and oozes, maybe, be highly resistant, but intelligent undead (or plants) have all or most of the same mental faculties as other living creatures. If it's smart enough to use magic, seems like it should be able to be affected by it as well.

I like null ability scores. No ability to reason, just to follow programming? No intellect. Can't exert a physical force on something? No strength. Can't move? No dexterity. Not, in fact, alive? No constitution

How tough and hard they are is represented by... HP, DR, Hardness, Natural Armour...

Yeah, I know it's a little weird, but if a creature doesn't have an Intellect score, how do I determine just what it can an can't do? What do I compare it to? I picture a "smart" undead sort of like a very powerful computer. The potential for processing and evaluating information is there, but without instruction is won't do a thing.

An object might have HP but no Constitution score, so I would say that rather than being the definition of "alive" (whatever that means when talking about a fantasy world like D&D) is that having a Constituion score is the definition of being a creature.
And any creature, construct, undead, or otherwise can have DR, natural AC, etc.

*stuff about warforged*
No you can't make one out of a flesh golem. There are no actual rules for making them at least for PC's. In Eberron the Creation Forges that produced them were dismantled after the war was over. Well except for two that operate in secret. But in essence they are intended for PC's to play not to make.
A new born warforge is much like a child and over the first few months of life is taught some basics of existance and its vocation. They don't come off the assembly line ready to fight.

Actually its stated they don't know if warforged have souls. They can be resurrected but unlike humans they can't recall an afterlife. Warforged have things akin to skin, muscle, bone and even blood it's simply made from different materials its only superficially similar to a goelm

The traits of a living construct can be found in the Wizards Glossary. As you
can see while they share many humanoid vulnerabilities they retain several construct immunities.

Unlike other constructs, a living construct has a Constitution score. A living construct does not gain bonus hit points by size but gains (or loses) bonus hit points through a Constitution bonus (or penalty) as with other living creatures.
Unlike other constructs, a living construct does not have low-light vision or darkvision.
Unlike other constructs, a living construct is not immune to mind-influencing effects.
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, disease, nausea, fatigue, exhaustion, and energy drain.
A living construct cannot heal damage naturally.
Unlike other constructs, living constructs are subject to critical hits, effects requiring a Fort save, death from massive damage, nonlethal damage, stunning, ability damage, ability drain, and death effects or necromancy effects.
Unlike other constructs, a living construct can use the run action.
Living constructs can be affected by spells that target living creatures as well as by those that target constructs. Damage dealt to a living construct can be healed by a cure light wounds spell or a repair light damage spell, for example, and a living construct is vulnerable to a harm spell. However, spells from the healing subschool provide only half effect to a living construct.
A living construct responds slightly differently from other living creatures when reduced to 0 hit points. A living construct with 0 hit points is disabled, just like a living creature. He can only take a single move action or standard action in each round, but strenuous activity does not risk further injury. When his hit points are less than 0 and greater than -10, a living construct is inert. He is unconscious and helpless, and he cannot perform any actions. However, an inert living construct does not lose additional hit points unless more damage is dealt to him, as with a living creature that is stable.
Can be raised or resurrected.
Does not need to eat, sleep, or breathe, but can still benefit from the effects of consumable spells and magic items such as heroes' feast and potions.
Does not need to sleep, but must rest for 8 hours before preparing spells.
Warforged themselves have additional traits of composite plating and light fortification though that can be changed or altered by feats at 1st level.

One could classify a Warforged as Humanoid and simply give them the living construct subtype and aside from being subject to "person" spells. You'd essentially have the same thing but primitive living constructs have racial hit dice unlike warforge which are entirely class based.

Thanks for all the info. The more I know the better I can tweak my homebrew. It almost seems like Warforged should be considered Constructs with the augmented subtype (Humanoid)...or possibly vice versa. :smallconfused:

A simple fix would be to make plants operate like oozes or something. Not immune intrinsically, but generally not intelligent enough to register.

Unintelligent plants tend not to be creatures.

Even just within the MMI, you have everything from the Assassinn vine (Intellect null), to the Phantom Fungus (Intellect 2, animal-like), to the Shambling Mound and Treant (Intellects 6 and 12, respectively).
It seems disfunctional to me that one rule should govern everything, especially when we've already got a spell named Control Plants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlPlants.htm), it's just (IMO) in the wrong school.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-19, 06:47 PM

Deepbluediver

2013-05-20, 11:34 AM

Living constructs explicitly aren't immune to mind affecting. I don't get why you're objecting so much to the entire concept--they're more than simply intelligent magical creations; they have many of the weaknesses of the living and they can be resurrected.

I'm not quite sure exactly which concept you're referring to. :smallconfused:
If there is a construct that can think and reason and has it's own goals and desires that it can act on, and it's effected by Mind-affecting spells, I'm totally on board with that. It makes perfect sense to me.
But its entirely dependent on what is happening in their mind, not the body.

If you want complicated instructions and tasks to be completed... well, that's why there are intelligent undead. To think.

And if a creature can think, shouldn't it be vulnerable to spells that are specifically intended to alter the way a creature thinks?

The definition of being a creature rather than an object, as far as D&D is concerned, is the ability to tell between yourself and your surroundings. Awareness requires a wisdom score, differentiation between self and the external world (largely necessary for processing this input) requires a charisma score. Anything with neither of these is an object.

I'm fully on board with the "all creatures require all ability scores to qualify as a creature" school of thought.
A computer or robot with a couple of cameras and microphones might have sensory receptors and processing power, but I'd be hard pressed to qualify it as a creature.

To me, saying that an entire classification of creatures lacks one or more of the 6 primary building blocks for gameplay feels both problematic, and lazy. I would rather have a standard set of rules for ability scores, and then add individual modifications as necessary (for example, Mindless lacks free will, Non-living lacks metabolism, etc).

Because we've got thousands of creatures and an almost infinite number of combinations with templates and variants, and making absolute statements tends starts out simple, and then tends to create more and more problems furhter down the line. That's my experience anyway.

There's already a fine distinction between creature and object, I don't understand why you insist that everything have a constitution score.

I don't understand why you insist that a creature that can think and reason and talk and has ambitions, goals, and fears is immune to spells that affect or target those aspects of it's character.

Oh wait, yes I do. It's because we both feel strongly that we have the most straightforward and logical explanation, and that the other person is being a bit of a stubborn tosser about this. :smalltongue:

The SRD description of what it means:

Yes, I read that too. I just don't entirely agree with it. It's not like the published material is entirely free from problems, ambiguities, or quirks; I'm trying to make it better. I would rather alter the text to read:

--------------------------------------
Any creature has at least 1 point of Constitution; creatures with 0 constitution are dead or destroyed. Constitution represents a character’s health and stamina. A Constitution bonus increases a character’s hit points, so the ability is important for all classes.

Some creatures (usually Undead and Constructs) have a non-living body; this means they lack a metabolism and their constitution score instead represents their bodies' physical integrity.
Creatures with a non-living body are immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. The creature is also immune to energy drain, poison, and disease. A creature with no Constitution cannot tire, though it can still break down from extended effort if it is not repaired.
-------------------------------------

Ignoring, for a moment, your meta-knowledge of the original wording, is there anything about that that wouldn't make sense in a game?

Also, can you explain to me why Cause Fear is a Necromancy spell when the definition of enchantment reads "Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior"?

It seems like some one followed the chain of Troll logic as: Necromancy is Evil. Causing fear is Evil. Therefor causing fear = necromancy.

Lack of constitution effectively means an automaton sustained through external power. Non alive.

Technically, undead and constructs are still sustained through internal power, it's just magic instead of chemistry. And non-alive does not mean non-thinking.

What is dysfunctional about 'not alive, or alive and mindless, means immunity to mind-affecting'? The only issue here looks like it should be with the plant subtype, you're overcomplicating things because of personal distaste for parts of the system. :smallconfused:

What is dysfunctional about "if it has some capacity for mental control, it can be targeted by mentally-affecting spells"? I think that sounds pretty simple, and doesn't require an additional explanation for why spells specifically designed to influence the way we think can affect one thinking creature but not another.

I don't think a skeleton or should be able to be charmed into being your best friend. It lacks the capacity to understand those concepts. But it does have the capacity to understand things like "Obey!", "Run", "Fight", "Guard this", etc. So when it's getting one set of commands from it's master, and another set from some one else, the arcane programming gets conflicting signals and the creature becomes confused.

And, to me at least, it seems like if you design a spell specifically to dominate a lich, then that spell should be in the enchanting school, because that's what the enchanting spells are intended for.

No Strength = Can't Manipulate Objects
No Dexterity = Can't Move
No Constitution = Not Alive
No Intelligence = Mindless
No Wisdom/Charisma = Object

For the most part, I agree; I've always thought of it as:
No Strength or Dexterity= paralyzed or having constant seizures
No Constitution= body destroyed or had it's spirit/energy/life-force drained
No Intellect or Wisdom= no senses or memories, and no way to process sensory input
No Charisma= total lack of drive or motivation to do anything; lacking even basic survival instincts or involuntary motor functions.

I enjoy these discussions; I wouldn't post on the forum if I didn't. I thought the point about having difficulty mentally influencing creatures of different types was an excellent one. Thats why I updated my rules proposal to reflect a modified system, including an accomodation for plant-creatures. And I am trying to keep things as simple as possible. The entirety of my rules changes takes up about 2 short parapraphs worth of text.

Sunken Valley

2013-05-20, 11:35 AM

Yes because mind control effects the living matter of the brain and manipulates the fleshy brain. Undead minds are fuelled by energy and are not controlled.

Deepbluediver

2013-05-20, 11:42 AM

Yes because mind control effects the living matter of the brain and manipulates the fleshy brain.

I'd love to see you bring me the "fleshy brain" of an earth elemental or gibbering mouther.

Undead minds are fuelled by energy-

Last time I checked I need to eat food to sustain myself. In fact, the human brain needs a whole heaping lot of calories. Thats why humans are omnivores and cows don't rule the planet.

-and are not controlled.

...not controlled by what?
Something has to compel the undead to do what they do. What makes a lich decided to trap souls in a gem or burn down a village?
Is it the "magic spell"? Why are all those liches evil then? Why didn't somebody think to design a "good lich" version?

The spells are labeled "Mind-affecting", and presumably, an intelligent undead has a mind that doesn't require a physical brain. So the spell still works, it's just harder to cast or not as effective.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-20, 12:05 PM

Most likely, Cause Fear is tossing loads of death-related stuff at you, as the most base of all human fears. Hence, Necromancy. Anything related to death pretty much finds its way into that.

And if a creature can think, shouldn't it be vulnerable to spells that are specifically intended to alter the way a creature thinks?

Yes. Spells that are specifically intended to alter the way a living creature thinks, no.

I'm fully on board with the "all creatures require all ability scores to qualify as a creature" school of thought.
A computer or robot with a couple of cameras and microphones might have sensory receptors and processing power, but I'd be hard pressed to qualify it as a creature.

The monster manual and numerous supplements await for you to go through and remove everything with that level of mental ability and rewrite it as an object, then. :smalltongue:

To me, saying that an entire classification of creatures lacks one or more of the 6 primary building blocks for gameplay feels both problematic, and lazy. I would rather have a standard set of rules for ability scores, and then add individual modifications as necessary (for example, Mindless lacks free will, Non-living lacks metabolism, etc).

Because we've got thousands of creatures and an almost infinite number of combinations with templates and variants, and making absolute statements tends starts out simple, and then tends to create more and more problems furhter down the line. That's my experience anyway.

Your way gives even more rules, definitions, and so-on to keep track of. I quite like the one which runs 'these things don't have this score. When abilities are modified by this score, they have a null modifier (rather than minus infinity), or use something else that fits, and if something specifically relies on this score, they can't do it'.

Basically, stat blocks are crowded enough as it is. :smallsigh:

I don't understand why you insist that a creature that can think and reason and talk and has ambitions, goals, and fears is immune to spells that affect or target those aspects of it's character.

Not alive. :p

Ignoring, for a moment, your meta-knowledge of the original wording, is there anything about that that wouldn't make sense in a game?

Double meaning of the word 'constitution'. The lack of ability damage. Giving undead bonus hitpoints, which can cheerfully put a lich even higher up, as if magic wasn't enough. Making it so that the exact same score represents different things.

What is dysfunctional about "if it has some capacity for mental control, it can be targeted by mentally-affecting spells"? I think that sounds pretty simple, and doesn't require an additional explanation for why spells specifically designed to influence the way we think can affect one thinking creature but not another.

I don't think a skeleton or should be able to be charmed into being your best friend. It lacks the capacity to understand those concepts. But it does have the capacity to understand things like "Obey!", "Run", "Fight", "Guard this", etc. So when it's getting one set of commands from it's master, and another set from some one else, the arcane programming gets conflicting signals and the creature becomes confused.

Because it makes enchantment vastly more powerful and literally able to deal with anything, on a 'one spell fits all' basis and obsoletes entire class features.

And, to me at least, it seems like if you design a spell specifically to dominate a lich, then that spell should be in the enchanting school, because that's what the enchanting spells are intended for.

There's basically a spell for that already. Command Undead. Unsurprisingly in Necromancy, because it's a spell affecting a dead thing. Or undead. That is kind of the whole point of the necromancy school. Shoving things that deal with undead in other schools because the effect it has on undead fits in them will then empty an entire school of magic.

The only definition of null ability scores that I agree on there is Charisma. Seriously, seizures? :|

Deepbluediver

2013-05-20, 12:31 PM

The only definition of null ability scores that I agree on there is Charisma. Seriously, seizures? :|

When you said "No" I thought you meant zero, not null. So just a little but of confusion there.

I'll make a longer reply to the rest of it later, but basically my thought was that if you had 0 Dexterity, then either you couldn't move or all your muscles tried to move at once without coordination; hence seizures.

If a creature has null intellect (Int Ø) and presumably no memories or no way to process data, how does it obey commands or know how to do things like walk?
Thats part of why I suggested that all creatures need all ability scores; because it's really hard for me to picture any creature that is missing any one of these abilities.

Raineh Daze

2013-05-20, 02:38 PM

If it has no intelligence, it's directly controlled by force of will. In other words, magic. It doesn't work these things out for itself.

If I program a computer to add two numbers together, the computer isn't thinking.

TuggyNE

2013-05-20, 07:03 PM

Most likely, Cause Fear is tossing loads of death-related stuff at you, as the most base of all human fears. Hence, Necromancy. Anything related to death pretty much finds its way into that.

That's not an implausible after-the-fact justification, but it's not essential to the concept; you can very easily cause fear with quite a lot of other things.

For that matter, phantasmal killer specifically overwhelms you to death with the fear of some dreadfully dangerous/horrific illusionary creature. Yet it has neither the [death] descriptor nor the Necromancy school.

Yes. Spells that are specifically intended to alter the way a living creature thinks, no.

Why is Enchantment defined as "altering the way a living creature thinks", rather than "altering the way a creature thinks"?

Double meaning of the word 'constitution'. The lack of ability damage. Giving undead bonus hitpoints, which can cheerfully put a lich even higher up, as if magic wasn't enough. Making it so that the exact same score represents different things.

Liches are actually a bit low on HP. Comparing a CR 16 lich against all the CR 16 MMI monsters, the lich has the lowest HP at 91; the next lowest is 133 (planetar) and then there's a whole glut of dragons in the high 200s, and cornugon, hound archon hero, and nightwalker in the mid 100s, and finally greater stone golem at 271.

In general, in fact, undead and constructs suffer pretty substantially from the need to compensate for not having a Con score; constructs use their truly wacky and nonsensical "mass of non-living matter bonus HP" rule, and both types stack more HD up like it's going out of style. Which directly results in Turning scaling far too slowly. The system has had to hack in clumsy solutions to this problem already; fixing it is desirable.

Because it makes enchantment vastly more powerful and literally able to deal with anything, on a 'one spell fits all' basis and obsoletes entire class features.

Rebuke Undead?

Really, though, while I support making Enchantment the school of "changing minds", it doesn't entirely make sense to use a single spell for everything equally, so some sort of adjustment for the different supertypes (as suggested below) would make more sense — either different spells for each supertype, or better yet conditional modifiers depending on which supertype the caster is in.

Luvia

2013-05-21, 09:12 AM

Deepbluediver

2013-05-21, 10:16 AM

My response to Raineh is really long, so I spoilered it to keep my post to a reasonable size.

Most likely, Cause Fear is tossing loads of death-related stuff at you, as the most base of all human fears. Hence, Necromancy. Anything related to death pretty much finds its way into that.

I think tuggyne explained this better than I could. There are lots of things that could kill you that or that you might be afraid of that aren't in the necromancy school. Nothing in Cause Fear's description seems to have anything to do with negative energy, it doesn't actually harm you in any way, and it doesn't even affect Undead, so it doesn't really seem to make sense that it's in Necromancy.

Now, I admit that many of the spell schools are poorly defined. I made a whole 'nother thread about this a while back. (View it here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14372981#post14372981), if you're interested.) "A little bit of everything in every school" could have been a valid design goal, but the way it worked out some schools have a lot more overlap than others. Plus, when every school can do everything, whats the point of having schools at all?

Yes. Spells that are specifically intended to alter the way a living creature thinks, no.

Nothing in Enchantment's description mentions living creatures, only "minds". Now, I admitted that enchantments might have a tough time working on something like an ooze or a zombie, but intelligent undead and plant creatures have all the thoughts, perceptions, reasoning skills, and logic that is what normally makes up a "mind".

Even a spell like Dominate Monster doesn't specify that it's target has to be "living", just a creature.

The monster manual and numerous supplements await for you to go through and remove everything with that level of mental ability and rewrite it as an object, then. :smalltongue:

Those are not the sole-determining factors of what is or isn't a creature. A creature would be different from a computer because it also has Charisma and Constitution scores.

Your way gives even more rules, definitions, and so-on to keep track of. I quite like the one which runs 'these things don't have this score. When abilities are modified by this score, they have a null modifier (rather than minus infinity), or use something else that fits, and if something specifically relies on this score, they can't do it'.

Basically, stat blocks are crowded enough as it is. :smallsigh:

The way I'm trying to do it seems fairly simple to me. :smallconfused:
Every creature has these 6 ability; here's what they mean.
Some creatures are mindless (one short paragraph).
Some creatures are non-living (a second short paragraph).

That's pretty much it. When you start having null ability scores, you need to explain what (if anything) replaces them and why, what happens to effects that target those abilities, how your creature functions in an alternative manner without that ability, what level they can function at for actions that normally rely on the missing ability, etc.

At worst, it doesn't seem like my version of things would get any more complex.

Not alive. :p

That doesn't answer the question. Are you telling me that a creature that's "not alive" can't talk, think, reason, or have ambitions, goals, and fears?

Double meaning of the word 'constitution'.
....
Making it so that the exact same score represents different things.

I think you're repeating yourself here to pad out your list; if not they please explain the differentiation. And it still only means one thing to any given creature.
Whereas if you lack a Con score, then Charisma usually ends up pulling double duty. Why is that better?

Alternatively, I could just say that it represents a bodies' physical integrity for all cases. If I get stabbed in the lung, my physical integrity has been violated and by extension, my health and stamina decrease.

The lack of ability damage.

I can add that back in if it's a big deal, but basically I was thinking that if you smash a constructs arm into dust, then it's strength decreases. Or if you cut up a vampire's legs then it's dexterity goes down. Unless the creature is entirely dependent on magic, then having a physical body should matter in some way. And if it's only the magic and the physical part doesn't matter, shouldn't I be able to "damage" undead and constructs with Dispel Magic?

Either that or start giving magic spells like Energy Drain a "life-affecting" modifier; not that I would really object to that.

Giving undead bonus hitpoints, which can cheerfully put a lich even higher up, as if magic wasn't enough.

Again, tuggyne comes to my rescue. :smallsmile:

One creature does not represent the entire breed, but its easy enough to change a creature's HD type. I think the only reason Undead even got a d12 in the first place is because they don't get bonus HP.

Frankly, constructs feel a lot more like a d12 race to me anyhow.

Because it makes enchantment vastly more powerful and literally able to deal with anything, on a 'one spell fits all' basis and obsoletes entire class features.

First, that is most definitly NOT what I want to do. I've said multiple times that spells like Dominate Monster should be broken down into versions based on creature type (or supertype, I like that term) and learned and prepared seperately.

Second, it's hardly like there aren't already other broken always-useful spells, but this thread isn't about those. In a full-game fix, I'd deal with all of them, as well as an overhaul for the basic rules of how magic functions. (spell resistance or the equivalent for everybody, for a start, followed by shorter durations on Charm, Control, Dominate and similar things)

And third, we had a discussion on balance earlier in the thread, and most people seemed to think that lots of creatures having immunity isn't fun or good game design. The spell is still powerful when it works, and useless when it doesn't. Maybe you disagree, but IMO that's not a very effective method of creating enjoyable encounters. Just look at many of the melee classes; one of the most common complaints is that there are to many types of enemies against whom damage doesn't mean didly or that they can't even attack (incorporal, flying, etc).

Remember, I like resistances and hate immunities.

There's basically a spell for that already. Command Undead. Unsurprisingly in Necromancy, because it's a spell affecting a dead thing. Or undead. That is kind of the whole point of the necromancy school. Shoving things that deal with undead in other schools because the effect it has on undead fits in them will then empty an entire school of magic.

And dealing with hostile creatures via mental commands is the whole point of Enchantment.

See my comments on spell-school in the first paragraph, but basically I think necromancy needs some clarification, because "dealing with dead things" is not really very clear. A Fireball or Disintegrate could "deal with" an undead. Or if that's the only measuring stick we use, then I could make a Control Elemental spell and claim that it belongs in Evocation because it "deals with fire".

Necromancy should be (IMO, I admit) the school or negative and positive energy (death and life) and creating undead (dealing with souls). So you could create an undead creature that is under your command because you controlled its soul (or soul-fragment) or you could blast one apart with positive energy, or you could suck the negative energy out of it and have it fall apart in a heap of bones. But seizing mental domination of a strange undead has more in common with Enchantment, or at the very least just as much in common. (yes the dual-school rules are stupid, but thats what I'm leaning towards)

If your interested in seeing what else I would rearrange, see the other thread linked earlier.

If it has no intelligence, it's directly controlled by force of will. In other words, magic. It doesn't work these things out for itself.

If I program a computer to add two numbers together, the computer isn't thinking.

The computer still has to know what what "add" and "two" mean, and it has to have some method for you to interact with it.

When you control an undead you can command it to "come here"; you don't need to make a set of commands like "lift left knee, move left foot forward, stop now, place left foot on ground, shift weight 67% forward, left right knee, move right foot forward, stop there, place foot on ground, shift weight..."

Thats because the undead creature knows what "walk" means and can process your intentions by itself. If I use a spell to tell the same undead creature "run away in fear!" it might understand "run" but not "fear", so it's like asking a computer to divide by 0. That was why I said enchanting spells can induce confusion in mindless creatures; they either screw up the signals or give commands that the creature can't interpret properly.

In general, in fact, undead and constructs suffer pretty substantially from the need to compensate for not having a Con score; constructs use their truly wacky and nonsensical "mass of non-living matter bonus HP" rule, and both types stack more HD up like it's going out of style. Which directly results in Turning scaling far too slowly. The system has had to hack in clumsy solutions to this problem already; fixing it is desirable.

What sounds like a good racial HD for undead then? Frankly, I'm thinking they they might be relatively fragile (d6 like Fey) because although they don't feel pain, their bodies are dead and decaying. They've got rotting flesh and skin that does little to absorb blows and brittle bones that shatter easily.
Plus, this would keep them from getting a huge boost in HP thanks to suddenly having a Con score.

And as I said earlier, I think Constructs could be a d12 race.

Spoilers include a chart of racial HD and creature type, and some off-topic comments regarding size.
Table: New RHD Breakdown

HD
Types

d6
Fey, Undead

d8
Aberration, Animal, Elemental, Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, Plant, Vermin

d10
Giant, Magical Beast, Ooze, Outsider

d12
Construct, Dragon

Also, this was brought up in another thread (not started by me this time, surprisingly) but one of the quirks in D&D is that a pixie might end up with more HP than your barbarian thanks to levels or RHD, and while a big creature may have several times as much HP as a PC, it is in fact several hundred times more massive.

HP has always been kind of abstract, but if you wanted to involve size in HP calculation for whatever reason, you could do something like this-

Table: Bonus HP or HP Penalty per HD based on size

[tr]
Size
HP Mod

Fine

-3

Diminutive

-2

Tiny

-1

Small

0

Medium

0

Large

0

Huge

+2

Gargantuan

+4

Colossal

+8

Titanic

+16

So two creatures might have the same HD, but the bigger one is "tougher". I purposefully left Small and Large sizes as zero, because those are reasonable dimensions for players to use, and I don't want to upset game balance too badly.

Really, though, while I support making Enchantment the school of "changing minds", it doesn't entirely make sense to use a single spell for everything equally, so some sort of adjustment for the different supertypes (as suggested below) would make more sense — either different spells for each supertype, or better yet conditional modifiers depending on which supertype the caster is in.

I like the term "supertype"; gonna steal it I think. :smallwink:

But could you explain a little more what you mean by your last sentence? I don't want to dismiss Raineh Daze's comments about complexity entirely, because that is a potential issue. If I need to set up a chart to keep track of what bonuses go where, that's to much. I think it's sufficient to say that a humanoid, a magical beast, and an aberration are all different, without needing to accomodate for things like a kobold being more similar to a dragon than it is to an ooze.

gorocz

2013-05-21, 01:53 PM

Continuing in mind of my original two posts:

My theory:

I'd say that it's the good ol' difference between body and soul, and the duality of living. When you die, your soul escapes the body and goes to an outer plane. When you're made undead, it's not your soul that's thinking for you, it's magic.

I'm guessing for mindless udnead, it's whatever type of magical control is used to control it, or when roaming free just pure alignment based behavior.

For intelligent undead, they get a magical imprint of their past life and build on it (possibly affected by the changed alignment) I'm presuming intelligent undead can have character growth, they don't stay the same as their imprint but it's different from the soul. That could be the reason why did Malack think he'd be practically annihilated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html). You evict all the magic from the body (by means of destroying it) and then resurrect it, thus returning the original soul into the body. You can't return to the same point after that. If the person dies again and is made an intelligent undead again, it wouldn't be the same as before the resurrection. It'd be a new imprint...

Now for elementals - they have a soul. But their body and their soul are the same thing, so they can be affected by mind affecting spell, but can't be resurrected (because the soul was inseparable part of their body, they have to be True Resurreceted, which basically creates a new body through their soul).

...Elementals and Outsiders are not immune because they have a soul because they have the non-duality clause. Oozes are mindless, soulless, they don't have emotions. Basically the same case as constructs, so I don't see a problem in the fact that they can't be affected.

Plant type creatures are more difficult, especially since I always picture Treebeard as an epitome of them... But this could be explained that they didn't have conciousness, soul or emotions before they were awakened (only natural reflexes), they are basically living constructs (not in the sense of constructs with soul, as Warforged, for example, but in a sense that they are, sometimes intelligent, constructs made of living matter). I'd say the general rule of thumb would be if you can True Resurrect it to the same form, you can affect its mind (soul)... I don't think you'd be able to resurrect an awakened tree, but ymmv.

Living Constructs - they actually play straight into my original theory, earlier this thread - it's a soul thing. Raise Dead works on Living Constructs, ergo they have a soul of sorts, hence they can be affected.

Oozes - srd actually specifies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#oozeType) that they are "usually mindless" and the mindless perk is what makes them immune to mind-affecting effects. I guess if you had an ooze with mind, it mightn't be immune, then again, there could be a difference between "usually mindless" and "usually Mindless"...

Vermin, Animals and Magical Beasts - Vermin are mindless, though they are alive. Don't think spiders or scorpions have a soul, but it isn't specified anywhere, so this is sort of a weak point of my theory, because there's no RAW to go by... Animals have a mind, can be raised => can be controlled. Easy enough. Magical Beasts are to Animals, what plant-type creature are to plants. The reason why Magical Beasts can be mind-affected is that Animals can be too. Plants can't, magically enhanced plants can't either. Corpses can't, magically enhanced corpses can't either. No matter if either of those is intelligent or not.

TuggyNE

2013-05-21, 07:34 PM

The computer still has to know what what "add" and "two" mean, and it has to have some method for you to interact with it.

When you control an undead you can command it to "come here"; you don't need to make a set of commands like "lift left knee, move left foot forward, stop now, place left foot on ground, shift weight 67% forward, left right knee, move right foot forward, stop there, place foot on ground, shift weight..."

*coughQWOPcough*

What sounds like a good racial HD for undead then? Frankly, I'm thinking they they might be relatively fragile (d6 like Fey) because although they don't feel pain, their bodies are dead and decaying. They've got rotting flesh and skin that does little to absorb blows and brittle bones that shatter easily.
Plus, this would keep them from getting a huge boost in HP thanks to suddenly having a Con score.

Well, the tropes of zombies and such generally peg them as at least as tough as humans in most cases, so I think d8 is fine; the main key is to reduce their HD drastically. Of course, this requires recalibrating their save DCs and feats (and possibly adjusting ability scores or whatever to put their DCs back in the right range), but making HD reasonably sane is the first step. (A few undead would also get extra turn resistance, but for the most part making Turn Undead useful again is a good goal.)

I like the term "supertype"; gonna steal it I think. :smallwink:

But could you explain a little more what you mean by your last sentence? I don't want to dismiss Raineh Daze's comments about complexity entirely, because that is a potential issue. If I need to set up a chart to keep track of what bonuses go where, that's to much. I think it's sufficient to say that a humanoid, a magical beast, and an aberration are all different, without needing to accomodate for things like a kobold being more similar to a dragon than it is to an ooze.

Heh, I just coined it by analogy with type/subtype.

Really, though, while I support making Enchantment the school of "changing minds", it doesn't entirely make sense to use a single spell for everything equally, so some sort of adjustment for the different supertypes (as suggested below) would make more sense — either different spells for each supertype, or better yet conditional modifiers depending on which supertype the caster is in.

My idea is to either have separate spells like charm magical beast (and dragons), charm person (and monstrous humanoid and giant), and so on, like the list earlier:

Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants
Dragons, Magical Beasts
Elementals, Outsiders, Fey
Plants, Animals, Vermin
Constructs, Undead
Aberrations
Oozes

Or else to have a single charm spell, psionics-style, and give a bonus to the save for any creature that is of a different supertype than the caster.

Deepbluediver

2013-05-28, 01:41 PM

Living Constructs - they actually play straight into my original theory, earlier this thread - it's a soul thing. Raise Dead works on Living Constructs, ergo they have a soul of sorts, hence they can be affected.

Yes, which in turn supports my theory that the spell doesn't have anything to do with physiology, but instead with spirituality and/or mentality.

D&D doesn't seem exactly clear on whether or not intelligent undead have a soul, or if it's just corrupted to the point where it hardly matters.

Oozes - srd actually specifies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#oozeType) that they are "usually mindless" and the mindless perk is what makes them immune to mind-affecting effects. I guess if you had an ooze with mind, it mightn't be immune, then again, there could be a difference between "usually mindless" and "usually Mindless"...

Yes, that makes sense.
I think I've said this already, but I'd me more supportive of Oozes being immune or highly resistant than intelligent undead. I kept the "Mindless" designation for my proposed rule-changes, I just altered the way it works.

Vermin, Animals and Magical Beasts - Vermin are mindless, though they are alive. Don't think spiders or scorpions have a soul, but it isn't specified anywhere, so this is sort of a weak point of my theory, because there's no RAW to go by... Animals have a mind, can be raised => can be controlled. Easy enough. Magical Beasts are to Animals, what plant-type creature are to plants. The reason why Magical Beasts can be mind-affected is that Animals can be too. Plants can't, magically enhanced plants can't either. Corpses can't, magically enhanced corpses can't either. No matter if either of those is intelligent or not.

And I can't control Elementals because because they're made out of rocks and air which can't be controlled either!....
Except, oh no, actually I can...

I'm not sure I agree with the Animals->Magical Beasts/Plants->Plant Creatures comparison. AKAIK, there's nothing to indicate that plant creatures are inherently magical, just that they are creatures (with ability scores) that have more in common biologicaly with an oak tree than a chipmunk. If I made a spell called Dominate Elemental would you insist that I put it in the Evocation school because it can control fire, which isn't alive or intelligent in any way?

Plus, the whole comparison is a little off, IMO. The whole point of magic is that does things that don't seem realisticly possible.
I think you could target a corpse or a plant with an enchantment spell, but it has no capacity to hear/understand you or to act under it's own power. The whole point of a magically animated corpse is that it CAN imitate life, to a certain degree at least. That's why I can't enchant statues but I CAN enchant "living constructs".

Why do you find it plausible that a "living construct" or an animal can have enough of a mind to be affected, but that a plant-creature or a intelligent undead (like a vampire) couldn't? I'm asking because I honestly don't see where you are drawing the distinction.

My biggest issue with the original rules are the apparent lack of consistency. If you said "yeah I don't think elementals or animals should be controllable either" then I might be able to get a handle on what you're getting at, but as far as I know you're not leaning that way in the slightest.

*coughQWOPcough*

I have no idea what you mean by this.

*googling*

HA! My best score is 1.43 meters!

But yeah, like that. I always assumed that since D&D wasn't clear on it, undead and constructs have either a fragment of a soul, or something that approximates one, which helps their psuedo-mind understand, obey, and carry out commands.

Well, the tropes of zombies and such generally peg them as at least as tough as humans in most cases, so I think d8 is fine; the main key is to reduce their HD drastically. Of course, this requires recalibrating their save DCs and feats (and possibly adjusting ability scores or whatever to put their DCs back in the right range), but making HD reasonably sane is the first step. (A few undead would also get extra turn resistance, but for the most part making Turn Undead useful again is a good goal.)

Not all undead are zombies, but isn't the usual zombie trope the horde-problem? One zombie is slow, uncoordinated, and stupid; 100 zombies are in implacable force; a sort of heat-seeking tidal wave.

Plus, it sort of appeals to me that undead are a little on the weak side and practically falling apart; that's why necromancers are constantly raiding graveyards for fresh corpses and need lots of them to make an effective army.

My idea is to either have separate spells like charm magical beast (and dragons), charm person (and monstrous humanoid and giant), and so on, like the list earlier:

Or else to have a single charm spell, psionics-style, and give a bonus to the save for any creature that is of a different supertype than the caster.

It would probably be a combination of both.

For a spell with a limited variety of effects, like Cause Fear, there can be just one version. For spells that let you pick and choose how to manipulate creatures or that have more complex effects (Charm & Dominate), there would be seperate versions depending on supertype.

TuggyNE

2013-05-28, 05:41 PM

I have no idea what you mean by this.

*googling*

HA! My best score is 1.43 meters!

But yeah, like that. I always assumed that since D&D wasn't clear on it, undead and constructs have either a fragment of a soul, or something that approximates one, which helps their psuedo-mind understand, obey, and carry out commands.

I think I got like 2 meters once. Never managed it again. Someone on these boards made it like 30+ meters, though.

It's not explicitly stated, but one of the possible reasons you can't raise someone who got undeadified without dusting the undead is that their soul is still bound, golem-style, to whatever undead form there is. Which would also conveniently explain the malice (being trapped in a bizarre little box with massively skewed perceptions and horribly limited thinking power is gonna really mess up your choices) and evil (chaining someone like that and denying their afterlife is pretty cruel) that even mindless undead exhibit.

Not all undead are zombies, but isn't the usual zombie trope the horde-problem? One zombie is slow, uncoordinated, and stupid; 100 zombies are in implacable force; a sort of heat-seeking tidal wave.

Plus, it sort of appeals to me that undead are a little on the weak side and practically falling apart; that's why necromancers are constantly raiding graveyards for fresh corpses and need lots of them to make an effective army.

Ehh, it's a matter of choice, but I figured zombies were slow and stupid, but not necessarily more fragile. (You basically have to headshot them, or tear them to tiny bits, to down them.)

For a spell with a limited variety of effects, like Cause Fear, there can be just one version. For spells that let you pick and choose how to manipulate creatures or that have more complex effects (Charm & Dominate), there would be seperate versions depending on supertype.

Hmm, I think I can buy that, although I gotta admit the deep simulationist aspect of reusing the same spell but with conditional save modifiers between supertypes still appeals to me.

Deaxsa

2013-05-28, 06:26 PM

if that is a racial trait, then can't you polymorph into a creature like that one to take advantage of the "mindless" feature, without actually being mindless?

Deepbluediver

2013-05-30, 02:06 PM

It's not explicitly stated, but one of the possible reasons you can't raise someone who got undeadified without dusting the undead is that their soul is still bound, golem-style, to whatever undead form there is. Which would also conveniently explain the malice (being trapped in a bizarre little box with massively skewed perceptions and horribly limited thinking power is gonna really mess up your choices) and evil (chaining someone like that and denying their afterlife is pretty cruel) that even mindless undead exhibit.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense and it fits in with what I was going for. I'll add to that the theory that Negative Energy isn't inherently evil, but it IS anti-life, which might also be a driving or compelling force.

Ehh, it's a matter of choice, but I figured zombies were slow and stupid, but not necessarily more fragile. (You basically have to headshot them, or tear them to tiny bits, to down them.)

HP in D&D has always been kind of abstract; any character can be stabbed, shot, beaten and burned, but so long as they have at least 1 HP left it doesn't bother them in the slightest...almost like a Hollywood zombie....hmmm :smallamused:

The difference between d6 and d8 is pretty small though, and I don't see anyone rushing to adopt this as a widespread change, so its' not a big deal, I think. My final thought on the matter is that the undead's lack of immune system, metabolism, and (probably) decaying form makes them much EASIER to pound into pieces. Being an undead is generally seen as undesirable (even for the intelligent ones) and a last-ditch effort to stave off final judgement; no reason for the every undead to be the Ubermenche.

Hmm, I think I can buy that, although I gotta admit the deep simulationist aspect of reusing the same spell but with conditional save modifiers between supertypes still appeals to me.

Why can't you do both? The all-purpose spells (Cause Fear) are easy, but even for spells specifically target at a creature type, if that creature type is different from your own it gains the +4 resistance bonus because of it's alien personality and physiology. As people have pointed out, Enchantment is powerful, so if we need this as a balancing factor then I'd say "go for it". The majority of games use humanoid NPCs, but there's a fair amount of support and desire for other types as well. Plus, this could make those capstones that change your type (monk/outsider) actually mean something.

if that is a racial trait, then can't you polymorph into a creature like that one to take advantage of the "mindless" feature, without actually being mindless?

I'm not certain. For Polymorph, maybe not, but Shapechange actually says you replace your type with that of your chosen form (and allows you to turn into things like Plants and Oozes). You keep your mental faculties, but it doesn't specify whether or not you also replace all racial traits and features though.

Waitingnomad

2013-05-30, 03:10 PM

The Undead type doesn't grant the mindless trait, like Vermin and Oozes. It grants immunity to mind affecting. Which means the immunity is due to being undead and has nothing to do with if it has a mind or not. And only minority of undead are actually mindless most have an intelligence score of some kind.
This.

The immunity to mind-affecting could be attributed to those mind-affecting effects being due to the manipulation of electronic nervous impulses in the brain, or hormones and chemoreceptors around the body etc. In this way, as an undead is driven by negative energy and not the nervous impulses that a normal living being, be it magical, humanoid or abberation, is subject to, it is similarly immune to the effects of spells manipulating those impulses. However, as mind-effecting effects do effect other creatures lacking in a manipulatable physiology e.g. elementals, the idea that a 'mind' in D&D is defined in physical scientific terms and not by an independent energy 'consciousness' doesn't hold through.

In D&D, a creature's 'mind' is very clearly distinct from their physical body. As far as I am aware, having a negative energy-dependent consciousness doesn't afford any inherent immunity to mind-affecting effects viz. Negative Energy Conduits don't gain any immunities to mind-affecting effects. That said, I can't bring any other negative energy-dependent creatures to mind to compare against, so it may be possible that creatures dependent on negative energy/ whose consciousnesses are formed from negative energy are immune to mind-affecting effects as the energy type forming their consciousness somehow prevents such magics from influencing them.

If this is not the case, at least Lichs have a justifiable defence (aside from mindless undead who don't have minds to affect in the first place). It could be argued that as established, a 'mind' in D&D is distinct from the physical body and its inherent traits, and thus a 'mind' is more synonymous with a 'soul' than anything else. This could be said to conform with undead fluff, as an intelligent undead is healed by negative energy because it is animated by negative magical energies. This suggests that an undead body is simply a corpse that gains traits (the undead template) partially from its nature as a corpse- it has no vital organs to critically hit; no metabolism or nervous system to shock. An undead's toughness can be justified by the irrelevance of the body, as it only 'dies' when it is completely destroyed and cannot die from the failings of the body (justifying the increase to d12 HD and Fort save immunities). The only subject of relevance is the energies animating the corpse, be they intelligent or otherwise. A Lich's soul and thus 'mind' is housed in its phylactery, and the body is simply a remotely controlled puppet and therefore no more subject to mind-affecting effects than an actual puppet.