Lich + undead traits Redundancy???

[Bellberith]

I was reading the lich template and i noticed that it has

Liches have immunity to cold, electricity, polymorph (though they can use polymorph effects on themselves), and mind-affecting attacks.

The thing about that i found peculiar is the "Mind-Affecting Attacks" portion of it.... why would it say that if in the undead traits it says

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

Are "Attacks" and "Effects" fundamentally different? or is this just a redundant overlap of immunities?

[Vhaidara]

Actually, I think there are a few spells that remove undead immunities. So it's a failsafe, since that's a lich immunity, not an undead immunity.

[Ravens_cry]

Actually, I think there are a few spells that remove undead immunities. So it's a failsafe, since that's a lich immunity, not an undead immunity.
Hmm, good point. A very lich-like precaution :smallamused:

[Lord Vukodlak]

Back during 3rd editions development Liches might have been partially written before the traits of the undead type were finalized. I suspect at some point in development undead weren't universally immune mind-affecting effects.

The spell "spark of life" didn't exist until Libris Mortis and even then... it doesn't remove an undead's immunity to mind-affecting. It removes all the physical immunities but not that.

[SimonMoon6]

Actually, I think there are a few spells that remove undead immunities. So it's a failsafe, since that's a lich immunity, not an undead immunity.

And I suppose there's the possibility that a template could change a lich from undead to something else.

[Bellberith]

could it mean that liches are immune to spells that specifically target undead?

such as halt undead or command undead.

[Anxe]

could it mean that liches are immune to spells that specifically target undead?

such as halt undead or command undead.

Maybe... But by RAW those aren't mind affecting.

[Bellberith]

Maybe... But by RAW those aren't mind affecting.

Really? i can see how halt undead might not be mind affecting. But command undead and control undead.... those types of spells that affect the way you view of the person casting them and/or control you completely are definitely mind affecting.

And i would assume anyone casting these spells is unfriendly to that particular lich, and the lich certainly do not want those spells cast on them. So wouldn't it technically be a "Mind-affecting Attack"? The lich would be immune to it even though it specifically targets undead.

Now that is just the RAW the way i am reading them. I could be wrong.

(and i do know this probably is not RAI)

[Lord Vukodlak]

And i would assume anyone casting these spells is unfriendly to that particular lich, and the lich certainly do not want those spells cast on them. So wouldn't it technically be a "Mind-affecting Attack"? The lich would be immune to it even though it specifically targets undead.
No Mind-Affecting descriptor means its not mind-affecting. The basic rub is undead don't have a brain. Command and Control Undead work because your usurping the necromantic energy that drives them.

You aren't controlling their mind but there soul... or whatever happens to pass for a soul.

[Anxe]

The traditional mind-affecting spell, Charm Person, is described as Enchantment (Charm, Mind-Affecting). Command Undead, Control Undead, and Halt Undead are all just Necromancy. No mind-affecting or any other descriptors.

The undead type also spells it out more clearly "Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)."

The specific undead spells have none of those descriptors, so they aren't included. I'll agree that is sort of weird. RAI does seem to follow that Lichs are immune to that stuff too. Otherwise, why would they be immune twice? RAW remains RAW though.

[Bellberith]

It wouldn't surprise me if it is either an overlap of immunities or just a poorly written way to say immune to necromantic effects.... not like we haven't seen worse typos and poorly written entries in D&D.

[Clistenes]

So, a mind-affecting spell modified by the Song of the Dead metamagic feat would affect lichs, or not?

[Lord Vukodlak]

So, a mind-affecting spell modified by the Song of the Dead metamagic feat would affect lichs, or not?

Well the wording of the feat says. "A mind-affecting spell modified by this feat works normally against intelligent undead creatures." I would take that to mean it works as if they weren't undead. The Lich gets immunity to mind-affecting twice, so no it wouldn't work.

[Elderand]

Well the wording of the feat says. "A mind-affecting spell modified by this feat works normally against intelligent undead creatures." I would take that to mean it works as if they weren't undead. The Lich gets immunity to mind-affecting twice, so no it wouldn't work.

that's one interpretation.

It's also possible that it would work against liches simply because a lich is an intelligent undead.

The language is not entirely unambiguous.

[Bellberith]

that's one interpretation.

It's also possible that it would work against liches simply because a lich is an intelligent undead.

The language is not entirely unambiguous.

The problem is that liches are the ONLY undead out there (atleast that i know of) that specifically have this immunity AND has undead traits on top of that.

so they either accidentally put it in. or they are immune to spells that normally target undead that require a will save (will save cause that is what most of mind-affecting spells boil down to)

[Krobar]

How would you rule it if the lich was a PC?

That's an important consideration to keep in mind. Eventually you'll have that if you get in to higher levels.

[Lord Vukodlak]

that's one interpretation.

It's also possible that it would work against liches simply because a lich is an intelligent undead.

The language is not entirely unambiguous.

If you go with that language then it bypass mind blank so long as the target was undead.

[Bellberith]

If i was the DM i would rule the NPC monster as being immune to spells that specifically target undead (that would be considered mind-affecting) so my big bag guy doesn't get cheesed.

but as for players i would say it was merely an overlapping immunity and they are affected normally. for balance.

(just from the DM perspective. as a player ofc i would want it the first way.)

[TuggyNE]

or they are immune to spells that normally target undead that require a will save (will save cause that is what most of mind-affecting spells boil down to)

That would be a very bad idea. Liches should not be immune to cure X wounds or heal, nor undeath to death.

[Bellberith]

That would be a very bad idea. Liches should not be immune to cure X wounds or heal, nor undeath to death.

not all spells that require a will save. just the ones that would be considered mind-affecting.

[TuggyNE]

not all spells that require a will save. just the ones that would be considered mind-affecting.

And which ones are those? Clearly not the ones with the [mind-affecting] tag, which has that purpose already. :smallconfused:

[Bellberith]

And which ones are those? Clearly not the ones with the [mind-affecting] tag, which has that purpose already. :smallconfused:

tbh i am not certain. i am just trying to find a reason why the liches have that immunity written in. other than it being a mistake.

ones that i would consider mind-affecting (even though it does not have the tag) would be things like turn/rebuke undead, command undead, halt undead, control undead.

But i know those don't carry the tag so they would bypass both either way, like all spells that specifically target undead. But then that just means the lich immunity is entirely superfluous other than if someone were to somehow remove your undead immunities like someone said above.

[Lord Vukodlak]

tbh i am not certain. i am just trying to find a reason why the liches have that immunity written in. other than it being a mistake.
You've already been given several reasons. It could be a mistake, it could be a hold over from before the type traits were finalized it could be there just as a reminder because people often forget things like intelligent undead are immune to mind-affecting.


ones that i would consider mind-affecting (even though it does not have the tag) would be things like turn/rebuke undead, command undead, halt undead, control undead. Except they aren't mind-affecting anything lacking The Mind-Affecting tag is not mind-affecting period Turning Immunity is its own thing, the good lich's presented in Monsters of Faerun for example have Turning Immunity

[Bellberith]

You've already been given several reasons.

by "several reasons" you mean to block some random metamagic feat that came out after the lich or the spell that could potentially remove undead traits (that also likely came out after the lich)

[Lord Vukodlak]

by "several reasons" you mean to block some random metamagic feat that came out after the lich or the spell that could potentially remove undead traits (that also likely came out after the lich)

It could be a hold over from before the types were finalized. Undead might not always have been intended to be immune to mind-affecting but Liches were so when they wrote 3rd edition it was included in the template. It could be there as a reminder a lot of people don't realize that intelligent undead are still immune to mind-affecting

Whatever it means, it is likely a redundancy which really isn't a problem. What it could be though I can't find a line in the text to support this is.

Lich's can polymorph themselves which could change their type and cause the loss of undead immunities however there is nothing to support that templated abilities are retained.

[TuggyNE]

by "several reasons" you mean to block some random metamagic feat that came out after the lich or the spell that could potentially remove undead traits (that also likely came out after the lich)

Just think of it as forward compatibility, preparing for the future.

[Krobar]

If i was the DM i would rule the NPC monster as being immune to spells that specifically target undead (that would be considered mind-affecting) so my big bag guy doesn't get cheesed.

but as for players i would say it was merely an overlapping immunity and they are affected normally. for balance.

(just from the DM perspective. as a player ofc i would want it the first way.)

So you would rule it one way for your bad guy but another way for players? I'm glad I don't play in your game. That isn't fair to your players.

[Bellberith]

So you would rule it one way for your bad guy but another way for players? I'm glad I don't play in your game. That isn't fair to your players.

The big bad guy should ALWAYS be immune to moldy cheese. Especially in the form of paralysis via undead weakness (in this case).

I would rule it that way for my villain because i would not want him to go down without a real fight that my players will enjoy.

As for a player. They should always be much more susceptible to stuff like this. weakness in a character in some form HAS to be there. otherwise why would you need a party? just do everything alone.

The decisions i make regarding stuff like this that is ambiguous is always for the balance of my games and enjoyment for my players.

[Harbinger]

Using Turn Undead to Turn an undead isn't really what most would consider "cheese"...

[Bellberith]

Using Turn Undead to Turn an undead isn't really what most would consider "cheese"...

That is very true. In the case of a normal encounter i completely agree.

(discounting turn resistance + higher level) if the lich that was supposed to be the villain of a major portion of my campaign was subject to turn undead/ any spell that specifically targeted undead that would more or less end the fight i do consider that cheese.

Anything that can end a boss fight without a real "fight" i would consider cheese and disallow for those types of encounters.

against normal enemies in an encounter? sure, kill/defeat them in the least taxing way possible if you so desire.

And when did i say turn undead was cheese?

[Bellberith]

You've already been given several reasons. It could be a mistake, it could be a hold over from before the type traits were finalized it could be there just as a reminder because people often forget things like intelligent undead are immune to mind-affecting.

Except they aren't mind-affecting anything lacking The Mind-Affecting tag is not mind-affecting period Turning Immunity is its own thing, the good lich's presented in Monsters of Faerun for example have Turning Immunity

I dont know if you didn't read my post, or just the parts you wanted to read. but i said underneath the part you quoted that i know they dont have the mind-affecting tag. You misunderstood when i said i would consider them mind-affecting because causing one to have an irrational fear of you and/or forcing them to do your bidding is a mind-affecting effect in every other aspect of the game except when it pertains to undead. And that is purely to get around this immunity.

Obviously the lich is not immune to turning. I was using that and other spells as an example of what i would consider mind-affecting effects for spells that do not carry the tag. As i already explained earlier had you read my post fully.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I dont know if you didn't read my post, or just the parts you wanted to read.
No I read all your posts


It wouldn't surprise me if it is either an overlap of immunities or just a poorly written way to say immune to necromantic effects.... not like we haven't seen worse typos and poorly written entries in D&D.
Here you infer the your theory the mind-affecting immunity granted by the template would apply to somethign else.


or they are immune to spells that normally target undead that require a will save (will save cause that is what most of mind-affecting spells boil down to)
And here you flat out state the theory.

[TuggyNE]

(discounting turn resistance + higher level) if the lich that was supposed to be the villain of a major portion of my campaign was subject to turn undead/ any spell that specifically targeted undead that would more or less end the fight i do consider that cheese.

Turn resistance, a good Will save, and a higher level are the intended defenses that liches, as common candidates for major boss status, possess against turning. That's how it's supposed to work. If you don't think that's good enough, give them more turn resistance (within reason, and preferably using the mechanisms the rules provide), a better Will save (again, within reason and using the rules mechanisms), or just make them a higher level.

Any approach to boss battles that starts with "well, that tactic the players might try is too effective, so I shall fiat in some patchwork reason it doesn't work, and repeat the process until they do it the way I think they should" is one that is fundamentally at odds with some of the best parts of D&D: the ability for players to produce better stories than the DM can alone, and the reliance on consistent and plausible rules that apply to the whole world.


You misunderstood when i said i would consider them mind-affecting because causing one to have an irrational fear of you and/or forcing them to do your bidding is a mind-affecting effect in every other aspect of the game except when it pertains to undead.

Turning is non-mind-affecting for a reason, and a good one at that: it doesn't attack the mind. More specifically, an Enchantment or Necromancy spell that instills terror will, of course, need to attack mental channels to do so; if those are not there, or are completely non-standard, then the spell simply fails. That's why mindless creatures, for example, are automatically immune to mind-affecting spells.

But all undead are animated along similar lines by negative energy, and turning attacks those channels instead: it literally uses positive energy against its antithesis to cause a primal aversion that has nothing to do with any mind its target may or may not have. That's why it works on completely mindless undead, as well as on regular undead of any sort, and not on any other sort of creature, and that's why only goodish* clerics can turn: evilish clerics are unable to channel positive energy spontaneously that way.

For another example of a spell that is not mind-affecting but involves utter obedience, look no further than ooze puppet (Transmutation).

*I.e., Good clerics, Neutral clerics of Good deities, or clerics of Neutral deities that decide to be on the Good end of the spectrum.

[Ravens_cry]

If i was the DM i would rule the NPC monster as being immune to spells that specifically target undead (that would be considered mind-affecting) so my big bag guy doesn't get cheesed.

but as for players i would say it was merely an overlapping immunity and they are affected normally. for balance.

(just from the DM perspective. as a player ofc i would want it the first way.)
And as a player and by my philosophy as a DM, that, good sir and/or madam, I would call that completely unfair. If you rule Liches to be immune to mind affecting because of being undead and the players are prone to bypassing it on your baddie, add another layer another way, like Mind Blank for example.

[Bellberith]

No I read all your posts


Here you infer the your theory the mind-affecting immunity granted by the template would apply to somethign else.


And here you flat out state the theory.

Yes and i was trying to think of reasons as to why that piece of text was there and maybe it meant something else because it does not make sense. I never said that was the case. I stated that perhaps they meant to write "immunity to necromancy effects" which would cover most everything i said.


And as a player and by my philosophy as a DM, that, good sir and/or madam, I would call that completely unfair. If you rule Liches to be immune to mind affecting because of being undead and the players are prone to bypassing it on your baddie, add another layer another way, like Mind Blank for example.

Firstly, my players wouldn't be liches until atleast level 15-16 anyway. And with the +4 LA they would pretty much be done.

Now, that aside, i intentionally make my bad guys immune to certain things because like i said before a fight that is over in a flash with no real challenge is boring as hell. I don't need to come up with reasons as to why he is immune. Just that he is.

The players can go about the encounter and make creative ways to kill him all they want. I am by no means stifling creativity. Actually by making sure he is not killed instantly i am promoting it.


Any approach to boss battles that starts with "well, that tactic the players might try is too effective, so I shall fiat in some patchwork reason it doesn't work, and repeat the process until they do it the way I think they should" is one that is fundamentally at odds with some of the best parts of D&D: the ability for players to produce better stories than the DM can alone, and the reliance on consistent and plausible rules that apply to the whole world.

Making sure my boss doesn't get 1 shot is at odds with the best part of D&D?

Better stories are not made of "we went around the continent and fought many hard battles. After we finally found the lich's lair and killed all his minions. The lich failed 1 will save and he was immobile and helpless. So we killed him and his phylactery"

There is 1 thing that story is missing. And that is an awesome fight.

My players can make tactics all they want. As long as it does not involve casting 1 spell that renders the lich helpless (which btw is not a strategy... "hey Ariana, just cast (insert spell) on him. Should be easy.").


Turning is non-mind-affecting for a reason, and a good one at that: it doesn't attack the mind. More specifically, an Enchantment or Necromancy spell that instills terror will, of course, need to attack mental channels to do so; if those are not there, or are completely non-standard, then the spell simply fails. That's why mindless creatures, for example, are automatically immune to mind-affecting spells.

But all undead are animated along similar lines by negative energy, and turning attacks those channels instead: it literally uses positive energy against its antithesis to cause a primal aversion that has nothing to do with any mind its target may or may not have. That's why it works on completely mindless undead, as well as on regular undead of any sort, and not on any other sort of creature, and that's why only goodish* clerics can turn: evilish clerics are unable to channel positive energy spontaneously that way.

How many times have i already said in my previous posts? I KNOW that turn undead and those other spells don't carry the mind-affecting tag

What i was saying is that the effects they produce affect the mind. I don't care what the reason is. If you suddenly have an immense fear of this guy because he did something. That affects your mind. Fear is handled in the brain, not the body. That is why fear is actually under mind-affecting as "morale effects".

And there are many other circumstances where a spell that targets undead does not have the mind-affecting tag. But has a mind-affecting effect. (but again, before you take it out of context. I know it bypasses the immunities. Like i have said a few times before in this thread.)

And as a side-note. If they can be afraid of you (no matter the reason). Then they aren't truly mindless.

[Ravens_cry]

Firstly, my players wouldn't be liches until atleast level 15-16 anyway. And with the +4 LA they would pretty much be done.

Now, that aside, i intentionally make my bad guys immune to certain things because like i said before a fight that is over in a flash with no real challenge is boring as hell. I don't need to come up with reasons as to why he is immune. Just that he is.

The players can go about the encounter and make creative ways to kill him all they want. I am by no means stifling creativity. Actually by making sure he is not killed instantly i am promoting it.

That's not my problem. Double 'shielding' is certainly the RAW approach and it's possibly the RAI approach.
My problem is you making one ruling for PC and another for NPC versions of the exact same creature.
Surely you can make an enemy spellcaster tricky enough without resorting to such arbitrary measures? That is my issue. This isn't 'creativity' so much as 'Let's play "Guess how the DM wants you to beat this creature."'

[TuggyNE]

Making sure my boss doesn't get 1 shot is at odds with the best part of D&D?

Better stories are not made of "we went around the continent and fought many hard battles. After we finally found the lich's lair and killed all his minions. The lich failed 1 will save and he was immobile and helpless. So we killed him and his phylactery"

There is 1 thing that story is missing. And that is an awesome fight.

My players can make tactics all they want. As long as it does not involve casting 1 spell that renders the lich helpless (which btw is not a strategy... "hey Ariana, just cast (insert spell) on him. Should be easy.").

It depends on how you do it. If your methodology is "my players will likely do X, Y, or Z, which are far too effective, so my boss will have arbitrary immunities to all of those (and perhaps any others they come up with on the fly) because BOSS FIGHT", then my previous criticism applies. If, instead, your methodology is "a lich knows most of his weaknesses and will attempt to mitigate them by using methods A, B, and C, and the PCs can try to get around those in the usual ways or just brute-force through them or whatever", then it works far better.

See, here's the thing. If you fiat in arbitrary immunities, you're closing the encounter down closer to what you personally imagine it should be like, rather than letting it organically form from the characters involved and the choices of the players. And anything that tends toward "here's my story, and here's how it turns out" is a bad thing.


What i was saying is that the effects they produce affect the mind.

They don't. Full stop. Turning undead (and command/control undead) affects the negative energy animating the undead, not any mind they do or do not have. Similarly, ooze puppet does not affect the mind that oozes don't have: it directly overrides their body functions and prevents them from acting normally, which produces an effect superficially very similar to dominating them, despite working by entirely different methods.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that the rules are really quite consistent about stating that Turn Undead/command/control/halt undead are not, and are not meant to be, and should not be considered to be, mind-affecting in any way. That's specifically not the method they use to achieve their ends.

[Bellberith]

It depends on how you do it. If your methodology is "my players will likely do X, Y, or Z, which are far too effective, so my boss will have arbitrary immunities to all of those (and perhaps any others they come up with on the fly) because BOSS FIGHT", then my previous criticism applies. If, instead, your methodology is "a lich knows most of his weaknesses and will attempt to mitigate them by using methods A, B, and C, and the PCs can try to get around those in the usual ways or just brute-force through them or whatever", then it works far better.

See, here's the thing. If you fiat in arbitrary immunities, you're closing the encounter down closer to what you personally imagine it should be like, rather than letting it organically form from the characters involved and the choices of the players. And anything that tends toward "here's my story, and here's how it turns out" is a bad thing.



They don't. Full stop. Turning undead (and command/control undead) affects the negative energy animating the undead, not any mind they do or do not have. Similarly, ooze puppet does not affect the mind that oozes don't have: it directly overrides their body functions and prevents them from acting normally, which produces an effect superficially very similar to dominating them, despite working by entirely different methods.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that the rules are really quite consistent about stating that Turn Undead/[I]command/control/halt undead[I] are not, and are not meant to be, and should not be considered to be, mind-affecting in any way. That's specifically not the method they use to achieve their ends.

You obviously do not understand what i am typing. Please move along.

[TuggyNE]

You obviously do not understand what i am typing.

Well, I certainly disagree with you, but in what way do I not understand? Specifically, your previous post made it quite clear that you consider Turn Undead et al to, essentially, affect undead minds ("What i was saying is that the effects they produce affect the mind", "And there are many other circumstances where a spell that targets undead does not have the mind-affecting tag. But has a mind-affecting effect"). And my reply to that was that they do not: that they instead affect undead physiology, as it were, the channels of negative energy that continually animate all undead. The net result is something that looks an awful lot like normal fear, but is simulated, just like undead are simulations of life.

From a different perspective, if your idea of the game's fluff directly contradicts the game's idea of its own fluff in numerous places ([mind-affecting], mindless, etc), it is generally wise to sit back and consider why that is, and whether it's possible that you have a misconception of some aspect of the game.

[Bellberith]

Well, I certainly disagree with you, but in what way do I not understand? Specifically, your previous post made it quite clear that you consider Turn Undead et al to, essentially, affect undead minds ("What i was saying is that the effects they produce affect the mind", "And there are many other circumstances where a spell that targets undead does not have the mind-affecting tag. But has a mind-affecting effect"). And my reply to that was that they do not: that they instead affect undead physiology, as it were, the channels of negative energy that continually animate all undead. The net result is something that looks an awful lot like normal fear, but is simulated, just like undead are simulations of life.

From a different perspective, if your idea of the game's fluff directly contradicts the game's idea of its own fluff in numerous places ([mind-affecting], mindless, etc), it is generally wise to sit back and consider why that is, and whether it's possible that you have a misconception of some aspect of the game.

I have already made it painstakingly clear that i know turn undead/the other spells are not mind affecting according to the game.

What i was saying is the affects they produce in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SPELL in the game that produce similar affects ARE mind affecting.

Now i never once said they should carry the mind-affecting tag.

If you can't understand that then please move on.

[Elderand]

I have already made it painstakingly clear that i know turn undead/the other spells are not mind affecting according to the game.

What i was saying is the affects they produce in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SPELL in the game that produce similar affects ARE mind affecting.

Now i never once said they should carry the mind-affecting tag.

If you can't understand that then please move on.

You clearly seem unable to comprehend the simple fact that if a spell does not carry the mind affecting tag then it isn't mind affecting.

[Bellberith]

You clearly seem unable to comprehend the simple fact that if a spell does not carry the mind affecting tag then it isn't mind affecting.

Clearly

Even though i have stated multiple times in the thread otherwise. Obviously you are correct.

[TuggyNE]

I have already made it painstakingly clear that i know turn undead/the other spells are not mind affecting according to the game.

What i was saying is the affects they produce in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SPELL in the game that produce similar affects ARE mind affecting.

OK. Now I don't think I understand you. You're saying that they aren't [mind-affecting], shouldn't be [mind-affecting], but that the same exact effect is [mind-affecting] in all other cases, and thus that (non-PC, at least) liches should be immune to them because they're immune to mind-affecting effects.

Have I got that right? Because that does not, to my mind, actually cohere; it seems contradictory. I had previously thought that you wished to rewrite those spells and abilities to have the [mind-affecting] tag, just like all similar abilities; while this seemed to me wrong, it was at least consistent.


Now i never once said they should carry the mind-affecting tag.

Then what does this mean?


ones that i would consider mind-affecting (even though it does not have the tag) would be things like turn/rebuke undead, command undead, halt undead, control undead.

Either they are or should be mind-affecting (in which case they should have the tag, because that's what the tag means) or else they aren't (in which case, they … aren't and shouldn't have the tag). You can't have it both ways; either precedent and fluff logic dictate that the tag should be on those spells and abilities, or else they do not.

[Bellberith]

OK. Now I don't think I understand you. You're saying that they aren't [mind-affecting], shouldn't be [mind-affecting], but that the same exact effect is [mind-affecting] in all other cases, and thus that (non-PC, at least) liches should be immune to them because they're immune to mind-affecting effects.

Have I got that right? Because that does not, to my mind, actually cohere; it seems contradictory. I had previously thought that you wished to rewrite those spells and abilities to have the [mind-affecting] tag, just like all similar abilities; while this seemed to me wrong, it was at least consistent.



Then what does this mean?



Either they are or should be mind-affecting (in which case they should have the tag, because that's what the tag means) or else they aren't (in which case, they … aren't and shouldn't have the tag). You can't have it both ways; either precedent and fluff logic dictate that the tag should be on those spells and abilities, or else they do not.

They are not, and should not be mind-affecting. because they are made to affect undead. and if they carried the mind-affecting tag that would be contradictory to the undead immunity.

That is the reason they do not carry the tag. Which is why i said i would consider them to be mind-affecting (EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT TAGGED) purely because (AS I SAID BEFORE IN OTHER POSTS) the effects they cause are mind-affecting in every other aspect of the game.

Now you may try to refute this point. But nothing you can say will change that fact. There is no evidence you can provide that can say morale effects and effects that control the mind are not mind affecting. even if they do not carry the tag because we all know (as previously stated) the only reason they do not carry the tag is to circumvent the undead immunity.

I do not and have never implied to want to rewrite these spells. Because if they had the tag then it would not make sense.

I did say that the writers MAY have meant to write "immunity to necromantic effects" which would make them immune to all these spells. (dunno bout turning on this one. but at-least all the other spells that pertain.) Because that would make the most sense to me if they did intend to write that text.

It was pure speculation that somebody thought i said as fact even though i worded it as a "maybe". Because nobody knows if it was a mistake or not. (i have not seen anything about it or heard of anyone who knew for a fact.)

and as for the "Then what does this mean" please read the fifth word in that sentence. Consider, not THEY ARE, or THEY SHOULD HAVE THE TAG. But i said "ones that i would consider to be mind-affecting" when i compare them to similar spells with non-undead targets.

[TuggyNE]

There is no evidence you can provide that can say morale effects and effects that control the mind are not mind affecting.

Of course not. Effects that control the mind are mind-affecting, by simple definition, and vice versa; any effect that controls the mind must, perforce, have the [mind-affecting] tag, because that is what that tag means. And thus, by elimination, any effect that does not have the [mind-affecting] tag cannot be controlling the mind. That's all there is to it.

What I have argued, however, is that Turn and company do not in fact affect the mind in any sort of way, but work by the interplay of positive and negative energy.
Good clerics and paladins and some neutral clerics can channel positive energy, which can halt, drive off (rout), or destroy undead. As far as I know, you have not really addressed this, except to deny the premise that any spell or special ability that produces effects that are similar to [mind-affecting] effects can be anything but ("considered") mind-affecting.


even if they do not carry the tag because we all know (as previously stated) the only reason they do not carry the tag is to circumvent the undead immunity.

I don't know that, and have stated the contrary. I.e., that the main reason they don't have the tag is because they do not in fact work in the usual fashion, and are thus in no meaningful sense "mind-affecting".

Think of undead as magical robots of death for a bit, if you will, and consider what happens if you hack into magical death-robot programming by shoving concentrated life at its circuits in a particular way. It's highly liable to show weird behavior, even if it has only the crudest sort of behavioral programming to start with. And if enough is shoved in, it will blow up. That is approximately how turning works, with the minor proviso that apparently magical death-robots are capable of trying to avoid such concentrations of life energy.


and as for the "Then what does this mean" please read the fifth word in that sentence. Consider, not THEY ARE, or THEY SHOULD HAVE THE TAG. But i said "ones that i would consider to be mind-affecting" when i compare them to similar spells with non-undead targets.

What substantial difference is there between "is mind-affecting" and "is considered mind-affecting"? In D&D terms, something that is "considered to be" X is treated as X for purposes of immunities, bonuses, penalties, special effects, and so on.

Or, put another way, what's the difference between considering something mind-affecting, and considering something [mind-affecting]? D&D rules don't even put brackets around tags in ordinary text, so even the distinction I just made does not exist in RAW.

[Bellberith]

Of course not. Effects that control the mind are mind-affecting, by simple definition, and vice versa; any effect that controls the mind must, perforce, have the [mind-affecting] tag, because that is what that tag means. And thus, by elimination, any effect that does not have the [mind-affecting] tag cannot be controlling the mind. That's all there is to it.

What I have argued, however, is that Turn and company do not in fact affect the mind in any sort of way, but work by the interplay of positive and negative energy. As far as I know, you have not really addressed this, except to deny the premise that any spell or special ability that produces effects that are similar to [mind-affecting] effects can be anything but ("considered") mind-affecting.



I don't know that, and have stated the contrary. I.e., that the main reason they don't have the tag is because they do not in fact work in the usual fashion, and are thus in no meaningful sense "mind-affecting".

Think of undead as magical robots of death for a bit, if you will, and consider what happens if you hack into magical death-robot programming by shoving concentrated life at its circuits in a particular way. It's highly liable to show weird behavior, even if it has only the crudest sort of behavioral programming to start with. And if enough is shoved in, it will blow up. That is approximately how turning works, with the minor proviso that apparently magical death-robots are capable of trying to avoid such concentrations of life energy.



What substantial difference is there between "is mind-affecting" and "is considered mind-affecting"? In D&D terms, something that is "considered to be" X is treated as X for purposes of immunities, bonuses, penalties, special effects, and so on.

Or, put another way, what's the difference between considering something mind-affecting, and considering something [mind-affecting]? D&D rules don't even put brackets around tags in ordinary text, so even the distinction I just made does not exist in RAW.

The machine reference is only would pertain to mindless undead.

Intelligent undead are a different story.

It does not matter that "it does not work in the usual fashion" the end result is a mind-affecting effect. Your BODY is not scared of something. period. fear is something registered 100% by the mind. And as for controlling, when they are controlling you they can say "say your mother is fat" and the intelligent undead would say "my mother is fat" (possibly "your mother is fat" depending on how the undead understood the command). Again speech is registered through the mind. mind-affecting.

I never said "Is considered" so the entire last part is moot.

[Elderand]

The machine reference is only would pertain to mindless undead.

Intelligent undead are a different story.

It does not matter that "it does not work in the usual fashion" the end result is a mind-affecting effect. Your BODY is not scared of something. period. fear is something registered 100% by the mind. And as for controlling, when they are controlling you they can say "say your mother is fat" and the intelligent undead would say "my mother is fat" (possibly "your mother is fat" depending on how the undead understood the command). Again speech is registered through the mind. mind-affecting.

I never said "Is considered" so the entire last part is moot.

Except the end result isn't mind affecting at all. And yes you clearly can't grasp that. There is no disconnect between an effect being mind affecting and having the mind affecting tag, you can dance around with hot potatoes in your ears all you want singing how it's obvious that turn undead is mind affecting, that doesn't make it true.

Worse your point is utterly inconsistent. How does turn undead work on mindless undead if it's a mind affecting effect like you claim ? There isn't a mind to affect at all, not even a pseudo mind.

Turn undead and undeads work like magnet and iron.
Some bits of iron will be too big to attract or repel, likewise someundead will be unaffected by turn attempts because they have too many HD, requireing a better turn attempt/larger magnet.

Or do you consider iron to suffer from a mind affecting effect ?

[Bellberith]

Except the end result isn't mind affecting at all. And yes you clearly can't grasp that. There is no disconnect between an effect being mind affecting and having the mind affecting tag, you can dance around with hot potatoes in your ears all you want singing how it's obvious that turn undead is mind affecting, that doesn't make it true.

Worse your point is utterly inconsistent. How does turn undead work on mindless undead if it's a mind affecting effect like you claim ? There isn't a mind to affect at all, not even a pseudo mind.

Turn undead and undeads work like magnet and iron.
Some bits of iron will be too big to attract or repel, likewise someundead will be unaffected by turn attempts because they have too many HD, requireing a better turn attempt/larger magnet.

Or do you consider iron to suffer from a mind affecting effect ?

Your point doesn't even make sense. working like a magnet = HD you could apply that to all spells that have HD limits and say the same thing. mind affecting or not.

And if there is no mind and/or pseudomind then how do they follow commands of a necromancer? You certainly do not control their body. Because it says you may only give "simple commands" for them to follow. and if the command is complex they may get confused. How can a mindless creature become confused? Also if you controlled their body like you claim why have to give verbal commands at all?

[Elderand]

Undeads don't have minds at all.
Even inteligent undeads don't have minds.

What they have is negative energy copy of a mind. One that is not tied to pesky hormones, or souls.

In other words undead have the equivalent of a magical A.I. powered by the ultimate force of destruction and entropy. Or an anti mind.

The end result may look and act like a mind but it isn't one.

[Bellberith]

Undeads don't have minds at all.
Even inteligent undeads don't have minds.

What they have is negative energy copy of a mind. One that is not tied to pesky hormones, or souls.

In other words undead have the equivalent of a magical A.I. powered by the ultimate force of destruction and entropy. Or an anti mind.

The end result may look and act like a mind but it isn't one.

If they have a negative energy copy of a mind would that not be a pseudomind? something you said previously they did not have. And that pseudo(fake)mind acts like a real one. Mind-affecting spells target most non-undead things (excluding constructs and whatnot) that have a real mind. the other spells that affect undead target the undead specific "fake"mind so they don't have the mind-affecting tag but they still have effects similar to the ones that do.

Which is the point i was getting at this whole time.

And if it is a negative energy copy then even the "mindless" undead have one.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts as a duck. It is probably a duck. Or something pretty damn close.

The simple fact is you don't "control" them with positive/negative energy current or anything of the form. Because if you controlled their body then that falls back on my previous point. Why have to give verbal commands? (and they must be simple at that pointing towards their low-nonexistent intelligence) just will them to do your bidding and exactly what you want. But according to D&D you can't just "will" them to do your bidding. you MUST give a verbal command.

[Elderand]

If they have a negative energy copy of a mind would that not be a pseudomind? something you said previously they did not have.

I used pseudo mind in the sense of the difference between a human mind and an animal mind.


And if it is a negative energy copy then even the "mindless" undead have one.

What mindless undead have is a very degraded copy of a mind. Inteligent undead are stuck with whatever outlook they had in life but are still capable of reasoning. Mindless undead have a copy of a mind that is even less smart than animal level mind.


If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts as a duck. It is probably a duck. Or something pretty damn close.

And that's where you and the game have a completely different point of view. For the game if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts as a duck it better damn well be made of duck meat and bones and organs and chemicals and neural pathway to be a duck.

In other word in dnd a mind is more than the sum of it's actions. Undeads may act like they have minds, thinks like they have minds and look like they have minds but they don't actually have minds.

This is the situation undead are in.

http://www.vulgart.be/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Magritte-La-trahison-de-image.jpg



The simple fact is you don't "control" them with positive/negative energy current or anything of the form. Because if you controlled their body then that falls back on my previous point. Why have to give verbal commands? (and they must be simple at that pointing towards their low-nonexistent intelligence) just will them to do your bidding and exactly what you want. But according to D&D you can't just "will" them to do your bidding. you MUST give a verbal command.

I never said you controlled the body like a puppets. And you do need magic to gain control of an undead.
It's like a computer, you don't control it directly either, you input commands with a keyboard and mouse or whatever you may use. You don't move each part and each electron by hand.
Using magic is like hacking the computer or entering the correct password.

The developpers could have made an [anti-mind affecting] tag for things like turn undead but they didn't, they specified which things affected undeads and undeads only and called it a day.

[Vortenger]

I have already made it painstakingly clear that i know turn undead/the other spells are not mind affecting according to the game.

What i was saying is the affects they produce in EVERY SINGLE OTHER SPELL in the game that produce similar affects ARE mind affecting.

Now i never once said they should carry the mind-affecting tag.

If you can't understand that then please move on.

No, you didn't. I followed along the thread quite well, and was receiving the same information TuggyNE did. He responded correctly, I think, given what he had to work with. What you say here was much more concise. Thank you.

FWIW, I agree with TuggyNE, this construct of 'mind-affecting, but not mind affecting, because undead, but not when my PC's arrive at the same spot' thing sounds incredibly complex, unnecessary, dubious in concept, defeating of the awesome fluff built into the game, and the most egregious crime of all: A double standard when dealing with rules and your players.

Bad form, old boy, bad form.

[Bellberith]

I used pseudo mind in the sense of the difference between a human mind and an animal mind.



What mindless undead have is a very degraded copy of a mind. Inteligent undead are stuck with whatever outlook they had in life but are still capable of reasoning. Mindless undead have a copy of a mind that is even less smart than animal level mind.



And that's where you and the game have a completely different point of view. For the game if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts as a duck it better damn well be made of duck meat and bones and organs and chemicals and neural pathway to be a duck.

In other word in dnd a mind is more than the sum of it's actions. Undeads may act like they have minds, thinks like they have minds and look like they have minds but they don't actually have minds.

This is the situation undead are in.

http://www.vulgart.be/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Magritte-La-trahison-de-image.jpg




I never said you controlled the body like a puppets. And you do need magic to gain control of an undead.
It's like a computer, you don't control it directly either, you input commands with a keyboard and mouse or whatever you may use. You don't move each part and each electron by hand.
Using magic is like hacking the computer or entering the correct password.

The developpers could have made an [anti-mind affecting] tag for things like turn undead but they didn't, they specified which things affected undeads and undeads only and called it a day.

We are getting nowhere with this. Because i can come back with what i have been saying all along. unless you would like to go through the motions again move along. Obviously what i am saying is not getting through to you. And i am sure you feel the same about me.


No, you didn't. I followed along the thread quite well, and was receiving the same information TuggyNE did. He responded correctly, I think, given what he had to work with. What you say here was much more concise. Thank you.

FWIW, I agree with TuggyNE, this construct of 'mind-affecting, but not mind affecting, because undead, but not when my PC's arrive at the same spot' thing sounds incredibly complex, unnecessary, dubious in concept, defeating of the awesome fluff built into the game, and the most egregious crime of all: A double standard when dealing with rules and your players.

Bad form, old boy, bad form.

The way i rule things to make encounters fun is my business and mine alone. It is not bad form to have my players enjoy an awesome encounter.

Jumping in on a thread that should have been closed long ago to give an entirely unwanted and unnecessary answer. That said absolutely nothing not already stated before.

Bad form, old boy, bad form.