Craven and Mind Blank? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

AnonymousPepper

2015-04-11, 11:49 AM

No, the problem is that Mind Blank is a super-important high level buff for a DPS-heavy class, especially ones with weak will saves, because a Dominate (or worse) dropped on the Rogue and triggered with an order to kill the party at a bad time can lead to a TPK quite easily.

Source: was running basically a boss rush session as a mid-high-op Artificer, with a pretty tanky and high-damage 2H Ranger (helped that he'd been turned into a vampire) and an optimized Bard, and we had a pretty well-made Scout (using Darren's max skirmish damage build) and... she got hit by a Brain in a Jar without us knowing, and during the final fight against an Entropic Reaper, she turned on us. The bard died round one, the Ranger got Planeshifted by the Reaper, and my AC wasn't quite good enough to shrug off enough of her shots (for COMPLETELY unrelated reasons, soon afterward I kicked my AC into the 40s and gave myself Greater Blink and Selective Spell Antimagic Field wondrous items) and she managed to kill me before I could corner her.

It ended up not mattering (the whole boss rush night had been planned as a dreamscape), but that was a TPK.

The point here is, Mind Blank saves parties when glass cannons and nukers and such without good Will saves are involved.

Lo77o

2015-04-11, 12:17 PM

DeltaEmil

2015-04-11, 12:34 PM

sleepyphoenixx

2015-04-11, 12:36 PM

Why would Mind Blank negate Craven? .. It gives you immunity to mind effecting effetcs etc, but not fear. There are multible fear effects thats not mind effecting, and multible mind effecting effects thats not fear effects. The fact that they sometimes overlap dont mean its the same thing.

All fear effects are mind-affecting. See the SRD entry on fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear). Anything that makes you immune to mind-affecting makes you immune to fear and so negates Craven.

All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects. A failed roll usually means that the character is shaken, frightened, or panicked.

On topic: You need some defense against mind-affecting, but it doesn't have to be Mind Blank. Most games don't even last long enough to get there, and there's tons of will save boosters and stuff that gives a bonus specifically against fear.
Protection from Evil will take care of the worst stuff (domination/possession), for the rest you can get by with a Cloak of Resistance, the Mindarmor armer enhancement (MIC, 3000gp) and a Greater Crystal of Mind Cloaking (MIC, 10000gp).
That's a +15 to will saves against mind-affecting, which should be enough for almost any threat.

Thrice Dead Cat

2015-04-11, 12:51 PM

While there are some abilities that tell you what feats or abilities someone else has, they are few and far between.

AnonymousPepper

2015-04-11, 12:55 PM

All fear effects are mind-affecting. See the SRD entry on fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear). Anything that makes you immune to mind-affecting makes you immune to fear and so negates Craven.

On topic: You need some defense against mind-affecting, but it doesn't have to be Mind Blank. Most games don't even last long enough to get there, and there's tons of will save boosters and stuff that gives a bonus specifically against fear.
Protection from Evil will take care of the worst stuff (domination/possession), for the rest you can get by with a Cloak of Resistance, the Mindarmor armer enhancement (MIC, 3000gp) and a Greater Crystal of Mind Cloaking (MIC, 10000gp).
That's a +15 to will saves against mind-affecting, which should be enough for almost any threat.

Prot from Evil by RAW only protects from effects created by evil creatures.

In other words, working with your typical good-aligned party, CN and TN baddies will still ruin your day semi-often, the latter without anything you can do about it.

Also, Eyebite is NOT tagged mind-affecting, but still creates fear effects (shaken, etc.), just to throw that out there.

sleepyphoenixx

2015-04-11, 01:01 PM

Prot from Evil by RAW only protects from effects created by evil creatures.

In other words, working with your typical good-aligned party, CN and TN baddies will still ruin your day semi-often, the latter without anything you can do about it.

Also, Eyebite is NOT tagged mind-affecting, but still creates fear effects (shaken, etc.), just to throw that out there.
All fears are mind-affecting. That's the rule. As long as Eyebite doesn't say it's different it's not.
The same applies to Illusion(Pattern) spells.

The alignment restriction on PfE applies only to the save and AC bonus.

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast. This second effect works regardless of alignment.

Emphasis mine.

Pluto!

2015-04-11, 01:01 PM

Also, Eyebite is NOT tagged mind-affecting, but still creates fear effects (shaken, etc.), just to throw that out there.
The spell itself isn't mind effecting, but the status condition itself is, so Mind Blank still negates the panicked effect.

thethird

2015-04-11, 01:05 PM

Prot from Evil by RAW only protects from effects created by evil creatures.

Your raw reading is wrong.

Still I'm partial to protection from possession from ghostwalk, lasts 10 times as long.

AnonymousPepper

2015-04-11, 01:10 PM

Huh. Okay. *shrug*

Kennisiou

2015-04-11, 01:11 PM

First, Protection from Alignment always protects against mind control and domination. From the entry in the SRD

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast. This second effect works regardless of alignment.

So, yes, Protection from Alignment will always stop you from being mind controlled or dominated. It's a very powerful effect and custom magic items that always have it on are not expensive (heck, there's probably no need to get custom magic items for this, there's probably a ring of protection from evil or something like that in some sourcebook).

Second, as for dealing with fear via high will save... There are a few 2-level dips you can use to easily accomplish this (or something like it). First, if you're a rogue type, you'll often have high charisma. A 2 level paladin dip or 2 level hexblade dip will work wonders for your ability to avoid fear affects. 2 levels in Crusader can also help. A 1-level dip in swordsage is all it takes to nab the maneuver Moment of Perfect Clarity, which lets you make a concentration check in place of a will save, which is great because as a rogue-type character you should have the skill points to spare to max concentration. Swordsage is also nice because a second level gives you access to Assassin Stance (you can't get at at SS level 1 no matter what because by RAW you can only take 1st level stances in your first class level in any initiator class), which means for 2 levels you get +2d6 sneak attack damage and a bunch of maneuvers -- not too shabby.

On top of all of these methods, there's also a ton of save boosting items. If you go with one of the routes that grants you +cha to will saves, remember that charisma boosting items pull double duty for you now, not only buffing your social skills but also giving you bonus to will saves, and if you're really MAD and a belt of magnificence was looking good for you, now it looks pretty stellar, since it's giving you +6 to your will saves in addition to its other major benefits (or, if you went pally, +6 to ALL saves). A lot of times when I make characters that pull in paladin levels, I wind up not even to worry about having immunities to most save or die effects. +30 saves are pretty strong.

sleepyphoenixx

2015-04-11, 01:12 PM

Mind Blank is seriously overrated. It's incredibly expensive if you can't cast it yourself, so you're usually better off just increasing your saves.
With a bit of book diving you can get a +20 or more to will saves for a fraction of the cost of a permanent Mind Blank item.

If you're after the divination protection there's an item that does only that, but i forget which book it was in.
It depends a lot on your DM though wether you even need divination protection. Some will take it into account, with others having it will make absolutely no difference (and it may be cheaper than Mind Blank, but that's still a big chunk of money).

Crake

2015-04-11, 01:57 PM

Telonius

2015-04-11, 02:09 PM

While immunity to mind affecting does make you immune to the effects of fear, are they really considered the same thing? Having mind blank doesn't make you "immune to fear" but "immune to mind affecting" which also happens to grant immunity to fear effects, but you still do not have immunity to fear. I suppose that comes down to your interpretation though. The litmus test I would use is, does the dread witch's ability to overcome fear immunity bypass the effects of a mind blank? Personally I would say no, thus meaning that immunity to mind affecting does not equate to immunity to fear, and thus would not cancel craven, but if you rule that it does, then it does equate fear immunity and does cancel craven.

I could see it going the other way, even if you rule that Dread Witch's ability overcomes Mind Blank - as a case of specific vs general (general thing being that the character is immune to fear, specific thing being that the Dread Witch ability suspends the usual rule). For example, if you found some feat or ability that had a requirement of, "you must be immune to sneak attack in order to take this," would Undead creatures not be able to take it, if Weapon Crystals exist? I'd think they could, because the prereq would be asking for the general thing, while the weapon crystal affects a specific instance.

Chronos

2015-04-11, 02:15 PM

I don't think he's saying that the existence of Dread Witches makes everyone eligible for Craven; I think he's just saying that the rulings for both ought to be consistent with each other.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 02:28 PM

Mind Blank is seriously overrated.

Given that it completely negates two entire schools of magic, I would hardly call it overrated.

While immunity to mind affecting does make you immune to the effects of fear, are they really considered the same thing? Having mind blank doesn't make you "immune to fear" but "immune to mind affecting" which also happens to grant immunity to fear effects, but you still do not have immunity to fear. I suppose that comes down to your interpretation though. The litmus test I would use is, does the dread witch's ability to overcome fear immunity bypass the effects of a mind blank? Personally I would say no, thus meaning that immunity to mind affecting does not equate to immunity to fear, and thus would not cancel craven, but if you rule that it does, then it does equate fear immunity and does cancel craven.

Craven doesn't specifically call out having an "immunity to fear". The prerequisite states that you "cannot be immune to fear". Since there are no further qualifiers, then this means what it says it means, regardless of the reason. Since you are immune to fear as a result of your mind blank, Craven stops.

The general rule is that if you ever lose the prerequisite for something, then you still keep your things but you lose the benefit them until the prerequisite is restored.

Psyren

2015-04-11, 02:36 PM

Pro Evil will protect you from enough of the nasty high level things like dominate. It's not as comprehensive as mind blank, but it will do the job without negating your Craven, with the added benefit that allied mind-affecting buffs can still help you (e.g. Greater Heroism.)

lsfreak

2015-04-11, 02:49 PM

Given that it completely negates two entire schools of magic, I would hardly call it overrated.

Careful with that, it takes out Enchantment almost completely (plus the fear parts of necromancy that have no excuse to not be enchantment), but affects less than half of Illusions and none of the most useful ones - X Image, Shadow X, blur, mirror image, invisibility.

Zaq

2015-04-11, 03:00 PM

Careful with that, it takes out Enchantment almost completely (plus the fear parts of necromancy that have no excuse to not be enchantment), but affects less than half of Illusions and none of the most useful ones - X Image, Shadow X, blur, mirror image, invisibility.

I think he meant Enchantment and Divination, not Enchantment and Illusion.

sleepyphoenixx

2015-04-11, 03:05 PM

Given that it completely negates two entire schools of magic, I would hardly call it overrated.

It also negates an entire group of buffs (morale) that includes all the good bardic music effects. Not to mention that it's expensive as hell.
Unless you're facing no-save mind affecting effects you'll get by for a fraction of the cost by just boosting your will save and getting a reroll or two.

The only point where i personally consider Mind Blank worth the price is if you use all of it, meaning you actually make use of the anti-divination aspect because that's a pretty hard immunity to come by, and a lot of divinations are no-save. There's quite a few DMs who won't change anything even if you have the immunity though, so it depends on your table if it's worth spending enough gold for a set of +10 armor on.
Even if divinations are a thing you can usually get by with a CL-boosted Nondetection when it matters, depending on the makeup of your party.

Given that you don't need Mind Blank to be pretty much untouchable to mind-affecting, and a lot cheaper, i'd say it is indeed overrated. YMMV.

Curmudgeon

2015-04-11, 03:16 PM

All fear effects are mind-affecting. See the SRD entry on fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear).
No, only fear attacks (plus Dragon Frightful Presence, according to Draconomicon on page 22) are mind-affecting. A Mummy's Despair ability is a fear effect which is neither an attack nor mind-affecting, and Mind Blank won't protect you from that. Visceral fear affects the body directly rather than starting in the mind.

It only takes one fear effect that you're not immune to, and thus you still qualify for Craven with Mind Blank up.

Bronk

2015-04-11, 03:24 PM

Craven doesn't specifically call out having an "immunity to fear". The prerequisite states that you "cannot be immune to fear". Since there are no further qualifiers, then this means what it says it means, regardless of the reason. Since you are immune to fear as a result of your mind blank, Craven stops.

The general rule is that if you ever lose the prerequisite for something, then you still keep your things but you lose the benefit them until the prerequisite is restored.

Well, that's why the Craven feat works even with the 'mind blank' skill active. Mind blank only makes you immune to 'fear attacks' via the definition of fear attacks being mind affecting. However, that's only for fear attacks, not for other kinds of fear.

That's where the already mentioned Dread Witch comes in... it shows that there are other kinds of fear. Their power, plus just plain old being afraid because of the circumstances you find yourself in, are all kinds of non attack fears.

Unless you are totally immune to all fear, like kender are ("Kender are immune to fear, magical and otherwise", Dragonlance Campaign Setting), Craven will work just fine.

sleepyphoenixx

2015-04-11, 03:28 PM

No, only fear attacks (plus Dragon Frightful Presence, according to Draconomicon on page 22) are mind-affecting. A Mummy's Despair ability is a fear effect which is neither an attack nor mind-affecting, and Mind Blank won't protect you from that. Visceral fear affects the body directly rather than starting in the mind.

It only takes one fear effect that you're not immune to, and thus you still qualify for Craven with Mind Blank up.

Mechanics-wise a Mummy's Despair ability isn't even a fear effect. It doesn't use any of the fear rules and doesn't have the Fear descriptor.
It's a paralysis effect that's fluffed as paralyzing terror. Even if you have immunity to fear you would still be affected by it (but Freedom of Movement would protect you).

So does that mean Freedom of Movement negates Craven if you also have Mind Blank? By your ruling i'd say so.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 03:57 PM

I think he meant Enchantment and Divination, not Enchantment and Illusion.
^This.

It also negates an entire group of buffs (morale) that includes all the good bardic music effects. Not to mention that it's expensive as hell.
Unless you're facing no-save mind affecting effects you'll get by for a fraction of the cost by just boosting your will save and getting a reroll or two.

The only point where i personally consider Mind Blank worth the price is if you use all of it, meaning you actually make use of the anti-divination aspect because that's a pretty hard immunity to come by, and a lot of divinations are no-save. There's quite a few DMs who won't change anything even if you have the immunity though, so it depends on your table if it's worth spending enough gold for a set of +10 armor on.
Even if divinations are a thing you can usually get by with a CL-boosted Nondetection when it matters, depending on the makeup of your party.

Given that you don't need Mind Blank to be pretty much untouchable to mind-affecting, and a lot cheaper, i'd say it is indeed overrated. YMMV.
A scroll of this spell costs 3,000 gp. You can either UMD it yourself, or ask someone in the party that can to cast it on you. Or you can request it as a spellcasting service. It lasts for 24 hours, which is generally more than enough for a single adventure.

Of course this isn't something you do every day, but rather when you are going into a situation that calls for it. So I'm not really sure where you are getting this idea that this effect is prohibitively expensive.

No, only fear attacks (plus Dragon Frightful Presence, according to Draconomicon on page 22) are mind-affecting. A Mummy's Despair ability is a fear effect which is neither an attack nor mind-affecting, and Mind Blank won't protect you from that. Visceral fear affects the body directly rather than starting in the mind.

It only takes one fear effect that you're not immune to, and thus you still qualify for Craven with Mind Blank up.
I had to go back and look this up, because it's been a really long time since I read Mummy.
Apparently a Mummy's Despair aura is indeed a fear effect. So I learned something new: a paladin is immune to a Mummy's Despair ability.

However that still doesn't solve the problem.
The Fear Aura is a subheading specifically listed under "Fear Attack", which makes it inclusive, and so all the rules still apply.

Well, that's why the Craven feat works even with the 'mind blank' skill active. Mind blank only makes you immune to 'fear attacks' via the definition of fear attacks being mind affecting. However, that's only for fear attacks, not for other kinds of fear.

That's where the already mentioned Dread Witch comes in... it shows that there are other kinds of fear. Their power, plus just plain old being afraid because of the circumstances you find yourself in, are all kinds of non attack fears.

Unless you are totally immune to all fear, like kender are ("Kender are immune to fear, magical and otherwise", Dragonlance Campaign Setting), Craven will work just fine.

[Fear] is a descriptor, just like [Mind-Affecting] is. It's there to tell you when specific things would apply to it. For example, the spell Scare has the fear descriptor. A paladin would thus be immune to it solely because he is immune to fear.
The specific entry on fear in the rules compendium says this:

Fear attacks can have various consequences, but all of them are mind-affecting fear effects.

All fear is mind-affecting, thus if you are immune to mind-affecting you are transitively immune to fear. And no Craven for you.

Eloel

2015-04-11, 04:02 PM

All fear is mind-affecting, thus if you are immune to mind-affecting you are transitively immune to fear. And no Craven for you.
Again, no. All fear attacks are mind-affecting. Intimidate, the core skill, can make you Shaken, which is definitely fear. It's not a fear attack, because it never says it's a fear attack.

RAW, you can intimidate someone with Mind Blank up, and given them the "shaken" fear condition. Therefore, Mind Blank is not fear immunity.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 04:06 PM

Again, no. All fear attacks are mind-affecting. Intimidate, the core skill, can make you Shaken, which is definitely fear. It's not a fear attack, because it never says it's a fear attack.

RAW, you can intimidate someone with Mind Blank up, and given them the "shaken" fear condition. Therefore, Mind Blank is not fear immunity.
Completely, unequivocally, wrong.

Special
You gain a +4 bonus on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are larger than your target. Conversely, you take a -4 penalty on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are smaller than your target.

A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures.

Eloel

2015-04-11, 04:10 PM

Completely, unequivocally, wrong.
Yay, circular logic!

Intimidate works against those immune to mind affecting. It doesn't work against those immune to fear. Therefore, immunity to mind affecting doesn't mean immunity to fear.

sleepyphoenixx

2015-04-11, 04:17 PM

A scroll of this spell costs 3,000 gp. You can either UMD it yourself, or ask someone in the party that can to cast it on you. Or you can request it as a spellcasting service. It lasts for 24 hours, which is generally more than enough for a single adventure.

Of course this isn't something you do every day, but rather when you are going into a situation that calls for it. So I'm not really sure where you are getting this idea that this effect is prohibitively expensive.

People don't generally buy Mind Blank on scrolls. They get a permanent item of it or cast it themselves, which start at about 110000gp (for the mind-affecting immunity only).

And your adventures must be rather short if they're generally finished in less than 24 hours. Most campaigns i find myself in run weeks or months.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 04:19 PM

Yay, circular logic!

Intimidate works against those immune to mind affecting. It doesn't work against those immune to fear. Therefore, immunity to mind affecting doesn't mean immunity to fear.

There is nothing circular about it. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/602836/transitive-law)

If you are immune to mind-affecting, you are also immune to fear. Because all fear is mind-affecting. Obviously, including the effects imposed by intimidating.

Eloel

2015-04-11, 04:21 PM

If you are immune to mind-affecting, you are also immune to fear. Because all fear is mind-affecting.
Citation needed.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 04:23 PM

People don't generally buy Mind Blank on scrolls. They get a permanent item of it or cast it themselves, which start at about 110000gp (for the mind-affecting immunity only).

And your adventures must be rather short if they're generally finished in less than 24 hours. Most campaigns i find myself in run weeks or months.

An adventure is part of a campaign.

You don't use your scroll the day you set out on your journey towards the evil castle, you cast it the night you attempt to sneak in.

Citation needed.

Rules Compendium, pg 53.

Or Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear) on the SRD, since it basically says the same thing, just slightly less definitively.

Take your pick.

Eloel

2015-04-11, 04:24 PM

Rules Compendium, pg 53.

Or Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear) on the SRD, since it basically says the same thing, just slightly less definitively.

Take your pick.

Both of them clearly say fear attacks are mind-affecting. Intimidate creates fear, but is not a fear attack.

Again, citation needed.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 04:34 PM

Intimidate creates fear, but is not a fear attack.

That's irrelevant. It specifically does not work on things immune to fear, which, for the third time, is anything immune to mind-affecting.

Anything else?

Eloel

2015-04-11, 04:36 PM

That's irrelevant. It specifically does not work on things immune to fear, which, for the third time, is anything immune to mind-affecting.

Anything else?

Immune to mind-affecting gives immunity to fear attacks, which is a subset of fear effects.
Intimidate is not a fear attack, so it doesn't care about mind-affecting.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 04:40 PM

Immune to mind-affecting gives immunity to fear attacks, which is a subset of fear effects.
Intimidate is not a fear attack, so it doesn't care about mind-affecting.

Correct. It cares about immunity to fear. Which you have when you are immune to mind-affecting, on account of all fear being mind-affecting.

Eloel

2015-04-11, 04:42 PM

Correct. It cares about immunity to fear. Which you have when you are immune to mind-affecting, on account of all fear being mind-affecting.

Citation, please. Do not give me a citation to "fear attacks are mind-affecting", for we know that. Give a citation to "all fear is mind-affecting".

I'm casting Summon Curmudgeon, I'm tired of repeating myself.

Terazul

2015-04-11, 04:43 PM

He's just going to point out that mind blank only gives immunity to "fear attacks" specifically, and that Intimidate doesn't call itself out as a "fear attack" just something that is defeated by immunity to fear.

I mean, it's obvious that pretty much everything that inflicts a fear effect is a form of attack because what else it going to do, something beneficial? But this devolved into a semantics argument a page ago.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 04:49 PM

I'm tired of repeating myself.
I'm literally wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes right now.

There is nothing semantic or circular involved here.

It's the Transitive Property of Logic.
If A is B, and B is C, then A is also C.

Mind Blank grants immunity to mind-affecting. All fear is mind-affecting. Mind Blank grants immunity to fear.

/thread

Curmudgeon

2015-04-11, 04:49 PM

Apparently a Mummy's Despair aura is indeed a fear effect. So I learned something new: a paladin is immune to a Mummy's Despair ability.

However that still doesn't solve the problem.
The Fear Aura is a subheading specifically listed under "Fear Attack", which makes it inclusive, and so all the rules still apply.
I don't see how this is relevant. Mummy Despair (Su) and Fear Aura (Su) are different abilities.

Eloel

2015-04-11, 04:51 PM

All fear is mind-affecting.

You keep claiming this, but you have never cited it, even when asked. You have managed to cite another rule, which covers most but not all cases where this happens.

I'm casting Summon Curmudgeon, I'm tired of repeating myself.

I don't see how this is relevant. Mummy Despair (Su) and Fear Aura (Su) are different abilities.

Hey, it worked.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 04:58 PM

I don't see how this is relevant. Mummy Despair (Su) and Fear Aura (Su) are different abilities.

Except for the part where they aren't. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear)

Fear Aura (Su)
The use of this ability is a free action. The aura can freeze an opponent (such as a mummy’s despair) or function like the fear spell. Other effects are possible. A fear aura is an area effect. The descriptive text gives the size and kind of area.

You keep claiming this, but you have never cited it, even when asked. You have managed to cite another rule, which covers most but not all cases where this happens.

Except for the part, you know, where I did.

Rules Compendium, pg 53.

Or Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear) on the SRD, since it basically says the same thing, just slightly less definitively.

Take your pick.

Twice actually... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19096503&postcount=27)

Curmudgeon

2015-04-11, 05:19 PM

Except for the part where they aren't. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear)
I'll skip right past the "such as" argument, and go to Deathshrieker's (Monster Manual III, page 32) Despair instead. That's a fear effect not linked to Fear Aura which is also not an attack.

There's also Dread Witch Fearful Empowerment, which can give the [Fear] descriptor to any spell, like Cat's Grace. Again, it's a fear effect which is not an attack.

There only needs to be one example where you've got Mind Blank up and are still subject to fear effects for the spell to be compatible with Craven.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 05:31 PM

I'll skip right past the "such as" argument, and go to Deathshrieker's (Monster Manual III, page 32) Despair instead. That's a fear effect not linked to Fear Aura which is also not an attack.

There's also Dread Witch Fearful Empowerment, which can give the [Fear] descriptor to any spell, like Cat's Grace. Again, it's a fear effect which is not an attack.

There only needs to be one example where you've got Mind Blank up and are still subject to fear effects for the spell to be compatible with Craven.

...I hate to break it to you, but a spell with the [Fear] descriptor is also a fear effect, per that same page in the Rules Compendium.

FEAR ATTACKS
When they’re not spells, fear attacks can be extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like, with specifics explained in the ability’s description.

And a Deathshrieker's Despair abilitiy is, good lord man...

Despair (Su): At the mere sight of a deathshrieker, the viewer must succeed on a DC 24 Will save or be paralyzed with fear for 1d4 rounds. Whether or not the save is successful, that creature cannot be affected again by the same deathshrieker’s despair ability for 24 hours. The save DC is Charisma-based.

That was from the book. Word for word.

This is right from the SRD:

Despair (Su): At the mere sight of a mummy, the viewer must succeed on a DC 16 Will save or be paralyzed with fear for 1d4 rounds. Whether or not the save is successful, that creature cannot be affected again by the same mummy’s despair ability for 24 hours. The save DC is Charisma-based.

They are literally the same ability. Exactly the same.

You're argument also assumes Craven was written with the intent of "Cannot be immune to all fear", as opposed to "Cannot be immune to any fear". That is unknowable, and is therefore irrelevant, and not just because all fear is mind-affecting.

Curmudgeon

2015-04-11, 05:47 PM

I hate to break it to you, but a spell with the [Fear] descriptor is also a fear effect, per that same page in the Rules Compendium.

All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects.
You keep mentioning fear effects when only fear attacks are relevant. It's got to be a fear attack for it to be automatically [Mind-Affecting].
attack

Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll. There is an expanded definition specific to spells; see here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#attacks).

Pluto!

2015-04-11, 07:32 PM

I'm incredulous that anyone is honestly arguing that immunity to sources of fear effects is meaningfully different from immunity to fear effects. Or, for that matter, that the game rules were written with that sort of nuance.

Psyren

2015-04-11, 07:45 PM

Anytime someone asks me why I switched to PF, I just point to threads like this.

I'm incredulous that anyone is honestly arguing that immunity to sources of fear effects is meaningfully different from immunity to fear effects. Or, for that matter, that the game rules were written with that sort of nuance.

May I introduce you to Curmudgeon? :smallwink::smalltongue:

Eloel

2015-04-11, 07:54 PM

I'm incredulous that anyone is honestly arguing that immunity to sources of fear effects fear attacks is meaningfully different from immunity to fear effects. Or, for that matter, that the game rules were written with that sort of nuance.

Fixed that for you.

Troacctid

2015-04-11, 08:00 PM

I'll point out that we know it must be possible to inflict fear conditions upon creatures that are immune to mind-affecting effects, because Turn/Rebuke Undead would not function properly otherwise. (It causes undead to cower, which is a form of fear. Most undead are mindless and therefore immune to anything mind-affecting.)

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 10:21 PM

You keep mentioning fear effects when only fear attacks are relevant. It's got to be a fear attack for it to be automatically [Mind-Affecting]. There is an expanded definition specific to spells; see here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#attacks).

I'm sure there is a point you are trying to make here, but I really can't see it.

You've yet to establish a single method of inflicting fear conditions that is not already discussed under the Fear heading, and thus is considered mind-affecting because of it.

I'll point out that we know it must be possible to inflict fear conditions upon creatures that are immune to mind-affecting effects, because Turn/Rebuke Undead would not function properly otherwise. (It causes undead to cower, which is a form of fear. Most undead are mindless and therefore immune to anything mind-affecting.)

Specific trumps general. You are generally immune to fear if you are immune to mind-affecting. Turn Undead is a specific exception.

bekeleven

2015-04-11, 10:40 PM

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 10:58 PM

RC 53: "Fear attacks can have various consequences, but all of them are mind-affecting fear effects."

PHB 305: "Attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll."

THIS IS D&D
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/write.ign.com/153348/2014/08/topten-goodman2.jpg
THERE ARE RULES
The mummy's despair is a fear effect, not a fear attack. Paladins ignore it, mind blanked rogues don't.

The mummy's despair is a FEAR AURA (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fearAura), which is specifically a subheading under FEAR ATTACKS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear), and thus follows all of the same rules.

I honestly have no problem hyperlinking this as many times as it takes for it to sink in.

bekeleven

2015-04-11, 11:30 PM

which is specifically a subheading under FEAR ATTACKS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear)

Maybe this is just a misunderstanding, perhaps caused by a browser cache issue. I've cleared my cache, and your link still takes me to the following heading:
http://i.imgur.com/F7s296z.png

Perhaps if you clear your cache as well the word "Attacks" will be gone?

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-11, 11:46 PM

Maybe this is just a misunderstanding, perhaps caused by a browser cache issue. I've cleared my cache, and your link still takes me to the following heading:

Perhaps if you clear your cache as well the word "Attacks" will be gone?

http://i.imgur.com/UR4plp1.png

The Rules Compendium further clarifies:

FEAR ATTACKS
When they’re not spells, fear attacks can be extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like, with specifics explained in the ability’s description.

Fear Aura
The use of a fear aura, which is a supernatural ability, is a free action. A fear aura is an area effect.

Frightful Presence
Frightful presence is an extraordinary ability that makes a creature’s presence unsettling to foes. It takes effect when the creature performs some sort of dramatic act. Opponents within range who witness the act might become shaken or worse. This ability affects only those opponents that have fewer Hit Dice than the creature has. An opponent can resist the effect with a successful Will save (the DC usually equals 10 + 1/2 the creature’s HD + its Cha modifi er). An opponent that succeeds on the save is immune to that same creature’s frightful presence for 24 hours.

Curmudgeon

2015-04-12, 12:26 AM

Chronos

2015-04-12, 12:34 AM

The mummy's fear aura is a special attack. Special attacks are attacks.

Glorius Nippon

2015-04-12, 12:37 AM

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 12:40 AM

So you've (yet again) pointed out that fear attacks are [Mind-Affecting]. Where's the attack roll in Deathshrieker's Despair? Where's the attack roll, or the extended definition of attack for spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#attacks), when a Dread Witch adds the [Fear] descriptor to Dancing Lights?

These aren't attacks, so they aren't [Mind-Affecting].

And you've (yet again) ignored the fact that Fear Aura and Frightful Presence are all clearly listed under the subheading of Fear Attacks, which itself is under a section heading of "Fear", which is clearly stated right up front to be all mind-affecting.

Your refusal to acknowledge this isn't going to change what WotC wrote in the books.

And you've also failed to establish what relevance the clarification of the word attack in a spell description has to do with anything. The whole point of that "extended definition" is:

Some spell descriptions refer to attacking

You know what one of those spells is? Sanctuary. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sanctuary.htm)
Your implication that this entry is meant for anything other than a clarification of that nature is the textbook definition of selective reading.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 12:47 AM

As far as I can tell it would negate craven, but if an enemy spell caster casted this on me I would shoot the DM a bit of a look.

Well, in that instance, it does allow a Will save :smalltongue:
To be frank, if the DM ever asks you, "Would you like to make a harmless Will save?", your answer should probably be an emphatic yes.

Curmudgeon

2015-04-12, 12:57 AM

The mummy's fear aura is a special attack. Special attacks are attacks.
I was talking about Deathshrieker and its Despair ability, not Mummy. But your argument is nonsense. Planetar Angels have Spells listed under special attacks, with Aid as a typical prepared spell. Is Aid now an attack? Special attacks aren't defined, so this category header is meaningless. Attacks in general, and spell attacks in particular, are defined. According to those definitions, Deathshrieker Despair and Dread Witch's altered Dancing Lights aren't attacks.

And you've (yet again) ignored the fact that Fear Aura and Frightful Presence are all clearly listed under the subheading of Fear Attacks, which itself is under a section heading of "Fear", which is clearly stated right up front to be all mind-affecting.
Since I was talking about Deathshrieker Despair and Dread Witch using Fearful Empowerment on Dancing Lights, of course I ignored those.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 01:09 AM

I was talking about Deathshrieker and its Despair ability, not Mummy

They are literally the same ability. Exactly the same.

...and Dread Witch using Fearful Empowerment on Dancing Lights, of course I ignored those.

FEAR ATTACKS
When they’re not spells, fear attacks can be extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like, with specifics explained in the ability’s description.

...Huh, I was all set to multi-quote there... and it turns out I already addressed both of those in the same post.

Curmudgeon

2015-04-12, 01:18 AM

...Huh, I was all set to multi-quote there... and it turns out I already addressed both of those in the same post.
The abilities may use the same text, but that doesn't mean the rules refer to them identically. Mummy Despair gets mentioned under the Fear Glossary entry; Deathshrieker Despair does not. Only Mummy Despair, not other versions of Despair, are included there.

You've got a quote about fear attacks which are not spells. I've referenced a way of having a [Fear] spell which is not an attack. You haven't addressed such spells at all.

GilesTheCleric

2015-04-12, 01:21 AM

I was talking about Deathshrieker and its Despair ability, not Mummy. But your argument is nonsense. Planetar Angels have Spells listed under special attacks, with Aid as a typical prepared spell. Is Aid now an attack? Special attacks aren't defined, so this category header is meaningless. Attacks in general, and spell attacks in particular, are defined. According to those definitions, Deathshrieker Despair and Dread Witch's altered Dancing Lights aren't attacks.

MM1 299 has a list of attacks and special attacks.
Decide what special attacks (if any) your monster has. A special attack is anything the creature uses offensively to harm or hinder another creature. Common special attacks include:... Fear, Spells, Spell-like Abilities

Decide what attack forms the creature uses in melee and ranged combat and determine the monster’s attack bonus with each attack. The attacks you might decide to give a creature include: ...[mundane melee/ranged/natural attacks]

Calling spells a special attack while including spells with harmless saves, personal range, etc is a bit silly, but it's there.

Edit: It's worth noting that the big list of special/attacks doesn't explicitly include Ex or Su abilities, and the description of each of those on MM1 315 doesn't state that they're attacks. They might be called attacks elsewhere (maybe an AoO table or something?).

Curmudgeon

2015-04-12, 02:07 AM

MM1 299 has a list of attacks and special attacks.
...
Calling spells a special attack while including spells with harmless saves, personal range, etc is a bit silly, but it's there.
That disagrees with the Player's Handbook definition of attack (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_attack&alpha=A).
attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

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

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. The PH wins this disagreement about rules for playing the game. Some special attacks are really attacks, but not all. The word "attack" in monster statblock "Special Attacks" is actually meaningless.

GilesTheCleric

2015-04-12, 02:15 AM

hamishspence

2015-04-12, 02:25 AM

attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent.

And trying to negate an enemy's Craven feat, can qualify as those - a "debuff", in short.

There is an expanded definition specific to spells; see here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#attacks).

Is it "spells only" though? Or is it a generalisation that be applied to any "offensive combat action"?

All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks.

Andezzar

2015-04-12, 02:33 AM

And trying to negate an enemy's Craven feat, can qualify as those - a "debuff", in short.You only quoted half of the definition:
attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.Since the outcome of a mind-blank spell generally is not determined by an attack roll, casting mind-blank is not an attack. The exception to this is if the character with craven would not want to be affected by the spell and the caster is required to make a touch attack. But why wouldn't he want a buff from an ally affect him? I also doubt that the casting is intended to harm, disable or neutralize the craven character if it is done by an ally.

hamishspence

2015-04-12, 02:34 AM

Is it in fact RAW though, that "anything with no attack roll, cannot be an attack?"

Curmudgeon

2015-04-12, 02:38 AM

Is it "spells only" though? Or is it a generalisation that be applied to any "offensive combat action"?
Yes, it's spells only. The rule is in the Magic chapter of Player's Handbook, in the "CASTING SPELLS" section, subsection "SPECIAL SPELL EFFECTS".

Is it in fact RAW though, that "anything with no attack roll, cannot be an attack?"
Unless there's an explicit expanded definition (as there is in the above spell-only context), that's correct.

Andezzar

2015-04-12, 02:40 AM

You are using circular logic IMHO,hamishspence. Only if casting mind-blank removes craven it can be considered an attack and only if the casting is an attack does it remove craven.

hamishspence

2015-04-12, 02:50 AM

I could see "casting Mind Blank" being regarded as a "intentional attack" when done by an enemy with the specific intent of debuffing" and as an "unintentional attack" when cast by an ally who doesn't realise that, for the Craven guy, it's a debuff.

If, of course, the DM ruled that "Mind Blank causes Craven to stop working" - then the player would say "In that case, my ally has just unintentionally attacked me with a spell".

Andezzar

2015-04-12, 03:06 AM

EastbySoutheast

2015-04-12, 04:55 AM

As far as I can tell it would negate craven, but if an enemy spell caster casted this on me I would shoot the DM a bit of a look. I mean, what's the train of thought that leads to someone thinking that without metagame?

"Why he is a dastardly coward! As such he is more dangerous! If I make him immune to fear, why then he would be less dangerous!" :smallconfused:

I was originally asking cause the use of a 8th level spell using a chained metamagic rod (greater) was far cheaper than everyone in the party getting items for Mindblank effects. Then i saw Craven and thought if it negated that then thats someone in the party that wouldnt want that effect otherwise they've wasted a feat slot.

Then i was just amused that it was possible to 'buff' someone yet make them worse at the same time :smallbiggrin: regardless of how meta that actually is

Eloel

2015-04-12, 06:59 AM

You are still failing to address how Intimidate is a fear attack.

Edit:

Also, there are things specifically called out as "mind-affecting fear ability" (Complete Scoundrel p24, Bloody Blade(ex) being one). Why would they?

hamishspence

2015-04-12, 08:12 AM

There can be no unintentional attacks. Attacks are defined as "Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent." So without intent whatever harm is caused is not an attack.

Sure it can. An invisible ally walking into a line of fire and getting shot, has been attacked, even if the shooter didn't intend to shoot them specifically.

Or, for that matter, if one of the party is undead, and the rest don't know it - a "buff" involving positive energy, might harm them, and they'd get a chance to save against it, treat it as an attack, etc.

Andezzar

2015-04-12, 08:52 AM

Sure it can. An invisible ally walking into a line of fire and getting shot, has been attacked, even if the shooter didn't intend to shoot them specifically.This is impossible because projectiles travel with infinite velocity. No character can intercept the trajectory of a projectile (specific abilities being an exception, like deflect arrows). Even if it worked the ally would not magically become an opponent, so it still is not an attack.

Or, for that matter, if one of the party is undead, and the rest don't know it - a "buff" involving positive energy, might harm them, and they'd get a chance to save against it, treat it as an attack, etc.While spells and turn undead are explicit expansions of the attack definition the use of those abilities does not make the undead party members opponents. So accidentally affecting them is not an attack.
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks.1 Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks.2 All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.
1: So this refers to spells being attacks nothing more, nothing less. If it included more even moving towards an opponent or making rude gestures would be attacks.
2: This implies that Turn undead is not an attack but merely is treated as one.

Anything outside a spell or Turn undead needs an explicit rule to be treated as an attack if it does not conform to the general definition. Unintentionally damaging an ally does not fit with the standard definition.

hamishspence

2015-04-12, 08:56 AM

This is impossible because projectiles travel with infinite velocity. No character can intercept the trajectory of a projectile (specific abilities being an exception, like deflect arrows). Even if it worked the ally would not magically become an opponent, so it still is not an attack.

I was thinking more of walking into the line of fire of a lightning bolt.

But I'm pretty sure that it is possible for a "friendly fire" incident to happen in a D&D game.

Andezzar

2015-04-12, 09:22 AM

I was thinking more of walking into the line of fire of a lightning bolt.

But I'm pretty sure that it is possible for a "friendly fire" incident to happen in a D&D game.The lightning bolt only exists on the casters turn, the ally moves on his own turn. They do not intersect. If the invisible ally is already in the intended path of the lightning bolt, the ally still does not become an opponent and so the lightning bolt is not an attack on him even though he is affected by the spell and has to make a saving throw. So you could indeed create a friendly fire incident, but that would not be an attack on the unintended target.

hamishspence

2015-04-12, 09:25 AM

It might be that I'm relying too much on the "dictionary definition" (or the colloquial definition) rather than the D&D definition.

In a fight, where some of your allies and some of your enemies are invisible, and the only way of attacking an enemy is to attack what you think is the square they're in, it's not too hard to imagine a wrong call, followed by a pained:

"Hey, you just attacked your ally, dummy."

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 09:37 AM

That disagrees with the Player's Handbook definition of attack (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_attack&alpha=A). The PH wins this disagreement about rules for playing the game. Some special attacks are really attacks, but not all. The word "attack" in monster statblock "Special Attacks" is actually meaningless.

Specific. Trumps. General.

The Player's Handbook provides a general definition for attacks. The Monster Manual lists several Special Abilities that can be given to monsters. Some of them are attacks as noted in in the description. Breath Weapons don't require attack rolls. Are you going to argue that they are not attacks? Same for Constrict. Gaze Attacks are literally called attacks by name. They also don't use attack rolls. Trample doesn't use attack rolls either. All of these things are "special attacks", because the description calls them such.

One of these sections is called "Fear". Those are all attacks too. The text in the rules compendium was updated to clarify that Fear effects are all inclusive:

Fear
Spells, magic items, and monsters can cause fear. In most cases, a Will saving throw is required to resist the effect. Fear attacks can have various consequences, but all of them are mind-affecting fear effects.

Spells that cause fear conditions, along with magic items, along with all Extraordinary, Spell-Like, and Supernatural Abilities are all [Mind-Affecting] [Fear] effects. If you are immune to either of those tags, you ignore the effect, unless the specific effect says otherwise.

The abilities may use the same text, but that doesn't mean the rules refer to them identically. Mummy Despair gets mentioned under the Fear Glossary entry; Deathshrieker Despair does not. Only Mummy Despair, not other versions of Despair, are included there.

Mummy is there to provide an example. The mere presence of "such as" tells you that it is not an all-inclusive list, and that any other similar abilities you find should be treated accordingly.
This is exactly the same thing as saying, "Well since the Mounted Combat granted by a knight doesn't reference any outside source, there's no reason to assume it's the same feat as the one found in the Player's Handbook, so the rules must treat it differently." An interpretation like that dips far below the required common sense threshold to even have a discussion on RAW.
So if you are really going to insist on being that obstinate in the face of a clear, consistent, and downright dictionary definition of a Fear Aura, then I really can't do anything else for you here.
I can just repeat, "You can think that. But the rules say you're wrong.", and move on.

You've got a quote about fear attacks which are not spells. I've referenced a way of having a [Fear] spell which is not an attack. You haven't addressed such spells at all.
Because I didn't have to. All spells with the Fear descriptor are automatically included under the general definition of "Fear" effects, and are thus mind-affecting.

You are still failing to address how Intimidate is a fear attack.
Even if it (somehow) doesn't (technically) get included in the list of things covered by the "Fear" section, it's still an irrelevant example because the skill specifically says it does not work on targets that are immune to fear. And it offers zero persuasive evidence to contradict the fact that being immune to mind-affecting makes you immune to fear. Common sense would tell you it supports it.

Also, there are things specifically called out as "mind-affecting fear ability" (Complete Scoundrel p24, Bloody Blade(ex) being one). Why would they?

Because when different books are written by different people, they tend to use certain game terms interchangeably. Part of being logical is recognizing this instances and considering them accordingly. Abilities are either Ex, Sp, or Su. Since they are referred to in the same way with the same language they must be treated the same.

Like with the Intimidate and Despair (Su) examples, what you are suggesting isn't "The Rules As Written". It's "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So Nyeah." For RAW to mean anything the rules need to specifically uphold your claim, not simply be written in that they're sort of vague and could be interpreted in such a way as to not forbid your claim. Otherwise, it contributes nothing meaningful to the discussion, and in fact causes more problems than it solves.

hamishspence

2015-04-12, 09:48 AM

Common sense would tell you it supports it.

What was it I said once, years ago - that became someone's sig?

Ah, yes:

"Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms"

Eloel

2015-04-12, 10:01 AM

Your argument relies on two premises:

1) Fear attacks are mind-affecting.
2) Fear effects are fear attacks.

Combining, those, you get the following:

3) Therefore, fear effects are negated by Mind Blank.

You are using 2) to prove 3). We are disproving 2). You can't use 3) to back-prove 2) - that's circular logic. You need to find another reason for every single fear effect to be negated by Mind Blank.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 10:52 AM

What was it I said once, years ago - that became someone's sig?

Ah, yes:

"Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms"

This game cannot be played without interpretation and judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game.

I offer this thread as evidence of that point.

Your argument relies on two premises:

1) Fear attacks are mind-affecting.
2) Fear effects are fear attacks.

Combining, those, you get the following:

3) Therefore, fear effects are negated by Mind Blank.

You are using 2) to prove 3). We are disproving 2). You can't use 3) to back-prove 2) - that's circular logic. You need to find another reason for every single fear effect to be negated by Mind Blank.

No, my argument is this:

1) All fear is mind-affecting.
2) Mind Blank prevents all mind-affecting.
3) Mind Blank prevents fear.

Your arguments against this are all ignoring 1). They ignore it because it's indisputable. Whether or not fear is an effect, an attack, a spell, or anything, it falls under the category of "Fear" which, paragraph 1, final sentence, is mind-affecting. Specific exceptions to this are noted in their entry when, if, where, and how they apply (see Turn Undead).
Thus far, you have failed to provide any directly contradictory evidence.

Eloel

2015-04-12, 11:00 AM

Your arguments against this are all ignoring 1). They ignore it because it's indisputable. Whether or not fear is an effect, an attack, a spell, or anything, it falls under the category of "Fear" which, paragraph 1, final sentence, is mind-affecting.

Have you even read the sentence?

All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects.
That's all there is to this sentence.

Let's try sets.

Set 1: Mind-affecting effects
Set 2: Fear effects
Set 3: Fear attacks

All the quoted rule says is:
Set 3 ⊂ (Set 1 ∩ Set 2)
Nothing more, nothing less. You are arguing that
Set 2 ⊂ Set 1, you are not quoting any rule for it.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 11:14 AM

Have you even read the sentence?

That's all there is to this sentence.

Let's try sets.

Set 1: Mind-affecting effects
Set 2: Fear effects
Set 3: Fear attacks

All the quoted rule says is:
Set 3 ⊂ (Set 1 ∩ Set 2)
Nothing more, nothing less. You are arguing that
Set 2 ⊂ Set 1, you are not quoting any rule for it.

Gee, I guess it would be nice if there was another entire subheading that tells you exactly what qualifies as a Fear Attack. Like this one:

FEAR ATTACKS
When they’re not spells, fear attacks can be extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like, with specifics explained in the ability’s description.

Do I have to go back and count how many time's I've posted that in this thread so far?

Let's try sets.
Set 1: When they're not spells
Set 2: fear attacks can be extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

So according to the quoted rule, it would seem that spells count as fear attacks.

Now, in a proper rebuttal, your main thrust would be to provide an example of a fear "effect" whose source is not a spell, extraordinary ability, supernatural ability, or a spell-like ability.

<insert 7th minute bell sound effect>

Eloel

2015-04-12, 11:34 AM

Crake

2015-04-12, 11:40 AM

Set 1: When they're not spells

Considering not all spells are attacks, what do you say about non-attack spells with the fear descriptor, such as the aformentioned dread witch's [Fear] cat's grace? These are not spell attacks, would you still qualify it as a fear attack?

Also see above for intimidate, which is not a listed fear attack, merely having the ability to grant a fear effect.

Andezzar

2015-04-12, 12:00 PM

Now, in a proper rebuttal, your main thrust would be to provide an example of a fear "effect" whose source is not a spell, extraordinary ability, supernatural ability, or a spell-like ability.
You have not proven that all fear effects caused by Ex or Su abilities are fear attacks.
This special quality makes a creature’s very presence unsettling to foes. It takes effect automatically when the creature performs some sort of dramatic action (such as charging, attacking, or snarling). Opponents within range who witness the action may become frightened or shaken. Actions required to trigger the ability are given in the creature’s descriptive text. The range is usually 30 feet, and the duration is usually 5d6 rounds. This ability affects only opponents with fewer Hit Dice or levels than the creature has. An affected opponent can resist the effects with a successful Will save (DC 10 + ½ frightful creature’s racial HD + frightful creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). An opponent that succeeds on the saving throw is immune to that same creature’s frightful presence for 24 hours. That is not an attack by any given definition. It does not require an attack roll, it is not a spell or Turn Undead. So at least one fear effect is not an attack, and thus not mind-affecting. Since at least one non mind-affecting fear effect exists, immunity to mind-affecting does not confer immunity to fear. Ergo Craven still works.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 12:00 PM

I have been doing that.
Take a look here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm).

Asked, and answered your honor. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19099156&postcount=82)

Even if it (somehow) doesn't (technically) get included in the list of things covered by the "Fear" section, it's still an irrelevant example because the skill specifically says it does not work on targets that are immune to fear. And it offers zero persuasive evidence to contradict the fact that being immune to mind-affecting makes you immune to fear. Common sense would tell you it supports it.

Let's do more sets. I like sets.

1) it offers zero persuasive evidence to contradict the fact that being immune to mind-affecting makes you immune to fear.
2) the skill specifically says it does not work on targets that are immune to fear.
3) it's still an irrelevant example

I think this makes the third time I've made this point regarding Intimidate, but we can keep going around again as many more times as you like.

Considering not all spells are attacks, what do you say about non-attack spells with the fear descriptor, such as the aformentioned dread witch's [Fear] cat's grace? These are not spell attacks, would you still qualify it as a fear attack?

1) Is it a spell?
2) Does it have the [Fear] descriptor?

If the answer to both of those is yes, then congratulations, you have a spell that causes fear, and falls under Fear Attacks, the rules for which don't care one whit about whether or not we, the players, would normally consider it a direct damage, buff, debuff, crowd control, save-or-die, save-or-suck, or any other myriad of non-game term categories you can think of.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 12:03 PM

You have not proven that all fear effects caused by Ex or Su abilities are fear attacks. That is not an attack by any given definition. It does not require an attack roll, it is not a spell or Turn Undead. So at least one fear effect is not an attack, and thus not mind-affecting. Since at least one non mind-affecting fear effect exists, immunity to mind-affecting does not confer immunity to fear. Ergo Craven still works.

Good point, I guess it's nice that that Frightful Presence is listed right on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#frightfulPresence), directly underneath Fear Aura, and still completely under FEAR.

But thank you for bringing that heading up for the third... no wait... fifth...? eh, I'm giving up counting at this point. Reposting it takes less effort.

Turn Undead is up there somewhere too, under one of my Specific trumps General posts.

Since at least one non mind-affecting fear effect exists, immunity to mind-affecting does not confer immunity to fear. Ergo Craven still works.
...And I even addressed this insanity way back on page 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19096857&postcount=46)

You're argument also assumes Craven was written with the intent of "Cannot be immune to all fear", as opposed to "Cannot be immune to any fear". That is unknowable, and is therefore irrelevant, and not just because all fear is mind-affecting.

...so I really don't know why anyone would still think this is something worth arguing.

Eloel

2015-04-12, 12:04 PM

I think he's just pulling our leg.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 12:16 PM

I think he's just pulling our leg.

Not in the slightest.

Previous arguments like this I've let go because they boil down to a simple difference of opinion and interpretation, and it wasn't worth my time or energy to try and convince anyone that there is a measure of correctness on both sides.

This is not the case here. This is a matter of an interpretation being flat-out wrong.

It's one repeated attempt after another of someone trying to say that the rules say something they simply do not say. It's not a difference of opinion, it's a matter of a person or person's thinking that they know everything, when in reality they are missing quite a bit, yet are still completely unwilling to entertain the notion that they could be wrong.

I could get all philosophical on the ramifications of such thinking, but I'll just say that willful ignorance is something of a hot-button of mine.

Pushing your interpretation of something onto a public forum as the only correct interpretation when it could be technically correct (even though that's the worst kind of correct) isn't worth 4 pages of debate from me. Attempting to convince the public forum that your interpretation is the correct one in the presence of direct, contradictory evidence absolutely is.

Eloel

2015-04-12, 12:25 PM

Intimidate is a fear effect. It gives the 'Shaken' fear condition.
Intimidate is not a fear attack. It's not an attack, a spell, Sp, Su or Ex ability.
Not all fear effects are fear attacks. Corollary of first two.
Fear attacks are mind-affecting. The often quoted rule.

Please tell, and prove, without links to previous posts where you were deliberately misrepresenting our position, the missing fact that lets you jump to the conclusion of Intimidate being mind-affecting.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 01:02 PM

Please tell, and prove, without links to previous posts where you were deliberately misrepresenting our position, the missing fact that lets you jump to the conclusion of Intimidate being mind-affecting.

It's not a question of whether or not Intimidate falls under the rules of Fear. It's the fact that Intimidate specifically says it does not work on fear-immune creatures.

Since your entire point of contention is whether or not mind-affecting immunity = fear immunity, it does not help your argument in any way. All it does is further imply the opposite, because it specifically does not work on fear immune, non-intelligent creatures. Furthermore, the target also adds any save bonuses against fear to the DC you have to hit to Intimidate them.

Before you can use Intimidate as evidence that being immune to mind-affecting doesn't make you immune to fear, you first have to prove that you can Intimidate something immune to mind-affecting.

Until then, it's irrelevant.

Eloel

2015-04-12, 01:12 PM

Before you can use Intimidate as evidence that being immune to mind-affecting doesn't make you immune to fear, you first have to prove that you can Intimidate something immune to mind-affecting.

"You can't prove Fireball affects something immune to mind-affecting, so it doesn't."

Andezzar

2015-04-12, 01:21 PM

Good point, I guess it's nice that that Frightful Presence is listed right on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#frightfulPresence), directly underneath Fear Aura, and still completely under FEAR.I do not dispute that frightful presence is a fear effect, but I disagree that it is a fear attack. The linked Fear section only makes the latter automatically mind-affecting. Fear effects that are not fear attacks need to be explicitly mind-affecting for the immunity to mind-affecting effects to negate them.

Frightful presence is neither implicitly (it does not follow any rulebook definition of attack) nor explicitly an attack and it is not explicitly mind-affecting either. So immunity to mind-affection does not help against it.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 01:23 PM

"You can't prove Fireball affects something immune to mind-affecting, so it doesn't."

I most certainly can.

If a 10th level naked human fighter has a custom item of continuous Mind-Blank and is standing in an open field 100 feet away from a 10th level wizard, he is well within the medium range of that spell and since there are no obstructions he is thus a valid target.

The description of Mind Blank states that it offers him protection from all spells and devices that would alter or detect his thoughts, as well as anything with the [Mind-Affecting] tag, and any divination spell. Since Fireball is none of these, he takes the full effect of the spell.

Upon being in the area of a successfully cast Fireball spell, he is then allowed to make a reflex save to take half the damage, which in the case of a 10th level wizard is 10d6. If he fails his save he takes the full damage.

All of this is based upon a clear reading of the rules governing the casting of spells and taking damage, which are found on the SRD.

...Although I'm not quite sure how any of that helps you, or is at all relevant to the discussion at hand.

I do not dispute that frightful presence is a fear effect, but I disagree that it is a fear attack. The linked Fear section only makes the latter automatically mind-affecting. Fear effects that are not fear attacks need to be explicitly mind-affecting for the immunity to mind-affecting effects to negate them.

Frightful presence is neither implicitly (it does not follow any rulebook definition of attack) nor explicitly an attack and it is not explicitly mind-affecting either. So immunity to mind-affection does not help against it.

None of which matters since it's listed under the section heading of FEAR and thus follows all the same rules that all Fear does, up to, and including, being Mind-Affecting.

Eloel

2015-04-12, 01:24 PM

The description of Mind Blank states that it offers him protection from all spells and devices that would alter or detect his thoughts, as well as anything with the [Mind-Affecting] tag, and any divination spell. Since FireballIntimidate is none of these, he takes the full effect of the spell.

See, it is easy, you just answered your own question.

Curmudgeon

2015-04-12, 01:27 PM

The description of Mind Blank states that it offers him protection from all spells and devices that would alter or detect his thoughts, as well as anything with the [Mind-Affecting] tag, and any divination spell. Since Fireball is none of these, he takes the full effect of the spell.
You're claiming that suddenly being burned isn't going to alter your thoughts? Personally, I'd find myself thinking "Ouch!" regardless of my previous thoughts.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 01:33 PM

See, it is easy, you just answered your own question.

Which would be a relevant comparison if Fireball included in somewhere in its description, "Special: A target immune to fear takes no damage from this spell."

But it doesn't.

You're claiming that suddenly being burned isn't going to alter your thoughts? Personally, I'd find myself thinking "Ouch!" regardless of my previous thoughts.

You might, but there's no guarantee or precedent that your character would.

Are there rules somewhere governing how you choose to role-play your character that can change mechanical effects that I'm not aware of?

Eloel

2015-04-12, 01:35 PM

Which would be relevant if Fireball Intimidate included in somewhere in its description, "Special: A target immune to mind-affecting is unaffected."

But it doesn't.

Will you make a point yet?

Andezzar

2015-04-12, 01:38 PM

None of which matters since it's listed under the section heading of FEAR and thus follows all the same rules that all Fear does, up to, and including, being Mind-Affecting.As you said it is listed under the FEAR section, it is not under the FEAR ATTACKS section (such a section does not exist). The fear section only makes fear attacks and not any fear effect mind-affecting. Any non-attack fear effect must be explicitly designated mind-affecting. Assuming it is, is not any more based on the rules than assuming that a fireball is mind-affecting.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 01:45 PM

Will you make a point yet?

I believe I already did.

Before you can use Intimidate as evidence that being immune to mind-affecting doesn't make you immune to fear, you first have to prove that you can Intimidate something immune to mind-affecting.

Until then, it's irrelevant.

Now will you?

As you said it is listed under the FEAR section, it is not under the FEAR ATTACKS section (such a section does not exist).

Except for the part where there it does:

FEAR ATTACKS
When they’re not spells, fear attacks can be extraordinary,
supernatural, or spell-like, with specifics explained in the
ability’s description.

Fear Aura
The use of a fear aura, which is a supernatural ability, is a free
action. A fear aura is an area effect.

Frightful Presence
Frightful presence is an extraordinary ability that makes a
creature’s presence unsettling to foes. It takes effect when the
creature performs some sort of dramatic act. Opponents within
range who witness the act might become shaken or worse.
This ability affects only those opponents that have fewer
Hit Dice than the creature has. An opponent can resist the
effect with a successful Will save (the DC usually equals 10
+ 1/2 the creature’s HD + its Cha modifier). An opponent
that succeeds on the save is immune to that same creature’s
frightful presence for 24 hours.

Andezzar

2015-04-12, 01:47 PM

Are there rules somewhere governing how you choose to role-play your character that can change mechanical effects that I'm not aware of?The whole alignment concept for example. If you roleplay an alignment change, your alignment will change. With a new alignment you will by affected differently (protection from X, Holy/Unholy/Anrchic/Axiomatic weapons etc.)

@Fear Attacks: Whether or not the RC can actually override the newest printing of the core books, there is still at least one fear effect that is not classified as an attack. I think Curmudgeon already mentioned the Deathshrieker's Despair.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 01:48 PM

The whole alignment concept for example. If you roleplay an alignment change, your alignment will change. With a new alignment you will by affected differently (protection from X, Holy/Unholy/Anrchic/Axiomatic weapons etc.)

Alignment changing is subject to DM interpretation and discretion. Mind-affecting is not.

Eloel

2015-04-12, 01:49 PM

Sure, let's try this.

Before you can use IntimidateFireball as evidence that being immune to mind-affecting doesn't make you immune to fear fire, you first have to prove that you can Intimidate Fireball something immune to mind-affecting.

Until then, it's irrelevant.

Tysis

2015-04-12, 01:54 PM

Frightful presence is neither implicitly (it does not follow any rulebook definition of attack) nor explicitly an attack and it is not explicitly mind-affecting either. So immunity to mind-affection does not help against it.

From the monster manual glossary, "Frightful Presence is a mind-affecting fear effect." It's the last sentence of the definition of Frightful Presence. How much more explicit does it need to be?

With regards to intimidate, it's being argued that you can demoralize constructs, oozes, plants, undead, and vermin. So for example if a sorcerer ran out of slots for orb spells, he could use imperious command on a golem. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Eloel

2015-04-12, 02:01 PM

With regards to intimidate, it's being argued that you can demoralize constructs, oozes, plants, undead, and vermin. So for example if a sorcerer ran out of slots for orb spells, he could use imperious command on a golem. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It is only being argued that Intimidate can be used on non-mindless things immune to mind-affecting. Say, a vampire.

The argument has thus (with your help) become:

You can intimidate an intelligent undead.

Andezzar

2015-04-12, 02:02 PM

From the monster manual glossary, "Frightful Presence is a mind-affecting fear effect." It's the last sentence of the definition of Frightful Presence. How much more explicit does it need to be?Woops my bad on the mind-affecting. Anyways a fear effect is not necessarily a fear attack. That is the whole argument. No one has yet proven that all fear effects are fear attacks. Only then are they automatically mind-affecting and thus negated by immunity to mind-affecting.

Tysis

2015-04-12, 02:09 PM

It is only being argued that Intimidate can be used on non-mindless things immune to mind-affecting. Say, a vampire.

Mindless just means that it has no intelligence score and is immune to mind-affecting effects(definition within the ooze type definition in the MM glossary). Mindless does not give fear immunity. If immunity to mind-affecting does not gives immunity to fear, then being mindless does not make a creature immune to fear. Therefore, you can intimidate mindless creatures.

Eloel

2015-04-12, 02:10 PM

Mindless just means that it has no intelligence score and is immune to mind-affecting effects(definition within the ooze type definition in the MM glossary). Mindless does not give fear immunity. If immunity to mind-affecting does not gives immunity to fear, then being mindless does not make a creature immune to fear. Therefore, you can intimidate mindless creatures.

Intimidate specifically calls out nonintelligent creatures, I'll stick with the vampire.

A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures.

Tysis

2015-04-12, 02:27 PM

Intimidate specifically calls out nonintelligent creatures, I'll stick with the vampire.

Intimidate also specifically says you demoralize the target. Mind-affecting grants immunity to morale effects. How can you demoralize something immune to morale effects?

Eloel

2015-04-12, 02:31 PM

Intimidate also specifically says you demoralize the target. Mind-affecting grants immunity to morale effects. How can you demoralize something immune to morale effects?

Incidentally, Shaken doesn't call out the penalties as morale penalties.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-12, 09:20 PM

With regards to intimidate, it's being argued that you can demoralize constructs, oozes, plants, undead, and vermin. So for example if a sorcerer ran out of slots for orb spells, he could use imperious command on a golem. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As others have already stated, you and those other arguers would be wrong. Intimidate does not work on non-intelligent targets. Fortunately the Morale Bonus description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#moraleModifier) on the SRD very helpfully defines exactly what a mindless target is: Any creature with an Intelligence score of 0, or no Intelligence score at all. All of those things on your list there are thus immune to intimidate.

Sure, let's try this.

You've still proven nothing. In fact, you've proven less than nothing, except that, since you are unable to come up with a convincing argument on your own, you must instead resort to attempting to echo my own statements back at me.

I'll start by carefully explaining to you why, in this particular instance, that doesn't work.

Fireball is a spell.
The rules on fear are crystal clear on how spells interact with them. The rules on how spells function, including what casting time is, what range means, when a saving throw is called for, how defensive spells interact, and what the results of a successfully cast spell are very carefully delineated all over the Player's Handbook and the SRD. There is zero room for interpretation as to whether or not Mind Blank will help you at all against a Fireball.

Intimidate is not a spell. Intimidate is a skill.
While the effects of a skill are clearly spelled out, the interactions of them with the Fear rules are not. The only relevant text is that Intimidate explicitly fails against targets that are immune to fear, and targets that are non-intelligent (see above definition). Since that does not help us at all in defining how intimidate interacts with the fear rules (only where it doesn't), it has zero basis of comparison for something where the interaction expressly is defined (like a spell).

Now I'll carefully explain to you why, in general, it doesn't work.

A statement the likes of "Fireball doesn't deal damage to creatures immune to mind-affecting because you can't prove it does" is utter nonsense. It is a red herring example of a completely unrelated facet of the game that has no bearing on the current discussion. Trying to create a distraction from the topic at hand is a clear sign that you have a weak and/or indefensible position. Parroting back the statements that I make and changing the words to suit your needs is the metaphorical equivalent responding to a personal criticism by saying, "I know you are but what am I?" It's trite, it's pointless, it's superfluous, and most of all it's a complete waste of everyone's time.

Now I can't force you to make an effective argument on behalf of the point you are trying to defend.

...But I can ignore you until you do.

Woops my bad on the mind-affecting. Anyways a fear effect is not necessarily a fear attack. That is the whole argument. No one has yet proven that all fear effects are fear attacks. Only then are they automatically mind-affecting and thus negated by immunity to mind-affecting.

Okay then, let's step away from any and all rationality for a while, and I'll try an explanation in terms you'll understand. Just this once.

Here is the PHB glossary definition of a "fear effect": (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_feareffect&alpha=F)

fear effect: Any spell or magical effect that causes the victim to become shaken, frightened, or panicked, or to suffer from some other fear-based effect defined in the description of the specific spell or item in question.

Spell, or magical effect.

Now by your claims, Intimidate is neither of those. Intimidate is not an abilitiy (Ex, Sp, or Su), it is not mind-affecting, and works everywhere except where the special description says it does not.

Okay.

Let's assume you are correct. I mean, in general you aren't, but let's assume you are.

Intimidate is not a fear attack, it is not subject to the same rules. You are free to intimidate anything that is specifically only immune to mind-affecting.

In fact, Intimidate is not a fear effect at all. It does not interact with the general Fear rules (except where noted), it is not morale, it is certainly not a spell or magical effect, so it does not fit the glossary definition of fear effect.

So even after assuming that you can intimidate mind-affecting immune targets, being vulnerable to Intimidate STILL has zero bearing on whether or not being immune to Mind-affecting also makes you immune to fear, because it is not a fear effect at all.

So what now?

atemu1234

2015-04-13, 09:39 AM

Oh boy, people repeating things at each other ad nauseum.

I'll put it this way. Fear Effect seems to equate to Fear Attack, because there is not a non-offensive way to inflict fear on someone. Intimidation is offensive. Maybe we should get a dictionary.

Andezzar

2015-04-13, 09:53 AM

I'll put it this way. Fear Effect seems to equate to Fear Attack, because there is not a non-offensive way to inflict fear on someone. Intimidation is offensive. Maybe we should get a dictionary.No it does not. Intimidate may be offensive, but the result of the intimidation is not determined by an attack roll, it is a skill check opposed by a level check. So it is not an attack according to the rules. Only fear attacks are automatically mind-affecting.

As far as I can tell intimidate is only negated by being non-intelligent and immunity to fear. It is not mind-affecting. Or am I missing a rule?

hamishspence

2015-04-13, 12:22 PM

Imagine an invisible (as the low-level spell) adventurer sneaking up on an enemy and yelling "BOO!" as an Intimidate check while invisible. Should they promptly become visible?

Andezzar

2015-04-13, 12:31 PM

Imagine an invisible (as the low-level spell) adventurer sneaking up on an enemy and yelling "BOO!" as an Intimidate check while invisible. Should they promptly become visible?Nope. The result of yelling boo is not determined by an attack roll and not a spell. The one yelled at would most likely know in which square the yeller is though.

Drrakerr

2015-04-13, 12:43 PM

Good Grod what happened to this thread? But I would like to point out that just because an action doesn't require an attack roll doesn't mean it isn't defined as an attack. Case and point gaze ATTACKS. No attack roll is made by Medusa or a Basilisk, but it is still defined as a gaze ATTACK. This at least sets a precedence that requiring an attack roll is not a prerequisite for something to be defined as an attack.

Sith_Happens

2015-04-13, 01:32 PM

(heck, there's probably no need to get custom magic items for this, there's probably a ring of protection from evil or something like that in some sourcebook)

The only one I've ever been able to find is the Lawkeeper's Lock from Ghostwalk, which gives continuous Protection from Chaos. Strip off the once-ever Order's Wrath and once-ever Summon Monster V and it costs 8500 gp.

I'm incredulous that anyone is honestly arguing that immunity to sources of fear effects is meaningfully different from immunity to fear effects. Or, for that matter, that the game rules were written with that sort of nuance.

That's because immunity to sources of fear is meaningfully different from immunity to fear effects if and only if there exists a way to inflict fear that is not a fear effect.

http://i.imgur.com/UR4plp1.png

That's not a sub-heading, it's part of the main body of text.

One of these sections is called "Fear". Those are all attacks too. The text in the rules compendium was updated to clarify that Fear effects are all inclusive:

The only thing that passage updates is the status of Fear Aura and Frightful Presence as being fear attacks. It doesn't touch, for example, Intimidate.

Mummy is there to provide an example. The mere presence of "such as" tells you that it is not an all-inclusive list, and that any other similar abilities you find should be treated accordingly.

I'm with you on this bit. If it's called "Despair (Su)" and causes paralyzing fear, it's the same ability as the one mummies have. Of course if you're using the Rules Compendium then Despair isn't a fear effect due to all references to it having been deleted from the fear rules, but for the purpose of this argument that's a wash.

Even if it (somehow) doesn't (technically) get included in the list of things covered by the "Fear" section, it's still an irrelevant example because the skill specifically says it does not work on targets that are immune to fear. And it offers zero persuasive evidence to contradict the fact that being immune to mind-affecting makes you immune to fear. Common sense would tell you it supports it.

"This [thing] doesn't work on characters immune to [X]" doesn't automatically mean that [thing] is an [X]. By that logic every attack you make while affected by the Critical Strike spell is a sneak attack because Critical Strike says that creatures immune to sneak attack are immune to the extra damage from Critical Strike.

No, my argument is this:

1) All fear is mind-affecting.
2) Mind Blank prevents all mind-affecting.
3) Mind Blank prevents fear.

Your arguments against this are all ignoring 1).

1) is the part being argued against.

So even after assuming that you can intimidate mind-affecting immune targets, being vulnerable to Intimidate STILL has zero bearing on whether or not being immune to Mind-affecting also makes you immune to fear, because it is not a fear effect at all.

It may not be a fear effect, but it inflicts shaken which is a fear condition:

A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.

Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.

Is being shaken a "device [or] spell that detect[s], influence[s], or read[s] emotions or thoughts?" Nope. Is it a "mind-affecting spell [or] effect?" No, it's not a spell or effect at all, it's a condition a.k.a. the result of a spell or effect. Therefore Mind Blank does not make you immune to being shaken.

Intimidate does not fit either definition of a fear attack that you've so far cited (PHB/SRD or RC), therefore it is not mind-affecting under the rule that all fear attacks are mind-affecting. It is also not by its own description mind-affecting. Therefore it is not mind-affecting, and Mind Blank does not protect against it.

Intimidate, which Mind Blank does not protect against, inflicts the shaken condition, which is a fear condition and which Mind Blank does not stop you from having. Therefore, there exists a way to inflict fear upon someone under the effects of Mind Blank. Therefore, a character with Mind Blank is not immune to fear. QED.

Eloel

2015-04-13, 01:37 PM

But immunity to mind-affecting means immunity to fear, so you are wrong!

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-13, 01:56 PM

Intimidate, which Mind Blank does not protect against, inflicts the shaken condition, which is a fear condition and which Mind Blank does not stop you from having. Therefore, there exists a way to inflict fear upon someone under the effects of Mind Blank. Therefore, a character with Mind Blank is not immune to fear. QED.

You don't get to have it both ways.

Intimidate doesn't fit any established definition of either fear effect or fear attack.

So either it falls under the general rules of fear, is mind-affecting, and Mind Blank prevents it. Or it is a unique non-fear effect/attack, does not fall under the general rules of fear, and is thus irrelevant for determining if immune to mind-affecting = immune to fear.

Either way, there is still no proof.

Eloel

2015-04-13, 02:45 PM

Intimidate can impose the Shaken condition. Shaken is a fear condition. By law of transitivity (that you kindly linked to before), Intimidate can impose fear.

Sith_Happens

2015-04-13, 03:01 PM

So either it falls under the general rules of fear, is mind-affecting, and Mind Blank prevents it.

Except that's not what the general rules for fear say. They say that fear attacks are mind-affecting, and you have yet to prove that all fear effects are fear attacks. You just keep saying it and trying to use it to prove your other points. Or you "prove" that all fear effects are fear attacks based on the "fact" that all fear effects are mind-affecting, despite the latter thing being the main point you've been trying to prove in the first place. You cannot use a conclusion to support another conclusion, especially not if the second conclusion itself depends on the first conclusion.

Or it is a unique non-fear effect/attack, does not fall under the general rules of fear, and is thus irrelevant for determining if immune to mind-affecting = immune to fear.

Except that the condition it inflicts is a form of fear.

nolongerchaos

2015-04-13, 03:14 PM

I think what I'm getting out of this is that there seem to be two very distinct camps here.

Camp 1 seems to be saying that "fear attacks" appears to be a universal term that shows up in the definition of Fear both in the PHB/SRD and the Rules Compendium but is itself frustratingly ill-defined. Their claim is that due to the usage of "fear attack" any fear effect, if not is, at least should be, a fear attack, and therefore mind-affecting. Unfortunately for Camp 1, the rules don't state this explicitly, so they've got an uphill battle to prove themselves.

Camp 2 appears to interpret the term "fear attacks" essentially as rule-definition-standard-attacks with what amounts to the [Fear] descriptor tacked on ("If there's no attack roll, then it's not a fear *attack*, obviously, so nya nya I'm not listening to you Camp 1." seems to be the general attitude. They've even at one point hilariously mentioned a Fearful Empowered Dancing Lights as an example of a fear effect not being a fear attack, while in that same sentence linking to the sentence:
All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.by which said Dancing Lights is now in fact, by definition, a fear attack.)

I don't think any headway is likely to be made towards finding an answer both sides will agree upon, and it's time for me to stop hoping for one. Maybe we'll find the answer in the next fear thread, using the exact same arguments :smalltongue:

Sith_Happens

2015-04-13, 03:19 PM

Fearful Empowered Dancing Lights

Yeah, the Fearful Empowerment bit is wrong. I just checked up on the ability and it adds a Will save to resist the added fear component, which makes the empowered spell an attack if it wasn't one already.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-13, 03:23 PM

Except that's not what the general rules for fear say. They say that fear attacks are mind-affecting, and you have yet to prove that all fear effects are fear attacks. You just keep saying it and trying to use it to prove your other points. Or you "prove" that all fear effects are fear attacks based on the "fact" that all fear effects are mind-affecting, despite the latter thing being the main point you've been trying to prove in the first place. You cannot use a conclusion to support another conclusion, especially not if the second conclusion itself depends on the first conclusion.

What I have demonstrated (repeatedly) that fear attacks are either spells, Ex abilities, Sp abilities, or Su abilities. And that all fear attacks are mind-affecting.

If you disagree that the definition of Fear in the RC supersedes the glossary definition of fear "effects" in the PHB, then Intimidate is irrelevant, because it doesn't fit the definition of a fear effect.

That fact that it has a special condition that says it does not work in fear immune targets is, as you said, a conclusion that you are trying to use to support another conclusion.

The only thing that passage would matter for is when it is eventually determined if immune to mind-affecting = immune to fear, then that would tell you if Intimidate would or would not work on mind-affecting. It doesn't work the other way around.

Except that the condition it inflicts is a form of fear.

The condition itself is defined. It's the source of that condition that matters.

You don't get to use an example of something that is not a fear effect/attack to prove that fear effects/attacks work on Mind-affecting immune targets.

That would be the same thing as saying, "Not all manual coupes get good gas mileage, because this automatic sedan gets terrible gas mileage." It's an example that has no relation at all to the category in question.

At best, it would fall under the same Specific trumps General exception that covers Turn Undead.

Magma Armor0

2015-04-13, 03:28 PM

Considering not all spells are attacks, what do you say about non-attack spells with the fear descriptor, such as the aformentioned dread witch's [Fear] cat's grace? These are not spell attacks, would you still qualify it as a fear attack?

Also see above for intimidate, which is not a listed fear attack, merely having the ability to grant a fear effect.

technically, yes, it is a spell attack. As defined here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#attacks

"All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."

Cat's grace allows a saving throw, ergo it is an attack.

Imagine an invisible (as the low-level spell) adventurer sneaking up on an enemy and yelling "BOO!" as an Intimidate check while invisible. Should they promptly become visible?

That depends on whether it's defined as an offensive combat action. I think it is--given that "demoralize opponent" says "You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent’s resolve in combat." (emphasis mine) Unless you're using intimidate just to alter attitude, but then it doesn't apply shaken, as I understand.

hamishspence

2015-04-13, 04:18 PM

While I think the statement is general enough (and useful enough) to apply to all offensive combat actions, not just all magical offensive combat actions - it's been argued that it should only be applied to magical combat actions.

Andezzar

2015-04-13, 04:23 PM

That guy over there is donning a shield with a symbol of the Burning Hate! I find that offensive. Thus it is an offensive combat action i.e. an attack.
It gets silly pretty quickly, if you apply that rule to all offensive combat actions.

Sith_Happens

2015-04-13, 05:10 PM

What I have demonstrated (repeatedly) that fear attacks are either spells, Ex abilities, Sp abilities, or Su abilities. And that all fear attacks are mind-affecting.

Yes, yes you have. What you have yet to demonstrate is that all fear effects are fear attacks, or even that all sources of fear are fear effects.

If you disagree that the definition of Fear in the RC supersedes the glossary definition of fear "effects" in the PHB, then Intimidate is irrelevant, because it doesn't fit the definition of a fear effect.

It doesn't fit the definition in RC either.

That fact that it has a special condition that says it does not work in fear immune targets is, as you said, a conclusion that you are trying to use to support another conclusion.

I didn't try to use that line for anything. You, on the other hand, have been using it to claim that Intimidate is a fear effect.

The condition itself is defined. It's the source of that condition that matters.

1. This thread is about Craven. Craven says you "cannot be immune to fear." Not "cannot be immune to fear effects," just "cannot be immune to fear."

2. Being shaken is fear.

3. Therefore, being immune to fear makes you immune to being shaken.

4. Therefore, if something is not making you immune to being shaken, then must not be making you immune to fear.

5. Intimidate makes the target shaken.

6. Therefore, Mind Blank disables Craven if and only if it prevents Intimidate from making you shaken.

It may in fact be that Intimidate is literally the only way in the game to inflict fear that is not a fear attack. For the purpose of this thread, though, one way is enough. And really, if Intimidate is the only source of fear that Mind Blank doesn't protect you from I'd say that's still pretty darn good for Mind Blank.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-13, 05:50 PM

1. This thread is about Craven. Craven says you "cannot be immune to fear." Not "cannot be immune to fear effects," just "cannot be immune to fear."

Craven also does not say Cannot be immune to all fear, even though countless people (including you, apparently) have argued that it does, and are using that interpretation as justification for continuing to argue that if you somehow can still be affected by fear, Mind Blank does not stop Craven from working.

Incidentally, the thread might be about Craven (and Mind Blank), but the argument started when people tried to claim that Mind-Blank does not make you immune to fear under the faulty assumption that there exists fear effects/attacks that work on you with Mind Blank up.

I chose to put the fact that the whole argument is moot if you interpret Craven's prerequisite to mean "Cannot be immune to any fear", since such an interpretation would stop the feat from working if even ONE type of fear in the game could not affect you, on hold to address the more immediate problem of people thinking that there exists fear effects/attacks that are not mind-affecting. That's yet another point I've made at least twice now that still has yet to be directly addressed.

Since my attempts at logic and reason, were met only with irrational, literal word-for-word rule readings, I chose to abandon my clearly frivolous sanity towards rule interpretations about fifteen posts up, which is how we got to where we are now.

I recapped all of that for you so that you can better appreciate what comes next:

2. Being shaken is (a) fear (condition).

FTFY

If people are willing to accept the claim that there is a meaningful distinction between Fear Attacks, Fear Aura and Frightful Presence that sets the last two apart from the general Fear rules because they have their own headings, then the conditions themselves are exempt from those rules as well for the same reason.

The penalties are un-typed, so they are not morale effects, they do not carry the mind-affecting descriptor, nor the fear descriptor. They are just conditions, and can be treated no differently than sickened, disabled, dazzled, stunned, or paralyzed.

3. Therefore, being immune to fear makes you immune to being shaken.
Unless the source of the condition is not a fear effect/attack, apparently.

4. Therefore, if something is not making you immune to being shaken, then must not be making you immune to fear.
If the shaken is unrelated from the general fear rules, then that's implying a generalization that does not exist.

5. Intimidate makes the target shaken.

6. Therefore, Mind Blank disables Craven if and only if it prevents Intimidate from making you shaken.

Since you have failed to establish a relationship between the shaken condition and Fear effects, this is no longer a logical assumption.

Eloel

2015-04-13, 05:56 PM

Since you have failed to establish a relationship between the shaken condition and Fear effects, this is no longer a logical assumption.
He doesn't need to establish a relationship between shaken and fear effects - he only needs to establish one between shaken and fear - craven says "immune to fear", and it is right there in shaken's description.

Crake

2015-04-13, 07:51 PM

Did anyone else notice that the SRD description says "All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects"? Does that statement not imply a clear distinction that not all fear effects are fear attacks? By extension, does the fact that all fear attacks must be explicitly defined as mind affecting fear effects not imply that not all fear effects are mind affecting? Otherwise I feel like it should say "All fear effects are mind-affecting" unless there are fear effects out there which are not mind-affecting.

Pluto!

2015-04-13, 07:55 PM

Did anyone else notice that the SRD description says "All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects"?
This discovery will surely put the argument to rest!

<_<

Eloel

2015-04-13, 08:00 PM

This discovery will surely put the argument to rest!

<_<

Ooh, no one ever noticed that!

Though yes, that's what I have been saying for 5 pages now.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-13, 08:56 PM

Did anyone else notice that the SRD description says "All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects"?

I admit, I have had cause to genuinely wonder if I am the only one...

Does that statement not imply a clear distinction that not all fear effects are fear attacks?
Logic would certainly call that a definite maybe.

By extension, does the fact that all fear attacks must be explicitly defined as mind affecting fear effects not imply that not all fear effects are mind affecting?

Doh! So close...

The reason why implications do not help you is the same reason that human characters do not have 157 arms, even though the rules don't specifically indicate that they don't. It's the same reason why a player, upon having his character hit zero hit points, cannot stand up from his chair, do the "I'm a Little Tea Pot" dance, and have his character return to at full health with all of his spell slots for the day refreshed.

It's because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what can happen, not what can't or doesn't happen (except where explicitly noted). It's why, when you are going to make such a bald-faced claim as, "Not all fear is mind-affecting", you need to make absolutely certain the rules specifically back up your claim, not just be vaguely worded such that they could possibly be interpreted as to not specifically forbid your claim.

For the record, I am finding it positively hilarious that people cannot seem to run away from irrational word-for-word rule readings fast enough, now that they are no longer suiting their purpose.

Crake

2015-04-13, 09:27 PM

This discovery will surely put the argument to rest!

<_<

Ooh, no one ever noticed that!

Though yes, that's what I have been saying for 5 pages now.

I was more referring to the structure of that statement and how it cearly says that all "fear attacks" are "fear effects", but the reverse is never stated.

Logic would certainly call that a definite maybe.

How is that a maybe? There is a set of "fear effects". That statement quite clearly defines "fear attacks" as a subset of "fear effects", and also defines all "fear attacks" as being mind-affecting. It is safe to say that all "fear attacks" are "fear effects" but the same cannot be said in reverse, as there is no rules text that support otherwise, thus you have no support to say that "fear attacks" are the only "fear effects" possible, and that by extension all "fear effects" must also be "fear attacks", which is what you have been saying. In addition, the rules only state that "fear attacks" are mind-affecting, leaving the resulting remainder of the "fear effects" set as not necessarily mind-affecting.

To put it in a list of logical statements as seems to be the new fad in this thread:
1)All fear attacks are mind affecting
2)All fear attacks are fear effects
3)Not all fear effects are fear attacks
4)Fear effects that are not fear attacks are not all mind affecting.
5)Some fear effects are not mind affecting.
6)Immunity to mind affecting does not grant immunity to all fear effects.

Eloel

2015-04-13, 10:33 PM

. In addition, the rules only state that "fear attacks" are mind-affecting, leaving the resulting remainder of the "fear effects" set as not necessarily mind-affecting.

All of that, amazing and perfectly correct. Really. The problem here is that we're trying to find the elusive fear effect that is not a fear attack and is not mind-affecting. Intimidate is one, but it has faced some opposition. If you have any other suggestions, we're all ears.

Crake

2015-04-13, 10:36 PM

All of that, amazing and perfectly correct. Really. The problem here is that we're trying to find the elusive fear effect that is not a fear attack and is not mind-affecting. Intimidate is one, but it has faced some opposition. If you have any other suggestions, we're all ears.

Phobias from heros of horror?

Eloel

2015-04-13, 10:44 PM

Phobias from heros of horror?

I think we have a winner. Thank you!

Edit: The first person to call a phobia an attack should probably see themselves out.

Jowgen

2015-04-13, 11:30 PM

Crake

2015-04-13, 11:45 PM

Hey :smallsmile:

Since everyone's already all over the topic of how the hell fear effects / attacks/ auras fit into the mind-affecting rule set, I was just wondering:

Suppose one character casts suggestion on another (the receiving character chooses to fail save and opposed charisma check) and gives the order "Do not be afraid" (or something rule-lawyeresque to that effect). How would this interact with any given fear attack/effect or intimidation (and potentially Craven)?

Considering suggestion is limited to things that sound reasonable, and fear is typically a reasonable response to something terrifying, I don't think it would work at all.

Note that the opposed charisma check for conflicting orders is between the two giving the orders, so even if you did rule it to work, the opposed check wouldn't be between the victim and the suggester, but between the suggester and the source of the fear.

Edit: To put it another way, since fear is a condition that is imposed on a player, it's like saying "Don't bleed". It's not something a person is capable of controlling, even if they wanted to.

Powerdork

2015-04-14, 12:12 AM

I think we have a winner. Thank you!

Edit: The first person to call a phobia an attack should probably see themselves out.

Panic attack? [vanish]

Jowgen

2015-04-14, 12:17 AM

Considering suggestion is limited to things that sound reasonable, and fear is typically a reasonable response to something terrifying, I don't think it would work at all.

Note that the opposed charisma check for conflicting orders is between the two giving the orders, so even if you did rule it to work, the opposed check wouldn't be between the victim and the suggester, but between the suggester and the source of the fear.

Edit: To put it another way, since fear is a condition that is imposed on a player, it's like saying "Don't bleed". It's not something a person is capable of controlling, even if they wanted to.

Sorry, I meant to write charm person, with the detailed failed save and failed opposed charisma against order to do something one "wouldn't normally do". :smallredface:

I did consider the "don't bleed" angle, and the reason I suspect this might be different is that fear is mind-affecting, same as charm person is. It is certainly a case where magic tells the mind to do one thing and other-magic/reality is trying to get said mind to act differently.

The crux, in my mind, is that even though fear is "mind-affecting" it isn't ever described as "mental control" in a way that would require a opposed charisma check. What I wonder is whether this lack of a "mental control label" would result in fear auto-winning (e.g fear over-rules or ignores charm/compulsion), fear auto-loosing (e.g. fear never given a rule basis for working against charm/complusion) or if there might actually be an argument for an opposed charisma check.

EDIT.: as a more vivid example, imagine a creature that has been afflicted with the Cowering condition, but is then Dominated with the order to attack/run/anything-that-isn't-cowering. Or, alternatively, has been Dominated with orders not to cower, but is then subjected to a fear effects that would have it cower.

Crake

2015-04-14, 12:36 AM

Sorry, I meant to write charm person, with the detailed failed save and failed opposed charisma against order to do something one "wouldn't normally do". :smallredface:

I did consider the "don't bleed" angle, and the reason I suspect this might be different is that fear is mind-affecting, same as charm person is. It is certainly a case where magic tells the mind to do one thing and other-magic/reality is trying to get said mind to act differently.

The crux, in my mind, is that even though fear is "mind-affecting" it isn't ever described as "mental control" in a way that would require a opposed charisma check. What I wonder is whether this lack of a "mental control label" would result in fear auto-winning (e.g fear over-rules or ignores charm/compulsion), fear auto-loosing (e.g. fear never given a rule basis for working against charm/complusion) or if there might actually be an argument for an opposed charisma check.

EDIT.: as a more vivid example, imagine a creature that has been afflicted with the Cowering condition, but is then Dominated with the order to attack/run/anything-that-isn't-cowering. Or, alternatively, has been Dominated with orders not to cower, but is then subjected to a fear effects that would have it cower.

Hmm, I suppose you could have an argument there in the case of panicked/frightened, though I still wouldn't allow it to work against shaken. This is the kind of thing I would leave up to the DM to be honest. Personally I don't think you can choose to auto-fail a charisma check that makes you do something that is against your nature, as auto failing the check itself would be against your nature.

Dominate would have a much stronger case though. In that case it would be a clear cut case of opposed cha check between dominator and source of fear to determine which takes precedence, fleeing in magically induced fear, or fighting in magicially induced stubbornness. I would only allow it in the case of a magical or supernatural based fear ability, in the case of an Ex one, I would simply let the dominate take precedence.

Sith_Happens

2015-04-14, 01:28 AM

I chose to put the fact that the whole argument is moot if you interpret Craven's prerequisite to mean "Cannot be immune to any fear", since such an interpretation would stop the feat from working if even ONE type of fear in the game could not affect you

You're the one who has repeatedly appealed to the most "common-sense" interpretation of something being, if not necessarily the unambiguously correct one, the one that should be followed. The above is a stupid and unintuitive interpretation. Are you going to turn around and tell the party rogue that they've just lost the benefits of Craven because they saved against the dragon's Frightful Presence and are consequently immune to it for the next 24 hours? Or, for that matter, are you going to tell the paladin that "Aura of Courage doesn't say it makes you immune to all fear, so you still need to save against the dragon's Frightful Presence?"

If so, then this interpretation is detrimental to play and by your own logic should be discarded. If not, then the interpretation is internally inconsistent and by your own logic should be discarded.

FTFY

If people are willing to accept the claim that there is a meaningful distinction between Fear Attacks, Fear Aura and Frightful Presence that sets the last two apart from the general Fear rules because they have their own headings, then the conditions themselves are exempt from those rules as well for the same reason.

The penalties are un-typed, so they are not morale effects, they do not carry the mind-affecting descriptor, nor the fear descriptor. They are just conditions, and can be treated no differently than sickened, disabled, dazzled, stunned, or paralyzed.

The SRD refers to shaken as a "lesser form of fear than frightened or panicked." The Rules Compendium page you keep citing lists shaken as a "stage of fear." Being shaken is explicitly fear.

Unless the source of the condition is not a fear effect/attack, apparently.

Not what I was saying. I was contrasting immunity to fear, which makes you immune to being shaken because being shaken explicitly is fear, to Mind Blank, which does not make you immune to being shaken. Oh look, you quoted that second part two bubbles down.

If the shaken is unrelated from the general fear rules, then that's implying a generalization that does not exist.

Quite the contrary, it is true by formal logic.

"If A, then B" implies "If not B, then not A."

A = you are immune to fear
B = you are immune to being shaken (which, to repeat, is specifically described as being fear)

Since you have failed to establish a relationship between the shaken condition and Fear effects, this is no longer a logical assumption.

Since you have failed to disestablish the relationship between the shaken condition and the Craven feat, which is established by the shaken condition being specifically described as a form of fear, it very much remains a logical conclusion.

I was more referring to the structure of that statement and how it cearly says that all "fear attacks" are "fear effects", but the reverse is never stated.

This.

Imagine, for a moment, the fear effects are rectangles and fear attacks are squares.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Hopefully you remember that from grade school math rather than treating it as something I made up.

Sorry, I meant to write charm person, with the detailed failed save and failed opposed charisma against order to do something one "wouldn't normally do". :smallredface:

I did consider the "don't bleed" angle, and the reason I suspect this might be different is that fear is mind-affecting, same as charm person is. It is certainly a case where magic tells the mind to do one thing and other-magic/reality is trying to get said mind to act differently.

The crux, in my mind, is that even though fear is "mind-affecting" it isn't ever described as "mental control" in a way that would require a opposed charisma check. What I wonder is whether this lack of a "mental control label" would result in fear auto-winning (e.g fear over-rules or ignores charm/compulsion), fear auto-loosing (e.g. fear never given a rule basis for working against charm/complusion) or if there might actually be an argument for an opposed charisma check.

EDIT.: as a more vivid example, imagine a creature that has been afflicted with the Cowering condition, but is then Dominated with the order to attack/run/anything-that-isn't-cowering. Or, alternatively, has been Dominated with orders not to cower, but is then subjected to a fear effects that would have it cower.

All of these cases sound like "opposed Charisma check to see which effect wins out" to me.

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-14, 05:23 PM

You're the one who has repeatedly appealed to the most "common-sense" interpretation of something being, if not necessarily the unambiguously correct one, the one that should be followed. The above is a stupid and unintuitive interpretation. Are you going to turn around and tell the party rogue that they've just lost the benefits of Craven because they saved against the dragon's Frightful Presence and are consequently immune to it for the next 24 hours? Or, for that matter, are you going to tell the paladin that "Aura of Courage doesn't say it makes you immune to all fear, so you still need to save against the dragon's Frightful Presence?"

If so, then this interpretation is detrimental to play and by your own logic should be discarded. If not, then the interpretation is internally inconsistent and by your own logic should be discarded.

Before I even start, I want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for injecting even the tiniest bit of sanity back into this thread. I will happily concede that "any" is an obnoxious interpretation, and that logically there should be no meaningful distinction between a phrase that says "Cannot be immune to fear" and anything which makes a creature "immune to fear".

The last problem remaining then is the people who insist on arguing that there is a meaningful distinction between a fear effect and a fear attack.

The entry under the header of the Rules Compendium reads this:

Spells, magic items, and monsters can cause fear. In most cases, a Will saving throw is required to resist the effect. Fear attacks can have various consequences, but all of them are mind-affecting fear effects.

Now while the absurd thing to do is to consider each individual sentence of that description as an entity unto itself and read accordingly, the common sense thing to do is to read it as a single description. It tells us that in D&D there is stuff that can cause fear, and that most of the time you are required to roll a Will save to avoid the effect. Now does effect mean the result of the spell, magic item, or monster ability? Or does it mean effect, as in the result of the spell, magic item, or ability is to be considered a fear effect?

More on this in a moment.

Next it describes the stages of fear. This is another place where creating a strict RAW reading causes more problems than it solves. The previous paragraph indicates that all fear attacks are mind affecting fear effects, but the stages of fear themselves are not attacks, they are the conditions which are the results of attacks (or "effects"). This leaves it open to claim that the conditions are entities unto themselves, only described here for the sake of convenience.

Since fear attacks are explicitly described as mind-affecting fear effects, in order for the conditions to be treated the same, their descriptions would also have to contain the phrase "This is a fear effect.", not something as unclear as "a stage of fear"

Mind you, I never believed this for a second, it was pretty much to emphasize how pointless irrational RAW readings are.

I did say I'd be back to Fear effects, and the next heading labeled Escalating Fear says this:

Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken creature that is made shaken again becomes frightened instead, and a shaken creature that is made frightened becomes panicked instead.A frightened creature that is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead.
Multiple exposures to the same effect don’t trigger this escalation of fear. Exposure to different effects does. When such multiple exposures occur, the worst stage of fear lasts until the duration of all the effects causing the fear expire.

This first paragraph seems to clearly states that the stages of fear (conditions) are the results of "fear effects". The first sentence of the second is a little more ambiguous. Either they are again using "fear effect" interchangeably with "fear attack", or they are making a distinction without ever defining what a fear effect actually is (other than suggesting it's something that can cause a fear condition).

The latter causes all sorts of problems with generally accepted readings. It's always been widely agreed that in 3.5 that all methods of inflicting fear escalate. If you Intimidate someone then hit them with Cause fear, they are frightened. If a dragon hits you with a Fell Frighten spell the round after you fail a save to his Frightful Presence, you are panicked. But if one interprets that paragraph literally, by itself, then only "fear effects" can cause escalation, which is a term that remains undefined (assuming that you believe the definitions in the RC hold precedence over the PHB).

So at this point is it fair to say that if "fear attacks" are capable of causing fear escalation, then they are mechanically identical to "fear effects" and there is no point in trying to make a distinction between them?

Crake

2015-04-15, 02:56 AM

So at this point is it fair to say that if "fear attacks" are capable of causing fear escalation, then they are mechanically identical to "fear effects" and there is no point in trying to make a distinction between them?

Did you miss the bit were I mentioned phobias as a RAW fear effect that is not a fear attack? Definitive proof that there exists fear effects that are not fear attacks. Worth noting that nowhere is it mentioned in the phobias section that they are mind affecting either, so even a mind blanked wizard with a phobia would still run scared when he encounters his phobia. Pretty clear evidence that Immunity to Mind-Affecting does not equal Immunity to Fear

Socratov

2015-04-15, 07:42 AM

[snip]
So at this point is it fair to say that if "fear attacks" are capable of causing fear escalation, then they are mechanically identical to "fear effects" and there is no point in trying to make a distinction between them?

Ehm, no? That's like saying that using the spell Orb of Fire is virtually identical to using the spell Fireball, while one is usable in an AMF and the other is not. By that logic: if depleting one's hitpoints cases the 'dead' condition and the 'Slay Living' spell does the same, Thus we can rule that Slay Living deals an undefined arbitrarily high amount of hit point damage upon a failed fort save.

Or to approach it form a semantically more logical standpoint, if the designers intended for fear attacks and fear effects to be the same why have 2 seperate terms for them, one of which is explained in a detailed manner (being fear attacks), whiel the other has gotten a poor treatment regarding detailed explanations. That doesn't mean we can equate the two without some sort of acknowledgement from said esigners or appointed adjudicators (like people writing the rules compendium, errata or the FAQ section).

Also, during the previous 5 pages people (you included) have tried to find in-game mechanics that cause fear but are not to be considered attacks. The poster above me pointed towards the existence of phobias.

I'll quote from Heroes of Horror:

Phobias

One effective way of using fear-related character conditions in a game is through phobias.
Phobias occur in three degrees of severity: mild, moderate, and severe. Characters can be given mild phobias by the DM either as part of that character's background or due to some strange event that character experiences. Any level of phobia might occur as a result of depravity (see The Taint of Evil, beginning on page 62). When a character with a mild phobia encounters the object of her phobia, she must make a successful Will save or become shaken. The DC fo the save equals 12 + the CR of the challenge that is the object of the phobia. (Treat CRs of less then 1 as 0.)
A moderate phobia requires the character to succeed on a Will save (DC 14 + the CR of the challenge) or become frightened.
A severe phobia requires the character to succeed on a Will save (DC 16 + the CR of the challenge) or become panicked.

The normal rules for stacking feat effects apply to phobias as well. If a character becomes shaken from exposure to an object of her phobia, a second exposure to a different object while she is still shaken makes her frightened. An encounter with a group of creatures of the same kind counts as a single exposure, even if more creates os the same kind appear in the middle of the encounter. However, if a character with a phobia about vermin is fighting a group of monstrous centipedes when a monstrous spider suddenly appears, this different type of vermin counts as a second exposure to a different object.
A player (or the DM in some cases) can shoose any of the following creature types as the object of a character's phobia: aberrations, animals, constructs, dragons, elemantals and fey, giants and monstrous humanoids, magical beasts, oozes and vermin, outsiders, plants, or undead. In addition, characters can have phobias regardign the following situations:
Cramped Quarters: [mechanical explanation]
Darkness: [mechanical explanation]
Fire:[mechanical explanation]
Heights: [same]
Magic: This phobia applies whenever the character is targeted by a hostile spell or is within the area of a hostile spell. The effective CR equals double the spell's level. All spells cast by the same creature count as a single exposure to the object ofhte character's phobia.
Water: [more explanation]

Removing Phobias
A phobia can be removed from a character through the application of a Heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell directed specifically at that phobia. If hte phobia is only a mild phobia, a character can also overcome his fear by facing it directly. In order to do so the character must succeed on his Will save agaisnt 10 consecutive exposures to the source of his fear.

(I have left out the less interesting bits of the explanation of the (in the book) bolded phobias).

Now all we have to do is ask ourselves if:

being presented with the object of your phobia is to be considered to be attacked
wether or not that makes for a fear attack
and wether or not being presented with the object of your phobia counts as a fear effect.

If you consider 1 to be true then you are correct in thinking all fear effects are for all intents and purposes attacks and therefore per the rules in the Rules Compendium quoted earlier to be [mind affecting]

If you don't consider 1 to be true then number 2 is where it gets interesting: not all fear attacks are specifically an atttack, but an area of effect. Therefore we need to ask ourselves if being presented with one's phobia is comparable with a dragon's Freightful Presence or a mummy's dread aura. Consider 2 to be true and again, for all intents and purposes yadda-yadda... attack... yadda...[mind affecting (see above)

If you consider 1 and 2 not to be applicable to the situation then all we need to argue is wether being presented with one's phobia is or generates a fear effect. If not then I'd be very curious how you would classify this occurence. If you do then you must accept that fear effects and fear attacks are different things and thus an immunity to [mind effecting] does not equal an immunity to fear (as established somehwere in the previous 5 pages).

Eloel

2015-04-15, 08:47 AM

Now all we have to do is ask ourselves if:

being presented with the object of your phobia is to be considered to be attacked
wether or not that makes for a fear attack
and wether or not being presented with the object of your phobia counts as a fear effect.

I have not read through all of that (sorry), but, what?
"I teleported, I ended up near a water source, the weave attacked me!" is NOT a thing.

Sith_Happens

2015-04-15, 03:19 PM

Before I even start, I want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for injecting even the tiniest bit of sanity back into this thread. I will happily concede that "any" is an obnoxious interpretation, and that logically there should be no meaningful distinction between a phrase that says "Cannot be immune to fear" and anything which makes a creature "immune to fear".

Glad to clear that up, it could have gotten messy fast.:smallsmile:

Now while the absurd thing to do is to consider each individual sentence of that description as an entity unto itself and read accordingly, the common sense thing to do is to read it as a single description.

I'd say the halfway point between these two is the correct (or at least most correct) way to read it. Sure, you should be considering the paragraph as a whole, but that doesn't automatically equate to every part of it talking about the same thing. If you'll note, "Fear Attacks" has its own subsection. If all fear effects were fear attacks it either wouldn't be necessary to organize things this way, or the subsection would be titled "Fear Effects." Furthermore, the two terms are clearly not used interchangeably, rather, there's a noticeable difference in the context that each is used under.

Lastly, consider the clause that's at issue in the first place: "All [fear attacks] are mind-affecting fear effects." If "fear effect" and "fear attack" were interchangeable then that is about the least sensical way possible to write that rule; "All fear effects are mind-affecting" is far more intuitive and to the point, and I can't think of a single reason that a writer wouldn't just use those exact words if it were what they meant. In fact, it would take some serious twisting of grammar to construe "All [fear attacks] are mind-affecting fear effects" as not implying that fear attacks are a subset of fear effects.

Yes, I just parsed that sentence by itself as part of my response to your saying that the paragraph could be read in whole rather than parts. That gets back to what I said about a halfway point. Yes, the paragraph is, a whole, describing fear effects. The bit about fear attacks is at the end, though, which is the usual place to put ideas that are more specific than the other ideas in the same paragraph.

Now does effect mean the result of the spell, magic item, or monster ability? Or does it mean effect, as in the result of the spell, magic item, or ability is to be considered a fear effect?

I'm not sure what the difference between these questions is supposed to be, the second one reads to me like you just rearranged the first.:smallconfused:

Since fear attacks are explicitly described as mind-affecting fear effects, in order for the conditions to be treated the same, their descriptions would also have to contain the phrase "This is a fear effect.", not something as unclear as "a stage of fear"

This would be relevant if Craven referred to "fear effects," but it just refers to the more general "fear." Which the conditions in question are stated to be. The best term to use for them would probably be "fear conditions."

This first paragraph seems to clearly states that the stages of fear (conditions) are the results of "fear effects". The first sentence of the second is a little more ambiguous. Either they are again using "fear effect" interchangeably with "fear attack", or they are making a distinction without ever defining what a fear effect actually is (other than suggesting it's something that can cause a fear condition).

The word "effect" is already used extensively throughout the whole the game rules, in the same way it's normally used. Which means a "fear effect" is implicitly defined as "something that causes fear." It's the "fear" part that has a specific game meaning.

But if one interprets that paragraph literally, by itself, then only "fear effects" can cause escalation

Not necessarily. "Fear effects are cumulative" does not automatically mean that the source of fear currently pointed at you cares where your existing fear condition came from. Either that or it's implying that fear conditions are themselves fear effects, which... I'm would pretty sure would lead to some messy outcomes elsewhere in the rules.

Socratov

2015-04-15, 04:53 PM

I have not read through all of that (sorry), but, what?
"I teleported, I ended up near a water source, the weave attacked me!" is NOT a thing.

well, here is the thing, the phobia rules mention that being presented with your phobia kaes you roll a will save. You could compare that with being targeted by a spellthat grants a save against a fear effect. And if it is not an outright attack, you could rule it to be comparable to a mummy's dread aura, which is also not an outright attack, but by the rules is to be considered a fear attack. Especially this last part is key: if fear effects that grant a save of sorts that aren't an outright attack, ruleswise could be considered a fear attack, then again by the rules, it's a [mind affecting] thingie and thus blocked by mindblank with all of the consequences for Craven. However, RAW is not crystal clear on this in calling these situations out and thus are up for debate. The only differences that phobias have versus the dread aura ofthe mummy is that phobiasoriginate from within the character (internally) instead from an outside source (ex0ternally) which would make for different situation. So again, if you consider points 1 and 2 of my post above to be false then we have found the situation where fear effects are not fear attacks (and thus not blocked by Mind blank) making craven eligible for use with Mind Blank. I can see a DM ruling both ways, either for convenience, or the (less then stellar, but possible) argumentation presented here.

Tysis

2015-04-15, 08:01 PM

Did you miss the bit were I mentioned phobias as a RAW fear effect that is not a fear attack? Definitive proof that there exists fear effects that are not fear attacks. Worth noting that nowhere is it mentioned in the phobias section that they are mind affecting either, so even a mind blanked wizard with a phobia would still run scared when he encounters his phobia. Pretty clear evidence that Immunity to Mind-Affecting does not equal Immunity to Fear

Except phobias aren't a RAW fear effect. The don't meet the the definition of one nor are they labeled as such. They merely use the same rules for stacking the conditions of shaken, frightened, and panicked.

From the Player's Handbook Glossary

fear effect:Any spell or magical effect that causes the victim to become shaken, frightened, or panicked, or some other fear-based effect defined in the definition of the specific spell or item in question.

From Heroes of Horror

One effective way of using the fear-related character conditions in a horror game is through phobias.

Phobias occur in three degrees of severity: mild, moderate, and severe. Characters can be given mild phobias by the DM either as part of that character's background or due to some strange event that character experiences. Any level of phobia might occur as a result of depravity (see The Taint of Evil, beginning on page 62). When a character with a mild phobia encounters the object of her phobia, she must make a successful Will save or become shaken. The DC fo the save equals 12 + the CR of the challenge that is the object of the phobia. (Treat CRs of less then 1 as 0.) A moderate phobia requires the character to succeed on a Will save (DC 14 + the CR of the challenge) or become frightened. A severe phobia requires the character to succeed on a Will save (DC 16 + the CR of the challenge) or become panicked.

The normal rules for stacking fear effects apply to phobias as well. Emphasis mine.

As a side note this also means that intimidate is not a fear effect, it just inflicts the shaken condition.