Is it possible to free rebuked undead?

[ayvango]

Evil cleric make some sentient undead controlled by rebuking attack the party. Is it possible to break control with some spell? There is no turning specialist in the party to oppose turn check directly. Should greater dispel magic break control?

[Necroticplague]

Evil cleric make some sentient undead controlled by rebuking attack the party. Is it possible to break control with some spell?
At least temporarily, yes.



There is no turning specialist in the party to oppose turn check directly. Should greater dispel magic break control?
No, suoernatural abilities aren’t dispelable.

[AlanBruce]

Evil cleric make some sentient undead controlled by rebuking attack the party. Is it possible to break control with some spell? There is no turning specialist in the party to oppose turn check directly. Should greater dispel magic break control?

Rebuking and Turning are Supernatural Abilities and as such, Dispel Magic will not work. Off the bat, an AMF will suppress the effect, however. That being said, maybe it can be argued that two opposing clerics could make checks to surpass the other and thus break control, but I doubt that's RAW.

[Eldariel]

Rebuking and Turning are Supernatural Abilities and as such, Dispel Magic will not work. Off the bat, an AMF will suppress the effect, however. That being said, maybe it can be argued that two opposing clerics could make checks to surpass the other and thus break control, but I doubt that's RAW.

There is actually a rule for this sort of thing. Multiple clashing Mental Control Effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#multipleMentalControlEffects) require opposed Charisma-checks to determine whose control takes precedence so things like Control Undead (or Command Undead in the case of unintelligent undead) and opposed Rebuking do indeed work to a degree as long as you can beat the opponent's Charisma.

[BlackOnyx]

Protection From Possession (Bard 1, Sor/Wiz 1, Clr 1) from Ghostwalk might be up your alley.

10min/lvl duration, no save, no spell resistance. Doesn't dispel existing mental control effects, but suppresses them for the spell's duration.

[Goaty14]

Protection From Possession (Bard 1, Sor/Wiz 1, Clr 1) from Ghostwalk might be up your alley.

10min/lvl duration, no save, no spell resistance. Doesn't dispel existing mental control effects, but suppresses them for the spell's duration.

But rebuking isn't mind control? :smallconfused:

[BlackOnyx]

But rebuking isn't mind control? :smallconfused:

If I'm not mistaken, isn't OP asking for a way of resisting the mind control effect of a high enough rebuking level (colloquially referred to as "rebuke commanding") vs. the standard 10 round rebuking effect?


Evil cleric make some sentient undead controlled by rebuking attack the party. Is it possible to break control with some spell?

Emphasis mine.

Per the SRD, an undead commanded by the rebuking power of an evil cleric is "under the mental control of the evil cleric." If that specific control effect is what he's trying to negate (rather than the "cowering" effect of a standard turn attempt), I believe Protection from Possession would still qualify.

[ayvango]

But rebuking isn't mind control? :smallconfused:
Rebuke is surely not a mind control. Because undead are immune to mind control but obviously vulnerable to rebuking.



If I'm not mistaken, isn't OP asking for a way of resisting the mind control effect of a high enough rebuking level (colloquially referred to as "rebuke commanding") vs. the standard 10 round rebuking effect
I tried to state that evil cleric is somewhere distant enough and sends his undead minions. It would be easier to free such minions than to fight them and destroy. If it is ever possible.

[Crake]

If I'm not mistaken, isn't OP asking for a way of resisting the mind control effect of a high enough rebuking level (colloquially referred to as "rebuke commanding") vs. the standard 10 round rebuking effect?



Emphasis mine.

Per the SRD, an undead commanded by the rebuking power of an evil cleric is "under the mental control of the evil cleric." If that specific control effect is what he's trying to negate (rather than the "cowering" effect of a standard turn attempt), I believe Protection from Possession would still qualify.

Right, but I think goaty's point was that rebuking isn't actually [mind-affecting], so it's not mind control. From what I understand is it's manipulating the negative energy that actually animates the undead to begin with, so you're not so much controlling them as much as re-rewriting the very fabric of their being to follow your commands, though that might just be my headcannon.

It basically comes down to: is it mind control, or control by some other means? After all, undead cannot be affected by mind-affecting, and rebuking can affect even mindless undead, so there's very little support for the idea that commanding undead is actually mind control, but rather control by some other means.

[Falontani]

dont show this to my DM. I do not need my undead coming after me. They would vastly rip me apart. That said, undead created via Animate Dead, are they controlled like commanded, or..?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Right, but I think goaty's point was that rebuking isn't actually [mind-affecting], so it's not mind control. From what I understand is it's manipulating the negative energy that actually animates the undead to begin with, so you're not so much controlling them as much as re-rewriting the very fabric of their being to follow your commands, though that might just be my headcannon.

It basically comes down to: is it mind control, or control by some other means? After all, undead cannot be affected by mind-affecting, and rebuking can affect even mindless undead, so there's very little support for the idea that commanding undead is actually mind control, but rather control by some other means.

The anti mind control effect of PfX is actually worded as "to exercise mental control". And rebuke-commanding is explicitly that.

Commanded

A commanded undead creature is under the mental control of the evil cleric.

There's not even a little ambiguity here.

[BlackOnyx]

Rebuke is surely not a mind control. Because undead are immune to mind control but obviously vulnerable to rebuking.

Apologies, using the informal term "mind control" (given its use as a spell descriptor) was a bit misleading on my part.

Protection from Possession specifically wards a creature "against mental control and possession attempts."

Per the SRD, the effect of rebuke commanding is that the "commanded undead creature is under the mental control of the evil cleric."

(Emphasis mine.)

As rebuke commanded undead are creatures being manipulated by mental control, my interpretation was that the effect would be suppressed by Protection from Possession

That said, given that the spell is setting specific and has the potential to be a bit overpowered, I could see why a DM might rule that it doesn't apply for rebuke commanding. As written though, I believe it probably would.




Right, but I think goaty's point was that rebuking isn't actually [mind-affecting], so it's not mind control. From what I understand is it's manipulating the negative energy that actually animates the undead to begin with, so you're not so much controlling them as much as re-rewriting the very fabric of their being to follow your commands, though that might just be my headcannon.

Mmm...I might have to disagree with that interpretation.

Between the fact that the SRD explicitly describes it as a form of "mental control" and requires a standard action to give orders, it seems likely that the original (and quite possibly unwilling) personality of the commanded undead still persists.




...so there's very little support for the idea that commanding undead is actually mind control, but rather control by some other means.

Apolgies. As I mentioned above, I should have used the term "mental control" rather than "mind control" in this situation. And as sleepyphoenixx mentioned:


The anti mind control effect of PfX is actually worded as "to exercise mental control". And rebuke-commanding is explicitly that.


Commanded

A commanded undead creature is under the mental control of the evil cleric.

There's not even a little ambiguity here.



Also:


dont show this to my DM. I do not need my undead coming after me.

Ha, right?

That said, I think it does add an interesting dynamic to gameplay. Makes dominating a horde of unwilling undead that much more of a risk vs. reward scenario (which, in all fairness, it probably should be).




That said, undead created via Animate Dead, are they controlled like commanded, or..?

My interpretation is that animate dead is something of a special case.

Unlike rebuke commanding, the spell description doesn't mention anything about imposing "mental control." It only states (per the SRD) that "the undead you create remain under your control indefinitely."

My interpretation is that this means that undead created by animate dead are hard-wired to obey their creators as a part of their inherent nature, similar to the description of an undead spawn's "affection" in the Libris Mortis.

Other casters can certainly cast control spells on them, but their natural, inborn desire is to serve the one that created them (meaning Protection from X spells wouldn't hinder their creator's ability to give them orders).

This is actually a big reason why my character (a cleric necromancer) prefers to use animated servants rather than commanded ones (despite their weaker stats). You can't put a price on eternal loyalty.

[ayvango]

Apolgies. As I mentioned above, I should have used the term "mental control" rather than "mind control" in this situation.
Ghostwalk is outdated material, so DM should decide how would it be updated to new edition. That is why he ruled that old "mental control" should be substituted with commonly used in the 3.5 edition. "mind control"

Using mental commands to control creature is not restricted to mind affecting. You could control oozes with telekinetic force. You still use mental action to send commands, but that commands are executed not by an ooze, but by force carcass enveloping it.

[BlackOnyx]

Ghostwalk is outdated material, so DM should decide how would it be updated to new edition. That is why he ruled that old "mental control" should be substituted with commonly used in the 3.5 edition. "mind control"

A perfectly reasonable call. As you say, porting 3.0e material is largely DM dependent.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Ghostwalk is outdated material, so DM should decide how would it be updated to new edition. That is why he ruled that old "mental control" should be substituted with commonly used in the 3.5 edition. "mind control"

Using mental commands to control creature is not restricted to mind affecting. You could control oozes with telekinetic force. You still use mental action to send commands, but that commands are executed not by an ooze, but by force carcass enveloping it.

Protection from Evil and its variants have the exact same clause and are 3.5 core.

[Crake]

Protection from Evil and its variants have the exact same clause and are 3.5 core.

This then comes down to what is meant by mental control. When protection from evil says "mental control" does it mean "control over mentality"? Or "control that is performed mentally". Because when rebuke undead states "mental control", it means the latter. It is clear that when an undead is under the "mental control" of the cleric, it means that the control that the cleric exerts is exerted mentally, rather than verbally. Does this mean that if the cleric had to verbally command his undead, it would no longer be "mental control" and become "verbal control"?

[Segev]

Assuming the undead are mindless, command undead would give you control over them. Since there would be competing sources of control, at this point, the caster of command undead would enter into an opposed Charisma check with the evil cleric using Rebuke/Command Undead for each contested command.

[sleepyphoenixx]

This then comes down to what is meant by mental control. When protection from evil says "mental control" does it mean "control over mentality"? Or "control that is performed mentally". Because when rebuke undead states "mental control", it means the latter. It is clear that when an undead is under the "mental control" of the cleric, it means that the control that the cleric exerts is exerted mentally, rather than verbally. Does this mean that if the cleric had to verbally command his undead, it would no longer be "mental control" and become "verbal control"?
I don't see where you get the bolded part. That's clearly your interpretation, not a fact. Just because the orders are given mentally doesn't mean the control can't also be mental.
Dominate Person uses almost the same wording as Commanding does, just with more detail. And abilities that control only the body and not the mind tend to mention that fact.

Not to mention that you're splitting hairs. Mental control means mental control. If two abilities use the exact same wording the safe assumption is that they're talking about the same thing.
D&D does admittedly have its fair share of errors, but absent any glaring conflict i think it's safe to say that two rules using the same wording refer to the same thing.
Commanding is a control effect. PfE suppresses control effects. It is notably not limited to mind-affecting effects. I don't see any such conflict here that would justify looking for an alternative interpretation.

[Zanos]

Both effects specifically say mental control. There's no other possible ruling.

Immunity to Mind Affecting doesnt make you immune to everything that screws with your head anyway.

[BlackOnyx]

Mental control means mental control. If two abilities use the exact same wording the safe assumption is that they're talking about the same thing.
D&D does admittedly have its fair share of errors, but absent any glaring conflict i think it's safe to say that two rules using the same wording refer to the same thing.


Both effects specifically say mental control. There's no other possible ruling.

I'm inclined to agree. Considering RAW, there really isn't any wiggle room. (That said, specific DM rulings can always supersede that.)

From a balance perspective, it is worth noting that Protection from Evil does allow the target a will save.

Undead tend to have strong will saves in general; even a 1HD human warrior skeleton gets a +2. With basic ghouls and wights, you're already at a +5. Even with a 20 as your relevant spellcasting ability score, you're only looking at a DC 16.

As (I imagine) commanded undead would generally be unwilling to accept the spell effects of an enemy caster, there's still a good chance that a single casting of a first level spell like Protection from Evil might fail (especially when dealing with sentient undead).



Immunity to Mind Affecting doesnt make you immune to everything that screws with your head anyway.

A good point. Both Command Undead and Control Undead aren't listed as [mind-affecting] spells, but they do exert influence over their targets' mental states. (The description in Command Undead equates the result as something akin to a charm effect.)

[Nifft]

A sufficiently high-level Good Cleric, or a sufficiently high-damage attack, can free any undead from mental control (and simultaneously from the horror of undeath).

[Crake]

I don't see where you get the bolded part. That's clearly your interpretation, not a fact. Just because the orders are given mentally doesn't mean the control can't also be mental.
Dominate Person uses almost the same wording as Commanding does, just with more detail. And abilities that control only the body and not the mind tend to mention that fact.

Not to mention that you're splitting hairs. Mental control means mental control. If two abilities use the exact same wording the safe assumption is that they're talking about the same thing.
D&D does admittedly have its fair share of errors, but absent any glaring conflict i think it's safe to say that two rules using the same wording refer to the same thing.
Commanding is a control effect. PfE suppresses control effects. It is notably not limited to mind-affecting effects. I don't see any such conflict here that would justify looking for an alternative interpretation.

If you continue reading commanding undead, you'll see this line: " The cleric must take a standard action to give mental orders to a commanded undead." The orders are performed mentally, and need not be spoken out loud.

And semantics isimportant here. The very fact that they use the same wording is important, because it means one thing. The question is what: If protection from evil means "control that is exerted mentally" then yes, it works, but then it DOESN'T work against mind control that is not exerted mentally, because then that ceases to fall under the domain of "mental control". An example of this would be the command spell. It is mind affecting, it controls your mind (and therefore your actions), but it is not mentally exerted, and therefore, with this description of mental control does not fall under the purview of what is protected by protection from evil.

I'm not saying it WOULDN'T work, what I'm saying is, if it DOES work, then you need to reconsider your position on what spells are blocked by protection from evil and which are not.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If you continue reading commanding undead, you'll see this line: " The cleric must take a standard action to give mental orders to a commanded undead." The orders are performed mentally, and need not be spoken out loud.

And semantics isimportant here. The very fact that they use the same wording is important, because it means one thing. The question is what: If protection from evil means "control that is exerted mentally" then yes, it works, but then it DOESN'T work against mind control that is not exerted mentally, because then that ceases to fall under the domain of "mental control". An example of this would be the command spell. It is mind affecting, it controls your mind (and therefore your actions), but it is not mentally exerted, and therefore, with this description of mental control does not fall under the purview of what is protected by protection from evil.

I'm not saying it WOULDN'T work, what I'm saying is, if it DOES work, then you need to reconsider your position on what spells are blocked by protection from evil and which are not.

I get what you're saying but i still think you're overcomplicating things. Your interpretation is possible, but so is mine and mine makes things simpler.
Why can't it mean both? Just because the orders are performed mentally doesn't mean the control isn't over the mind. Just because you need spoken orders doesn't mean it's not mind control.

Every ability should have a counter. Commanding controls something. PfE counters control effects. I don't see why it needs to be any more complicated than that.

[Jack_Simth]

Evil cleric make some sentient undead controlled by rebuking attack the party. Is it possible to break control with some spell? There is no turning specialist in the party to oppose turn check directly. Should greater dispel magic break control?
Odd that you'd want to, rather than just killing them.

Command Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandUndead.htm) will do the job temporarily (days/level), due to the clause: "It will not attack you while the spell lasts." - additionally, if the cleric isn't right there giving orders, "You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do." - "Go home and tell your boss you killed us" should be OK, as they'll normally tell the boss that they've killed things and most of the time the boss won't say "Tell me truly: Did you kill them" or similar. It doesn't free them, but if they fail their saves they're not a problem anymore.