Mind Blank and Bardic Music

[Biggus]

I've heard it said many times on these forums that having Mind Blank at very high/epic levels is essential. All Bardic Music inspiration abilities are mind-affecting, so don't work as long as you have Mind Blank in effect. As far as I know, the only way to overcome this is the epic feat Music of the Gods, which isn't available until level 27.

So, if you have a Bard in the party, especially one who's specialised in Bardic Music, how do you handle it? Do you kick them out of the party when they reach level 15 and say "come back when you're level 27"? Is there another way round it?

[Vaern]

The section in the PHB and SRD involving voluntarily foregoing a saving throw says that even a creature with special resistances to magic, such as an elf's immunity to magical sleep effects, can suppress that quality to willingly accept an effect. By RAW, if you want to be affected by bardic music while under the effects of mind blank, you can simply choose to let it affect you despite being immune to it.

[Doctor Despair]

The section in the PHB and SRD involving voluntarily foregoing a saving throw says that even a creature with special resistances to magic, such as an elf's immunity to magical sleep effects, can suppress that quality to willingly accept an effect. By RAW, if you want to be affected by bardic music while under the effects of mind blank, you can simply choose to let it affect you despite being immune to it.

That section may only apply to racial immunities. If it applies to all immunities, it might only apply to spells. If it applies to more than spells, it might not apply to SLAs. If it applies to SLAs, it might not apply to SU abilities.

Music of the Gods lets you bypass Mind Blank

[Vaern]

That section may only apply to racial immunities. If it applies to all immunities, it might only apply to spells. If it applies to more than spells, it might not apply to SLAs. If it applies to SLAs, it might not apply to SU abilities.

Music of the Gods lets you bypass Mind Blank
It is a pretty vague bit, but I find that taking liberties with the lack of specificity and interpreting it very broadly solves a lot of issues with figuring out how to affect a willing character with an effect that it's immune to.

OP mentioned Music of the Gods; he's looking for a way to make use of Bardic Music during the 12-level gap between the time that Mind Blank becomes comes online and the time that Music of the Gods becomes available.

[Biggus]

The section in the PHB and SRD involving voluntarily foregoing a saving throw says that even a creature with special resistances to magic, such as an elf's immunity to magical sleep effects, can suppress that quality to willingly accept an effect. By RAW, if you want to be affected by bardic music while under the effects of mind blank, you can simply choose to let it affect you despite being immune to it.

As far as I can tell, by RAW that only applies to giving up a saving throw, and there's no saving throw to give up with Mind Blank, it just works automatically. Also, from my reading, even if you could temporarily suppress it, as soon as you stopped suppressing it the effect would be neutralized.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong on either of these points :smallsmile:

[Vaern]

I don't think it's necessary to actively suppress the immunity against an active effect that you've already accepted so long as you remain a willing target; only when you're first targeted by the effect. The example given is an elf voluntarily suppressing its natural resistance to magical sleep effects. In that case, once the elf falls asleep it would be unable to actively suppress its immunity to sleep. If it was necessary to do so it would simply wake up immediately.

As for mind blank working automatically... well, now that I actually look at the spell, it looks a bit sketchy. The long description says that it protects against various effects without ever bringing up the words "immune" or "immunity." In this case it might be debatable whether even music of the gods could affect a mind blanked target. Music of the gods still grants the affected target a saving throw at a +10 bonus, so if mind blank still protects against the effect automatically without allowing for a saving throw then the subject still never has the opportunity to forego that save and still can't be affected by bardic music.
You might contend with the wording of mind blank, though, and argue that "protects against" implies that it only applies to harmful or hostile action, and that the effect may not necessarily apply to harmless or beneficial effects, or those effects for which you are a willing target, in which case it would still function basically identically to having an immunity that you can suppress to willingly accept an effect.

If you were to treat mind blank as a regular immunity to such effects as its short description implies, though, it should work just like the elf's immunity against magical sleep effects. It applies automatically and doesn't subject the elf to a saving throw against effects it's protected against, but it can still suppress that immunity to forego the saving throw it doesn't normally make in order to accept the effect. And since bardic music's inspirational effects don't specify that there's no save against them, I think they default to a general rule where sp/su/ex abilities have a saving throw of (10 + 1/2 the creature's hit dice + relevant ability score modifier, or cha in this case). If the effect needs to have a saving throw attached to it in order to forego said saving throw and suppress your immunity to accept the effect, there it is. This saving throw never comes into play, of course, because the ability only affects willing targets to begin with.

But again, it all really depends on how you look into a single vaguely worded sentence. As Doctor Despair said, it might just apply to racial immunities and resistances in which case the whole discussion about suppressing an immunity granted by a spell is moot.

[Biggus]

As for mind blank working automatically... well, now that I actually look at the spell, it looks a bit sketchy. The long description says that it protects against various effects without ever bringing up the words "immune" or "immunity." In this case it might be debatable whether even music of the gods could affect a mind blanked target. Music of the gods still grants the affected target a saving throw at a +10 bonus, so if mind blank still protects against the effect automatically without allowing for a saving throw then the subject still never has the opportunity to forego that save and still can't be affected by bardic music.
You might contend with the wording of mind blank, though, and argue that "protects against" implies that it only applies to harmful or hostile action, and that the effect may not necessarily apply to harmless or beneficial effects, or those effects for which you are a willing target, in which case it would still function basically identically to having an immunity that you can suppress to willingly accept an effect.

If you were to treat mind blank as a regular immunity to such effects as its short description implies, though, it should work just like the elf's immunity against magical sleep effects. It applies automatically and doesn't subject the elf to a saving throw against effects it's protected against, but it can still suppress that immunity to forego the saving throw it doesn't normally make in order to accept the effect.

From a strict RAW perspective you might be right about Music of the Gods not overcoming Mind Blank, but personally I think "protects against" and "foils" are close enough synonyms to "makes immune to" that you'd have to be a pretty hardcore rules lawyer not to allow it.

Good points about "protects against" implying it only stops harmful effects and the elf's immunity being suppressible despite not involving a saving throw, I hadn't thought of those.

[MR_Anderson]

I've heard it said many times on these forums that having Mind Blank at very high/epic levels is essential. All Bardic Music inspiration abilities are mind-affecting, so don't work as long as you have Mind Blank in effect. As far as I know, the only way to overcome this is the epic feat Music of the Gods, which isn't available until level 27.

So, if you have a Bard in the party, especially one who's specialised in Bardic Music, how do you handle it? Do you kick them out of the party when they reach level 15 and say "come back when you're level 27"? Is there another way round it?

Music of the Gods doesn’t overcome it.


The section in the PHB and SRD involving voluntarily foregoing a saving throw says that even a creature with special resistances to magic, such as an elf's immunity to magical sleep effects, can suppress that quality to willingly accept an effect. By RAW, if you want to be affected by bardic music while under the effects of mind blank, you can simply choose to let it affect you despite being immune to it.

It is a spell effect, not an immunity, it cannot be suppressed without entering into a situation where also the Bardic Music has no effect, such as antimagic sphere or magic dead zones. Mind Blank is just one of those things where its pros out weight the cons.


That section may only apply to racial immunities. If it applies to all immunities, it might only apply to spells. If it applies to more than spells, it might not apply to SLAs. If it applies to SLAs, it might not apply to SU abilities.

Music of the Gods lets you bypass Mind Blank

Music of the Gods does not let you bypass Mind Blank.


From a strict RAW perspective you might be right about Music of the Gods not overcoming Mind Blank, but personally I think "protects against" and "foils" are close enough synonyms to "makes immune to" that you'd have to be a pretty hardcore rules lawyer not to allow it.

Good points about "protects against" implying it only stops harmful effects and the elf's immunity being suppressible despite not involving a saving throw, I hadn't thought of those.

The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it. In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.
Mind Blank is one of the best spells in the game. It is very high level for what it does, and for the higher level the spell protects against the highest level spells in the game, of which Miracle is one of them.

Miracle is a spell that is given by the highest power of the gods, so it makes complete sense that Music of the Gods would also fail just on reason alone.

That said, the protected target isn’t immune, it is just protected to the highest degree. It is no different than a creature protected by an Anti-Magic Sphere. The targets inside are still not immune, but you have to deal with the sphere first.

[gijoemike]

I would like to go one step farther. The prestige class holy liberator grants immunity to such effects as well. It too completely shuts down a bard, the spell prayer, bless, and more than a dozen other buff spells.

And Music of the Gods won't help either. Mind blank is an I win button for defensive magic. Similar to wind wall vs an archer who doesn't have a force bow.

Once you place yourself into a defensive cage like Mindblank the good and the bad cannot reach you. It is a trade off. Even at high level not everything has mind blank. Every single guard, mook, creature cannot have top notch defensive magic. That is why offensive bardic music exists.

[MR_Anderson]

I would like to go one step farther. The prestige class holy liberator grants immunity to such effects as well. It too completely shuts down a bard, the spell prayer, bless, and more than a dozen other buff spells.

And Music of the Gods won't help either. Mind blank is an I win button for defensive magic. Similar to wind wall vs an archer who doesn't have a force bow.

Once you place yourself into a defensive cage like Mindblank the good and the bad cannot reach you. It is a trade off. Even at high level not everything has mind blank. Every single guard, mook, creature cannot have top notch defensive magic. That is why offensive bardic music exists.

Actually Holy Liberator’s Aura of Resolve ability would not act completely like Mind Blank, it is very unique.

Aura of Resolve (Ex): Beginning at 3rd level, the holy liberator gains immunity to all charm and compulsion effects. His mind is his own, and no other creature can control his thoughts or actions. Each ally within 10 feet of him gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against charm or compulsion effects. This ability functions while the holy liberator is conscious, but not if he is unconscious or dead.

A Bard would would still be able to receive the effect of the Bardic Music depending on which use is being used.

However, this is where things get crazy...

Music of the Gods would bypass this ability, because it grants immunity, BUT it goes on to state that there is a protection that prevents control from others while conscious.

So it would be weird, but you could bypass the immunity, but then have to wait until the Holy Liberator lost consciousness to take control.

[Elves]

MOTG replaces an immunity effect with a saving throw, an effect that has been replaced can't then act to negate the save. Unambiguous that it overcomes mindblank. Unless you're saying protect =/= immune, but immune is never technically defined so we're using informal language and they're equivalent.

[Brunks]

Perhaps skip mind blank altogether? Just be undead and have the bard pick up the requiem feat from libris mortis?

[Biggus]

Mind Blank is one of the best spells in the game. It is very high level for what it does, and for the higher level the spell protects against the highest level spells in the game, of which Miracle is one of them.

Miracle is a spell that is given by the highest power of the gods, so it makes complete sense that Music of the Gods would also fail just on reason alone.


There are nonepic feats which allow you to overcome immunities which can otherwise absorb infinite damage from an infinite level spellcaster (Searing Spell, Piercing Cold) so the idea that an epic feat can't overcome a nonepic spell when it specifically says it "can affect even those normally immune" is debatable to put it mildly.

[Vaern]

Perhaps skip mind blank altogether? Just be undead and have the bard pick up the requiem feat from libris mortis?
Becoming undead may simply not fit the character, but you can use magic to pretend to be undead for the same effect.
Veil of undeath gives traits of being undead without actually having to become undead, granting you their immunity to mind-affecting effects. Since I don't think this treats you as actually being undead, except for the purposes of cure and inflict spells and the like, requiem doesn't work yet.
Shroud of undeath then allows you to be treated as undead for spells and effects that specifically target undead creatures. In conjunction with the immunities granted by veil of undeath, this should qualify you for requiem.
This seems like a decent alternative to actually being undead, if that path is undesirable, though the issue in this case becomes the durations of the spells. Mind blank is a 24 hour effect for a single 8th level spell slot while this work around costs both an 8th level and a 2nd level spell slot for a mere 10 min/CL. Maybe once I'm free from work I could hit the homebrew section and see what it might cost to create an item that grants these effects continuously...
It is worth noting, though, that being undead or being otherwise treated as effectively being undead doesn't grant all of the other benefits of mind blank, such as being immune to scrying. But, you know, sometimes you just have to take what you can get.


There are nonepic feats which allow you to overcome immunities which can otherwise absorb infinite damage from an infinite level spellcaster (Searing Spell, Piercing Cold) so the idea that an epic feat can't overcome a nonepic spell when it specifically says it "can affect even those normally immune" is debatable to put it mildly.
I'm inclined to agree that it's reasonable to have an epic feat allow this to work, especially when it's a nonhostile effect on a willing subject. It probably wouldn't be too hard to get any reasonable DM to agree. It's just a matter of whether it's truly RAW based on the wording of the spell. We must ensure that the highest standard of pedantry is upheld, after all.

[Gnaeus]

Going back to voluntarily suppressing resistances, if your DM ruled that you could (and I don’t disagree with any RAW arguments here), it is a standard action to suppress SR for a round. Unless your bard is one of the permasinging ones (also shaky ground) it would need to be a pretty darn optimized bardsong to make accepting it worth a round in combat, or even a buff round for many characters.

[MR_Anderson]

There are nonepic feats which allow you to overcome immunities which can otherwise absorb infinite damage from an infinite level spellcaster (Searing Spell, Piercing Cold) so the idea that an epic feat can't overcome a nonepic spell when it specifically says it "can affect even those normally immune" is debatable to put it mildly.

Immunities are a characteristic of a creature, Mind Blank does not alter the creature or give the power to the creature. The spell retains the power the entire time. I explain this further below.

I think people need to realize what Mind Blank really is...

Mind Blank as an 8th Level Spell is basically the combination of some 1st Level Spells (Protection From...) and a 3rd Level Spell (Nondetection) that is slightly stronger to be a limited personal version of a 5th Level Spell (Mage’s Private Sanctum). You get more specific defenses, but at the cost of losing any bonuses.

Mind Blank could have been a 5th or 6th Level Spell maybe even less by its effect, but the prevention of other magical means to bypass it is what makes it an 8th Level Spell, that’s a 3 level increase to prevent anything from overcoming the spell.

It is high level solely to prevent anything to overcome it.


Going back to voluntarily suppressing resistances, if your DM ruled that you could (and I don’t disagree with any RAW arguments here), it is a standard action to suppress SR for a round. Unless your bard is one of the permasinging ones (also shaky ground) it would need to be a pretty darn optimized bardsong to make accepting it worth a round in combat, or even a buff round for many characters.

Mind Blank doesn’t give the power to the creature, it is the spell’s effect that has been placed on the creature which is what does the protecting for the duration that is the power. Where as Spell Resistance (Cleric 5) the target gains the power of Spell Resistance.

Therefore the argument that SR can be lowered is not the same as deciding to lower or dismiss a spell that is in effect and then calling it back into effect. Spells that allow that specifically state the ability to do such a thing, and Mind Blank does not.

Additionally, the reason for this is that Mind Blank can be used on an enemy to remove hive mind control or other things that you wouldn’t want them to freely drop and regain. It is like placing Circle Protection From ...Whatever on the enemy for your benefit.


I understand the want to stack benefits, but trying to buff with Bardic Music effects when a target has Mind Blank is less effective than casting Barkskin on a creature wearing Full-Plate +5 with a Tower Shield +5.

As a DM, I would only implement a house rule that the actual caster of Mind Blank had the ability to lower the protection, but once you open the door of allowing spells to be turned on and off by casters, that changes quite a lot of things and makes casters even more powerful.

[Gnaeus]

Not sure which part about not disagreeing with the raw argument was unclear. So responding about what you think the RAW is or why it doesn’t work isn’t very meaningful.

The point was that if his DM agreed he could, because the DM’s opinion is more important than ours, it still isn’t generally worth it.

[Vaern]

Going back to voluntarily suppressing resistances, if your DM ruled that you could (and I don’t disagree with any RAW arguments here), it is a standard action to suppress SR for a round. Unless your bard is one of the permasinging ones (also shaky ground) it would need to be a pretty darn optimized bardsong to make accepting it worth a round in combat, or even a buff round for many characters.
The SR rules don't apply to the types of resistances referenced in the section on foregoing saving throws to willingly accept effects. Spell resistance is its own mechanic with its own rules.
The bit that this discussion is largely based on is extremely vague and doesn't actually have solid mechanics attached to it. The line attached to foregoing a saving throw basically says, "This is a thing you're allowed to do," and gives no real explanation as to how it's done. I'm personally inclined to say that due to the way it's presented - in conjunction with foregoing a saving throw - that lowering your resistance or immunity to a particular effect takes as much effort as declaring yourself a willing target to accept the spell's effect, which requires no action.

Falling back on SR rules due to the apparent absence of rules associated with suppressing immunities and other special resistances to magic could be a reasonable course of action in most scenarios, but it does result in awkward interactions that otherwise woudln't come up. SR not only requires a standard action to suppress but must also be actively kept suppressed at the cost of a standard action per round which can't be maintained while unconscious. This is all well and good for SR since an ongoing effect can remain active "under your armor," so to speak, but becomes awkward in regards to immunity. I mentioned earlier that requiring that the immunity be actively suppressed for the duration of a spell after it's in in effect would render the example given in the PHB of an elf willingly accepting a sleep effect completely non-functional: The elf suppresses his immunity, is affected by some sleep effect, falls asleep, becomes unable to actively suppress his immunity, regains immunity, and immediately wakes up.
This one example in particular is probably the most awkward thing you'd see if you went down the "SR rules" route, but the fact that it's used as the example for the option in the PHB and simply wouldn't function if it followed the same rules as spell resistance seems to point towards it not being intended to follow the same set of rules.

[MR_Anderson]

Not sure which part about not disagreeing with the raw argument was unclear. So responding about what you think the RAW is or why it doesn’t work isn’t very meaningful.

The point was that if his DM agreed he could, because the DM’s opinion is more important than ours, it still isn’t generally worth it.

It was clear, but my response was to Biggus not you, so maybe that wasn’t clear to you.

I was merely quoting your comment to help clarify the differences between when a power comes from a spell or the power comes from an individual, and that is the difference between an Immunity and a Protection. People have been dancing around it throughout the thread, but you posted about SR in a clear relevant way as pertaining to the discussion, so I used it to help clarify a difference.

If you didn’t notice I too gave a recommendation about DM house-ruling.


The SR rules don't apply to the types of resistances referenced in the section on foregoing saving throws to willingly accept effects. Spell resistance is its own mechanic with its own rules.
The bit that this discussion is largely based on is extremely vague and doesn't actually have solid mechanics attached to it. The line attached to foregoing a saving throw basically says, "This is a thing you're allowed to do," and gives no real explanation as to how it's done. I'm personally inclined to say that due to the way it's presented - in conjunction with foregoing a saving throw - that lowering your resistance or immunity to a particular effect takes as much effort as declaring yourself a willing target to accept the spell's effect, which requires no action.

Falling back on SR rules due to the apparent absence of rules associated with suppressing immunities and other special resistances to magic could be a reasonable course of action in most scenarios, but it does result in awkward interactions that otherwise woudln't come up. SR not only requires a standard action to suppress but must also be actively kept suppressed at the cost of a standard action per round which can't be maintained while unconscious. This is all well and good for SR since an ongoing effect can remain active "under your armor," so to speak, but becomes awkward in regards to immunity. I mentioned earlier that requiring that the immunity be actively suppressed for the duration of a spell after it's in in effect would render the example given in the PHB of an elf willingly accepting a sleep effect completely non-functional: The elf suppresses his immunity, is affected by some sleep effect, falls asleep, becomes unable to actively suppress his immunity, regains immunity, and immediately wakes up.
This one example in particular is probably the most awkward thing you'd see if you went down the "SR rules" route, but the fact that it's used as the example for the option in the PHB and simply wouldn't function if it followed the same rules as spell resistance seems to point towards it not being intended to follow the same set of rules.

Mind Blank can be used as an offensive spell against enemies.

The Spell does the Protecting, it never gives power to the individual who receives the spell.

[Vaern]

Mind Blank can be used as an offensive spell against enemies.

The Spell does the Protecting, it never gives power to the individual who receives the spell.
Oh, in not referring to mind blank specifically there. I'm just pointing that a creature having resistance of immunity to magic (like an elf's immunity to sleep effects or a gnome's natural resistance to illusions) in the context of the "foregoing a saving throw" section is not the same as spell resistance and doesn't follow the same set of rules. Even if one were to rule that mind blank grants regular immunities rather than the significantly stronger pseudo-immunity that its wording actually grants, the mentioned limitations regarding suppressing SR would not apply.

[MR_Anderson]

Oh, in not referring to mind blank specifically there. I'm just pointing that a creature having resistance of immunity to magic (like an elf's immunity to sleep effects or a gnome's natural resistance to illusions) in the context of the "foregoing a saving throw" section is not the same as spell resistance and doesn't follow the same set of rules. Even if one were to rule that mind blank grants regular immunities rather than the significantly stronger pseudo-immunity that its wording actually grants, the mentioned limitations regarding suppressing SR would not apply.

I am referring to the 5th Level Cleric Spell “Spell Resistance”

The Creature “Gains” SR, which makes the creature have the SR. I’m not focusing on how SR works, but rather how the magic works.

Notice how the spell Freedom of Movement is the spell allowing the movement, even when something else would impose paralysis. It is the spell enabling the effect, not a magic granting the power to the creature, thus it isn’t an immunity.

However, with Hero’s Feast the individual gains the Immunity, and it is a power within the creature magically changed, not the spell itself.

We see the same thing again in Death Ward, where the spell doesn’t protect, but instead grants the protection of immunity to individual.

I’m merely pointing out a nuance in how magic seems to function. Some spells, it is like a barrier created by the spell Protection from...whatever and Mind Blank, and where it is an immunity, the creature gains the power or becomes immune.

[Biggus]

Mind Blank could have been a 5th or 6th Level Spell maybe even less by its effect, but the prevention of other magical means to bypass it is what makes it an 8th Level Spell, that’s a 3 level increase to prevent anything from overcoming the spell.

It is high level solely to prevent anything to overcome it.


As far as I'm aware, all of this is pure assumption on your part. Unless you can point me to an errata, FAQ or similar where one of the developers says this?

Also, Mind Blank may be high level, but MotG is much higher level. Much higher level than Wish or Miracle even. Using the same type of logic you're using here, I could say "if MotG isn't supposed to overcome things which would otherwise be completely immune, why do you have to wait until level 27 to get it? Why is it the equal-highest level Bard ability in the entire game?".

[MR_Anderson]

As far as I'm aware, all of this is pure assumption on your part. Unless you can point me to an errata, FAQ or similar where one of the developers says this?

This isn’t a complete assumption, it is using deductive reasoning from other spells in the game, and using the rules found on creating new spells to understand why Mind Blank is an 8th Level Spell.

It is purely logical, that since the spell could have been 5th or 6th Level by effect alone, that the additional 2 or 3 level increase is for the added strength of not being able to be bypassed by any means. At the time Mind Blank was printed, the named spells were basically the highest things able to bypass it.

Other than that, I don’t have additional developer’s notes or behind the scenes knowledge, but I don’t need to make such a claim. We have the tools to understand why spells are certain levels built into their other publications as stated, and RAW does support my case.


Also, Mind Blank may be high level, but MotG is much higher level. Much higher level than Wish or Miracle even. Using the same type of logic you're using here, I could say "if MotG isn't supposed to overcome things which would otherwise be completely immune,

Again this goes back to deeper understanding of the difference between a target being protected by a magic or the magic altering the target to protect himself/herself. MotG bypasses the 2nd one, but not the 1st.

I think RAW discussion has been agreed upon that MotG will not bypass Mind Blank. Of course the DM could make a house Rule, and I’ve already stated how that will impact other parts of the game.


why do you have to wait until level 27 to get it? Why is it the equal-highest level Bard ability in the entire game?".

I think one has to understand publication timelines, and that Mind Blank might have been written differently if it came after MotG, but MotG came later, and it was not written in a manner to allow it to bypass Mind Blank.

Mind Blank is the pinnacle of all Mind Protections and everyone knows about it in development; if MotG was intended to bypass Mind Blank it would have absolutely been worded differently.

Again, Immunities are characteristics of a creature, and MotG is able to bypass powers coming from a creature, but not magic shields or prisons around a creature.

Mind Blank is a magical Shield/Prison, and this is why MotG doesn’t work, nor can it be suppressed or controlled by the creature inside.

I hope my responses have been helpful, even though I know it isn’t what you wanted to hear.

[Elves]

Immunity is not a formal term. It's never defined. This distinction between inherent or not is your invention. There's no ambiguity that Music of the Gods does penetrate mind blank.

The question is whether the clause on PHB p177 would allow someone under the effect of mind blank to voluntarily accept bardic music. Here's the quote:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can volun-tarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.
It doesn't say that the "special resistance" has to be inherent. Mind blank clearly qualifies as a "special resistance to magic" akin to an immunity to sleep spells. So someone under the effect of mind blank can accept any beneficial mind-affecting spell that has a "Will negates (harmless)" entry. The problem is that inspire courage doesn't have such an entry and isn't a spell, so by strict RAW this clause doesn't apply. The clause is badly written -- probably RAI it was meant to extend beyond spells. Also, this is a reminder why all significant active abilities should get the spell format writeup so that things like save negates (harmless) are specified.

[MR_Anderson]

Immunity is not a formal term. It's never defined. This distinction between inherent or not is your invention. There's no ambiguity that Music of the Gods does penetrate mind blank.

The question is whether the clause on PHB p177 would allow someone under the effect of mind blank to voluntarily accept bardic music. Here's the quote:

It doesn't say that the "special resistance" has to be inherent. Mind blank clearly qualifies as a "special resistance to magic" akin to an immunity to sleep spells. So someone under the effect of mind blank can accept any beneficial mind-affecting spell that has a "Will negates (harmless)" entry. The problem is that inspire courage doesn't have such an entry and isn't a spell, so by strict RAW this clause doesn't apply. The clause is badly written -- probably RAI it was meant to extend beyond spells. Also, this is a reminder why all significant active abilities should get the spell format writeup so that things like save negates (harmless) are specified.

You are correct that Immunity isn’t completely defined in the books, but it is defined as being inherent to the target. We find this in the DMG p79 when Immunity to Poison is discussed, so it isn’t my invention.

What is my invention is that immunity is such an easy concept to grasp that they felt it did not need to be defined. Immunity defines a creature or object and the characteristic of it to be unaffected by what ever it is immune to.

Understanding that Mind Blank is not an immunity you have to understand it like two other spells.

Iron Body vs Wall of Iron

Both can protect you, but one is an inherent change of the target. Mind Blank is like Wall of Iron that is not inherent to what it may protect, except Wall of Iron is a physical manifestation and Mind Blank remains magical.

See Immunity is inherent, and since Mind Blank doesn’t change the target, it isn’t an immunity. It is like a computer and internal firewall software vs an external switch/router.

As for all abilities getting spell format...it isn’t needed, as different abilities work in different ways. Supernatural Abilities are not Spells, and neither are Spell like abilities, furthermore Extraordinary abilities are different too.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You are correct that Immunity isn’t completely defined in the books, but it is defined as being inherent to the target. We find this in the DMG p79 when Immunity to Poison is discussed, so it isn’t my invention.

It certainly is your invention, as nothing of the sort appears anywhere in the DMG, on page 79 or otherwise...and in fact page 79 is just a bunch of dungeon random encounter tables, so perhaps you meant page 179 or page 97, which also don't mention immunity to poison. The Special Abilities section includes entries on Cold Immunity and Fire Immunity, neither of which mention anything about being inherent or not, and in fact the word "inherent" doesn't appear in relation to any defensive abilities at all in the entire book.

The spell energy immunity grants direct immunity to a specified energy type; mantle of the icy soul grants the (Cold) subtype which indirectly grants immunity to cold. Death ward grants immunity to death effects; veil of undeath grants undead traits which indirectly grant immunity to death effects. At no point do any effects mention or care about a difference in how immunities are gained or imply that they might work differently based on their source.

Two other statements of yours that are completely unsupported:


I think one has to understand publication timelines, and that Mind Blank might have been written differently if it came after MotG, but MotG came later, and it was not written in a manner to allow it to bypass Mind Blank.

Mind Blank is the pinnacle of all Mind Protections and everyone knows about it in development; if MotG was intended to bypass Mind Blank it would have absolutely been worded differently.

Music of the Gods was written after 3.0 mind blank, but 3.5 mind blank was written after Music of the Gods, and every other bit of expansion material in 3.0 as well. If the developers felt that "immune to mind-affecting effects" did not actually mean "immune to mind-affecting effects" for whatever reason, they could have changed the verbiage in mind blank, added verbiage in the PHB glossary or DMG special ability explanations, and similar, but they didn't. So if you're looking at RAI, it's clear that immunity actually means immunity.


Mind Blank is a magical Shield/Prison, and this is why MotG doesn’t work, nor can it be suppressed or controlled by the creature inside.

Things like "magical shield" and "magical prison" don't appear in the rules, so if you want to talk about making logical deductions about certain spell effects based on other existing effects, relying on undefined game terms isn't the best route to take.


In short: Music of the Gods bypasses mind blank, characters under the effect of mind blank can willingly accept beneficial spells (by RAW) and any other magical effects (by RAI), and all immunities work the same way regardless of their source.

[MR_Anderson]

It certainly is your invention, as nothing of the sort appears anywhere in the DMG, on page 79 or otherwise...and in fact page 79 is just a bunch of dungeon random encounter tables, so perhaps you meant page 179 or page 97, which also don't mention immunity to poison. The Special Abilities section includes entries on Cold Immunity and Fire Immunity, neither of which mention anything about being inherent or not, and in fact the word "inherent" doesn't appear in relation to any defensive abilities at all in the entire book.

Unlike you, when I was presented with a page number from another poster that did not match the book I currently was using, I didn’t get on my high horse and state they were wrong, I instead went to the other published copy, because I took them at their word of it being true, I’d prefer in the future if you would provide that same respect to others.

Furthermore, you could have even look up Poison and Poison Immunity in the index of your copy to find which page it was on, and you would have found it is most likely in the “Glossary Chapter 8” on page 297, and I am only using deductive reasoning from what you described on page 79 of your book to determine this.

Poison Immunities
Wyverns, medusas, and other creatures with natural poison attacks are immune to their own poison. Nonliving creatures (constructs and undead) and creatures without metabolisms (such as elementals) are always immune to poison. Oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders (such as tanar’ri) are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them.

As for the Cold and Fire Immunity, it more briefly does infer that the immunity is inherent to the creature type, it talks specifically about Frost Giants and Fire Giants. The poison immunity is a mere 3 pages after the Fire Immunity, and explains in more depth the nature of why something is immune.

This is the forum for 3.0 and 3.5 (as well as D20), and sometimes we happen to grab which ever book is closest.

As for the word “inherent,” I was using that word, as that was the word used by Elves to sum up my statements that Immunities are qualities of a creature.

This again is not my invention, it is found throughout 3.0 and 3.5 Publications.

Take a look at the Monster Manual.

In 3.0 in the “Introduction” section you find Types and Type Modifiers. (Page 5 & 6). Immunities are discussed in this section, and with Type Modifiers they specifically give the examples of Fire and Cold. Immunities is not covered in any other section, they are specifically “inherent” to the creature Type.

In 3.5 in the “Chapter 7 Glossary” section you find Types and now Subtypes (instead of Type Modifiers), which is where immunities are now discussed (Pages 305-317). Again, clearly the immunities are “inherent” to creature’s Type or Subtype.


The spell energy immunity grants direct immunity to a specified energy type; mantle of the icy soul grants the (Cold) subtype which indirectly grants immunity to cold. Death ward grants immunity to death effects; veil of undeath grants undead traits which indirectly grant immunity to death effects. At no point do any effects mention or care about a difference in how immunities are gained or imply that they might work differently based on their source.

Thank you for proving my point that immunities are “inherent” to the creature. See how the spells you mentioned grant or give the power to the creature?

Magic can give immunities, but when it does, it is changing the creature, and empowering the creature or object with the immunity.

There are certain spells that don’t give power to creatures, but instead are guards and wards, they instead Protect or Prevent things from happening to the target.

Protection from Evil doesn’t make someone immune to Evil, it wards them from it, it surrounds them with with protection.

Immunity is always tied to the creature either through Type, Subtype, or the creature gaining it. This is pretty standard throughout the PHB, DMG, and MM in 3.0 & 3.5.


Two other statements of yours that are completely unsupported:

Music of the Gods was written after 3.0 mind blank, but 3.5 mind blank was written after Music of the Gods, and every other bit of expansion material in 3.0 as well. If the developers felt that "immune to mind-affecting effects" did not actually mean "immune to mind-affecting effects" for whatever reason, they could have changed the verbiage in mind blank, added verbiage in the PHB glossary or DMG special ability explanations, and similar, but they didn't. So if you're looking at RAI, it's clear that immunity actually means immunity.

Correct Immunity means Immunity, and Mind Blank does not give the creature Immunity, the spell was basically unchanged from 3.0 to 3.5, and it never gained the Immunity, thus it isn’t an immunity.


Things like "magical shield" and "magical prison" don't appear in the rules, so if you want to talk about making logical deductions about certain spell effects based on other existing effects, relying on undefined game terms isn't the best route to take.

Magic Shield/Prison was a metaphor to help paint the picture of the difference between Immunity and other Protective Spells.


In short: Music of the Gods bypasses mind blank, characters under the effect of mind blank can willingly accept beneficial spells (by RAW) and any other magical effects (by RAI), and all immunities work the same way regardless of their source.

I am pretty sure the majority of DMs here agree RAW prevent Music of the Gods from allowing a Bard to affect a creature with Mind Blank, so we are look at RAI.

Think of it this way, if a spell changed you to give you an immunity, the spells has worked its magic in the past and will just fade at the duration. Thus the magic will fade after a certain amount of time, but in the meantime, the immunity is a power coming from the changed creature until it fades. MotG would bypass this, because MotG is greater than creatures.

Mind Blank is a spell that does not change a creature, it instead continues to negate certain magics. It is magic that was woven around the target, and when you try to bypass it, MotG fails, because it can not bypass the weave protecting it. Mystra is greater than MotG, because she is a god, and it is the power of a god that MotG can not pass.

Does this make sense?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Unlike you, when I was presented with a page number from another poster that did not match the book I currently was using, I didn’t get on my high horse and state they were wrong, I instead went to the other published copy, because I took them at their word of it being true, I’d prefer in the future if you would provide that same respect to others.

Furthermore, you could have even look up Poison and Poison Immunity in the index of your copy to find which page it was on, and you would have found it is most likely in the “Glossary Chapter 8” on page 297, and I am only using deductive reasoning from what you described on page 79 of your book to determine this.

I did say that you might have mixed the number up. Pardon me for not checking for every possible permutation.


Since you don’t want to bother glancing at the index after you spent the time to pull it up

Poison Immunities
Wyverns, medusas, and other creatures with natural poison attacks are immune to their own poison. Nonliving creatures (constructs and undead) and creatures without metabolisms (such as elementals) are always immune to poison. Oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders (such as tanar’ri) are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them.

Except that you said that that entry "defined as being inherent to the target," when it doesn't say anything of the sort, it just lists examples of monsters that happen to have inherent immunities. That doesn't support your hypothesis any more than the idea that quasits being used as an example in the Invisibility section means that quasits have "inherent invisibility" while the [I]invisibility spell gives you an "invisibility shield" or something like that.


This again is not my invention, it is found throughout 3.0 and 3.5 Publications.

Take a look at the Monster Manual.

In 3.0 in the “Introduction” section you find Types and Type Modifiers. (Page 5 & 6). Immunities are discussed in this section, and with Type Modifiers they specifically give the examples of Fire and Cold. Immunities is not covered in any other section, they are specifically “inherent” to the creature Type.

In 3.5 in the “Chapter 7 Glossary” section you find Types and now Subtypes (instead of Type Modifiers), which is where immunities are now discussed (Pages 305-317). Again, clearly the immunities are “inherent” to creature’s Type or Subtype.

All of which are examples of type-based immunities, yes, but that has nothing to do with any other kinds of immunities. The (Cold) and (Fire) subtypes happen to grant immunity to cold and fire damage, but what about acid immunity? Is immunity to fire somehow "more inherent" than immunity to acid because one is granted by a subtype and the other is granted by a feat/spell/class feature/etc.? What about if the very same creature has both fire and acid immunity? How about darkvision granted by creature type vs. darkvision that a creature happens to have regardless of type vs. darkvision granted by a spell, which if any of those are inherent and which aren't?

You can't take several instances of example text and extrapolate that out to a larger rules framework when no other evidence exists to support it.


Thank you for proving my point that immunities are “inherent” to the creature. See how the spells you mentioned grant or give the power to the creature?

Magic can give immunities, but when it does, it is changing the creature, and empowering the creature or object with the immunity.

Firstly, you do realize that the definition of "inherent" means that "inherent to the creature" is literally the opposite of "granted by a temporary magical effect," right? :smallamused:

But seriously, it looks the distinction you're trying to get at is something like "effects that affect only the creature" vs. "effects that radiate out from a creature," going by your examples:


Protection from Evil doesn’t make someone immune to Evil, it wards them from it, it surrounds them with with protection.

Protection from evil says it "wards a creature from evil" instead of making them "immune to evil" for two reasons. Firstly, because the latter is not a preexisting defined game effect like "immune to fire" is that you can just state and be done with it in a spell entry (in fact, most items or effects that want to make someone "immune to evil" flavor-wise refer back to protection from evil as the primary source on how that works); secondly, because they simply chose to phrase things that way, the same way that the energy immunity spell "grants a creature complete protection against damage from..." instead of "grants a creature immunity to..." whereas elemental body (fire) grants "fire immunity" yet the two have identical game effects.

More importantly, even if the specific phrasing were important, protection from evil would be a bad counterexample because the spell literally surrounds them, "creat a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot." Compare that to [I]mind blank, which simply protects the target with no AoE effect, and by your own logic mind blank would be "more inherent" than protection from evil.


Correct Immunity means Immunity, and Mind Blank does not give the creature Immunity, the spell was basically unchanged from 3.0 to 3.5, and it never gained the Immunity, thus it isn’t an immunity.

Even if you want to try to argue that mind blank somehow doesn't make the target immune because it doesn't have the word "immune" in the entry (which would be like ruling that a creature subject to energy immunity (cold) can still take cold damage because "complete protection against" is somehow significantly mechanically different from "immunity to," something that wouldn't fly in any game), as Vaern noted the short description of mind blank says...


Mind Blank: Subject is immune to mental/emotional magic and scrying.

...so the developers are obviously pretty sure that that's what the spell does and that the terms are synonymous.


I am pretty sure the majority of DMs here agree RAW prevent Music of the Gods from allowing a Bard to affect a creature with Mind Blank, so we are look at RAI.

Nnnope, of the posters in this thread besides you and me, there are 4 "yes it bypasses" people, 1 "no it doesn't bypass" person, and 1 "not sure, but probably does bypass" person, and pretty much every thread on here that brings the feat up agrees that it works against mind blank.


Think of it this way, if a spell changed you to give you an immunity, the spells has worked its magic in the past and will just fade at the duration. Thus the magic will fade after a certain amount of time, but in the meantime, the immunity is a power coming from the changed creature until it fades. MotG would bypass this, because MotG is greater than creatures.

Mind Blank is a spell that does not change a creature, it instead continues to negate certain magics. It is magic that was woven around the target, and when you try to bypass it, MotG fails, because it can not bypass the weave protecting it. Mystra is greater than MotG, because she is a god, and it is the power of a god that MotG can not pass.

Does this make sense?

It makes sense in the sense that that explanation of a hypothetical set of effects is internally consistent, but is completely irrelevant to the actual feat and spell in question.

1) The distinction between "changing a creature" and "protecting a creature" has no basis in the rules, and basically sounds like an attempt to say that only Abjuration spells can grant "real" immunities while Transmutation spells are out of luck, which is a completely-unsupported ruling and no more logical than stating that e.g. only Illusion spells can grant "real" invisibility and Transmuting yourself into an invisible stalker doesn't work.

2) The only effect in the entire game that makes any distinction whatsoever between an immunity granted by a subtype and an immunity granted some other way is the Piercing Cold feat, and that still doesn't support your hypothesis because "creatures normally immune to cold" includes both creatures who have innate cold immunity from a source other than the (Cold) subtype as well as creatures who get it from anticold sphere (an AoE spell that definitely doesn't grant "inherent" immunity), and so even if that were an extrapolatable rule rather than a singular exception it wouldn't divide things up the way you want.

3) An epic feat not working against magical effects is the kind of blatant exception to the feat's effect that would need to be explicitly called out if it were true, especially since the epic spellcasting section defines exactly how epic magic interacts with non-epic magic and so an epic feat with unusual interactions should do the same.

4) If an epic feat can't overcome magic because something something godly power, that implies that other epic feats would be subject to the same restriction, so e.g. Exceptional Deflection couldn't deflect spells when it explicitly can, Unerring Accuracy couldn't bypass invisibility when both magical and nonmagical total concealment are identical, and so forth.

5) And finally, even if none of the above points were the case, that argument would only hold for Toril where magic comes from the Weave which is Mystra's body and could thus all magic be said to be the "power of a god" if you squint. It certainly wouldn't apply to Krynn (where the moon gods do regulate the use of magic, but it's not their power, just a natural phenomenon) or Oerth (where magic is a natural phenomenon that Boccob neither controls nor interferes with) or Eberron (where no god of magic verifiably exists at all) or any other world.

So not only is the inherent/ward distinction not grounded in the mechanics, it's not grounded in the lore either.

[MR_Anderson]

I am pretty sure the majority of DMs here agree RAW prevent Music of the Gods from allowing a Bard to affect a creature with Mind Blank, so we are look at RAI.
||

Nnnope, of the posters in this thread besides you and me, there are 4 "yes it bypasses" people, 1 "no it doesn't bypass" person, and 1 "not sure, but probably does bypass" person, and pretty much every thread on here that brings the feat up agrees that it works against mind blank.


How can we even have a discussion if you’re not being honest. Let’s count the people admitting or agreeing that purely according to RAW, it doesn’t support MotG overcoming MB.


well, now that I actually look at the spell, it looks a bit sketchy. The long description says that it protects against various effects without ever bringing up the words "immune" or "immunity." In this case it might be debatable whether even music of the gods could affect a mind blanked target.


From a strict RAW perspective you might be right about Music of the Gods not overcoming Mind Blank, but personally I think "protects against" and "foils" are close enough synonyms to "makes immune to" that you'd have to be a pretty hardcore rules lawyer not to allow it.

Good points about "protects against" implying it only stops harmful effects and the elf's immunity being suppressible despite not involving a saving throw, I hadn't thought of those.


And Music of the Gods won't help either. Mind blank is an I win button for defensive magic.


MOTG replaces an immunity effect with a saving throw, an effect that has been replaced can't then act to negate the save. Unambiguous that it overcomes mindblank. Unless you're saying protect =/= immune, but immune is never technically defined so we're using informal language and they're equivalent.


Perhaps skip mind blank altogether? Just be undead and have the bard pick up the requiem feat from libris mortis?


I don’t disagree with any RAW arguments here

That’s 6 people not objecting RAW and agreeing that technically as written MotG doesn’t overcome MB.

However all including myself agree that DM’s can interpret it how they want or make their own table/house rulings.

However, when considering house rulings, Please ponder these...


1. Without a Spell stating it, does RAW allow a caster to drop the effect of a Spell and then raise it again?

2. Without a Spell being labeled as Dismissible or stating it, does RAW allow a caster to end a Spell before its duration normally ends.

3. Without a Spell stating it, does RAW allow a creature who was the target of a Spell to control it, to include dismissing it?

4. Does Antimagic Field make creatures immune to magic?

The answer is “NO” to all of these questions.

So without tipping the balance of other things in the game, the best DM ruling is to go straight up MotG over comes MB, because some people understand that Mind Blank can be used as an offensive tactic.

BTW, my description of magic was clipped from the Abjuration description in the PHB, not a comparison of others like Transmutation, because for the most part we are talking about the differences in Abjuration protection spells.

[Doctor Despair]

RAW isn't a democracy; how many people do or don't agree with you has no bearing on this discussion, save for folks' egos.

[MR_Anderson]

RAW isn't a democracy; how many people do or don't agree with you has no bearing on this discussion, save for folks' egos.

I didn’t post all those for ego purposes, I posted them to reprove a false statement.

RAI or Tablerules/Houserules is whatever the DM decides, but unless it follows what is written, it isn’t RAW.

You are 100% correct that RAW is not a Democracy, and that has been my point. As written Music of the Gods doesn’t bypass Mind Blank, but if someone wants to interpret it that way they just need to accept that it is their personal interpretation not how it is written.

[Gnaeus]

My point was that I don’t find the RAW discussion very important because if your DM ruled that you could treat it like SR and lower immunity it wouldn’t likely be worth doing for bardsong. I’m not really otherwise involved in the RAW debate.

[Vaern]

stuff
I think you got a couple of names/post links mixed up in your multi-quoting there :o

[MR_Anderson]

My point was that I don’t find the RAW discussion very important because if your DM ruled that you could treat it like SR and lower immunity it wouldn’t likely be worth doing for bardsong. I’m not really otherwise involved in the RAW debate.

That’s why I posted those Questions, so people could consider what other ripple effects impacts such a DM ruling could create.


I think you got a couple of names/post links mixed up in your multi-quoting there :o

You may disagree with the assertion of RAW, but you stated the truth in an honest fashion, so I quoted it. We are not disagreeing that DM’s can interpret and rule however they like, but I don’t think they shouldn’t lie to themselves and believe they are just following what is written.

[Vaern]

You may disagree with the assertion of RAW, but you stated the truth in an honest fashion, so I quoted it. We are not disagreeing that DM’s can interpret and rule however they like, but I don’t think they shouldn’t lie to themselves and believe they are just following what is written.
I was talking about your first two quotes in that post. You quoted a bit from one of your posts and a bit from one of Pair'ODice Losts's posts, but both show my name and lead back to my post that your third quote box references. I'm just pointing out an error in your post's formatting, not the argument itself :smalltongue:

[MR_Anderson]

I was talking about your first two quotes in that post. You quoted a bit from one of your posts and a bit from one of Pair'ODice Losts's posts, but both show my name and lead back to my post that your third quote box references. I'm just pointing out an error in your post's formatting, not the argument itself :smalltongue:

I misunderstood what you were saying. Strange how that happened, but I have corrected it.

Thank you very much for pointing it out!

[Biggus]

This isn’t a complete assumption, it is using deductive reasoning from other spells in the game, and using the rules found on creating new spells to understand why Mind Blank is an 8th Level Spell.

It is purely logical, that since the spell could have been 5th or 6th Level by effect alone, that the additional 2 or 3 level increase is for the added strength of not being able to be bypassed by any means.

I have just found an example which proves you are incorrect about this. The 9th-level psionic power Metafaculty specifically states that it overcomes Mind Blank.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metafaculty.htm

[MR_Anderson]

This isn’t a complete assumption, it is using deductive reasoning from other spells in the game, and using the rules found on creating new spells to understand why Mind Blank is an 8th Level Spell.

It is purely logical, that since the spell could have been 5th or 6th Level by effect alone, that the additional 2 or 3 level increase is for the added strength of not being able to be bypassed by any means. At the time Mind Blank was printed, the named spells were basically the highest things able to bypass it.

If you are going to quote me, don’t take me out of context, that isn’t a good tactic.


I have just found an example which proves you are incorrect about this. The 9th-level psionic power Metafaculty specifically states that it overcomes Mind Blank.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metafaculty.htm

You found a psionic ability in D20, not a magical spell.

I do play 3.0-3.5 for the mot part and we vet D20 highly before allowing it to be added to our game.

I am not surprised that there is some power in the content that is D20 that overcomes Mind Blank. It also overcomes Wish and is a level higher than Mind Blank so it still fits the specificity of being unique to overcome Mind Blank and being higher level.

It is something I would approve as a DM because it is narrow and higher level.

I wouldn’t really state that it proves me incorrect, because my statement still stands as true as far as spells are concerned, and being there at the time Mind Blank was created.


I am certainly fallible, but please don’t take me out of context to try and prove me wrong.