Occult Slayer's Blank Thoughts and immunity to fear

[Nikker]

Hello sages, I need advice.
I was discussing with a friend about the Occult Slayer's lev 5 class feature, Blank Thoughts.

I'll quote:

Blank Thoughts (Ex): At 5th level, an occult slayer can induce within herself a state of mental absence, thereby becoming immune to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, patterns, phantasms, and morale effects). She can suppress or resume this ability as a free action.

My friend claims that the OS is "immune to fear" due to this feature, but I personally don't agree. Sure they're immune to most causes of fear, but imho not to fear itself. I think D&D 3.5 is very specific and hair-splitting in most of its rulings.
I told my friend that being immune to mind-affecting effects didn't make them immune to mundane fear (like the intimidation skill), nor to mundane manipulation (diplomacy and bluff skills), and I believe OS is not even immune to spells, effects or feats that cause fear but are not stated to be mind-affecting (I can think of some necromancy stuff here).
I see their point because of how the class feature is cosmetically described, but I stand my case.

Do you have more insight on this matter?

[Rebel7284]

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


This wording is contentious as many folks in the past assumed that fear coming from EX or natural sources was not mind affecting, unless specified otherwise.
Others are quick to point out that fear is always something that clearly affects the state of your mind, so treating it as mind affecting makes sense, and places in the rules where that wording was left out in the past was an omission.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

[Darg]

You are correct. Fear in and of itself is not a mind-affecting effect unless it is stated as such (no actual consensus can be found here as fear attacks don't always follow the conventions laid out in the MMs.) A good example of this is turn undead. It is a fear effect but is not a mind-affecting effect. Likewise there are spells which cause fear but are not mind-affecting. Intimidation in particular specifically states immunity to fear prevents it.

The Occult Slayer ability Blank Thoughts does not have as wide of a protection as the spell mind blank does which protects against influence on your emotions, which fear is. If you have access to the 3.0 PHB it has a spell called Emotion which exemplifies the types of emotional effects spells can cause. In the 3.5 update the spell was broken up into different spells (makes enchanter even worse, but whatever). TL:DR Blank Thoughts does not protect against all forms of fear.


This wording is contentious as many folks in the past assumed that fear coming from EX or natural sources was not mind affecting, unless specified otherwise.
Others are quick to point out that fear is always something that clearly affects the state of your mind, so treating it as mind affecting makes sense, and places in the rules where that wording was left out in the past was an omission.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

The problem here is that not everything has to directly affect the mind. For example a dragon is terrifying just because it is a dragon not even counting its aura of fear. Something like intimidation is working by changing your mannerisms to appear threatening enough to change the opponent's mental state because minds simply have a fear response to threatening situations. As such it wouldn't logically be an effect because the state is actually caused by the target themselves instead.

[Nikker]

This wording is contentious as many folks in the past assumed that fear coming from EX or natural sources was not mind affecting, unless specified otherwise.
Others are quick to point out that fear is always something that clearly affects the state of your mind, so treating it as mind affecting makes sense, and places in the rules where that wording was left out in the past was an omission.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

This quote is very interesting and I double checked the Rules Compendium.
I note, though, that it says "Fear attacks can have various consequences, but all of them are mind-affecting fear effects."

Some of the things I mentioned aren't fear attacks. An intimidate check isn't an attack, nor is it necessarily done by a monster (as in "Spells, magic items, and monsters can cause fear").

In the same page Rules Compendium states:


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

None of this includes mundane means of generating fear.
It does, much probably, include fear from necromancy spells and effects, so thank you for the insight!

[Rebel7284]

The problem here is that not everything has to directly affect the mind. For example a dragon is terrifying just because it is a dragon not even counting its aura of fear. Something like intimidation is working by changing your mannerisms to appear threatening enough to change the opponent's mental state because minds simply have a fear response to threatening situations. As such it wouldn't logically be an effect because the state is actually caused by the target themselves instead.

I'm sorry, but your argument isn't very convincing to me. Change the opponent's mental state is a synonym for mind affecting, and if you respond due to intimidation, it's an effect of the intimidation....

[Nikker]

I'm sorry, but your argument isn't very convincing to me. Change the opponent's mental state is a synonym for mind affecting, and if you respond due to intimidation, it's an effect of the intimidation....
I disagree on that, it's like you're saying that diplomacy skill is the same as a charm spell.
An "effect" in D&D 3.5 is the consequence of something that isn't natural (it's either Ex, Sup, spell-like, magical, psionic etc). Mind affecting is when you change someone's mind state artificially, without the target having a real reason to feel frightened, or friendly, or whatever emotion.

[Darg]

I'm sorry, but your argument isn't very convincing to me. Change the opponent's mental state is a synonym for mind affecting, and if you respond due to intimidation, it's an effect of the intimidation....

It's not directly affecting the mind. It's creating stimuli for the mind to react to on its own. It's like removing the ground under someone's feet. You force them to fall without directly affecting them.

As I mentioned there are spells and abilities that cause the fear state without being mind-affecting spells. That can't be possible without fear and mind-affecting being separate.

The RC is not the most comprehensible set of rules considering it has many contradictions and errors itself. If taken literally, turn undead is a mind-affecting effect which undead is immune to. The RC gives itself precedence over the specific nature of turn undead.

[Crake]

There was a long thread about this in the past, when discussing if mind blank removed your qualification for the craven feat.

It turned out, the answer is no, immunity to mind affecting is not equivalent to immunity to fear. This answer hinged on finding a fear effect that was NOT considered a fear attack, and that came in the form of phobias from heros of horror.

If you have immunity to mind affecting, you do not gain immunity to phobias, therefore immunity to mind affecting does not equate to immunity to fear.

[Doctor Despair]

There was a long thread about this in the past, when discussing if mind blank removed your qualification for the craven feat.

It turned out, the answer is no, immunity to mind affecting is not equivalent to immunity to fear. This answer hinged on finding a fear effect that was NOT considered a fear attack, and that came in the form of phobias from heros of horror.

If you have immunity to mind affecting, you do not gain immunity to phobias, therefore immunity to mind affecting does not equate to immunity to fear.

Also: demoralizing is not a fear attack either. Fear attacks are only defined as extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like. Intimidation is a natural ability. You can make the vampire fear for their unlife by threatening them in combat if they aren't otherwise immune to fear via items, spells, or class levels; likewise, the mindless are immune by merit of being mindless, not by merit of being immune to mind-affecting.

[Crake]

Also: demoralizing is not a fear attack either. Fear attacks are only defined as extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like. Intimidation is a natural ability. You can make the vampire fear for their unlife by threatening them in combat if they aren't otherwise immune to fear via items, spells, or class levels; likewise, the mindless are immune by merit of being mindless, not by merit of being immune to mind-affecting.

I cant remember if that point was discussed at all, but you may well be right. I feel like someone probably brought it up at one point though, since demoralizing is a far less niche rule than phobias.

[BjornBear]

Yeah, let them be immune to fear. It's a mind altering effect and I'm sure your group has already homeruled stuff for the sake of making sense.

[Crake]

None of this includes mundane means of generating fear.
It does, much probably, include fear from necromancy spells and effects, so thank you for the insight!

Its worth noting that extraordinary abilities are in fact mundane, and nonmagical, also note that the list there is not a limited list, it says they CAN be those things, but are not exclusively limited to them. This alone does not rule out intimidation as a fear attack.

[Telonius]

You also have things like the Dread Witch prestige class's "Greater Master of Terror" feature:


Greater Master of Terror (Ex): Beginning at 4th level, the increased difficulty of all save DCs against all spells you cast with the fear descriptor increases from +1 to +2. In addition, your fear spells are now so potent that they can even affect individuals normally immune to fear, such as paladins, although the subject still gains a saving throw to resist the spell's effect. Only a target whose HD exceed your caster level by 4 or more is immune to your mastery of terror. For instance, if you are a sorcerer 7/dread witch 4 (overall caster level 10), a paladin of 14th level or higher is immune to your fear spells.

That's a case where your friend would probably want to be wrong. Occult Slayer doesn't give immunity to fear specifically. If it did, he'd be vulnerable to a Dread Witch's fear spells. Since he's not immune to fear, Dread Witches don't scare him. (Counter-intuitive and weird, but that's 3.5 for you).

[loky1109]

You are correct. Fear in and of itself is not a mind-affecting effect unless it is stated as such (no actual consensus can be found here as fear attacks don't always follow the conventions laid out in the MMs.) A good example of this is turn undead.

If taken literally, turn undead is a mind-affecting effect which undead is immune to.

Turn undead is a bad example. It isn't fear at all.


Likewise there are spells which cause fear but are not mind-affecting.
I should ask examples.


For example a dragon is terrifying just because it is a dragon not even counting its aura of fear.
I see this idea reasonable, but it is just assumption with no rules basis. There are very many big scary monsters in manuals and not every of them are so terrifying.

[Crake]

Turn undead is a bad example. It isn't fear at all.

The logic here is that turn undead causes undead to cower, which is a condition typically associate with fear, thus its a fear effect. I don’t particularly agree with the logic, as its never actually associated with the fear tag.


I should ask examples.

My go-to example of a fear effect that is not a fear attack, and is thus not considered mind affecting is phobias.

Intimidate I think can quite easily be classified as an attack, as it has an instigator, who’s aim is to weaken an opponent, which to me is a fairly apt description of an attack. Phobias on the other hand exist entirely within the individual’s head, and while they can be weaponized as such, their actual source is from the victim’s mind itself, not an external source, so they cannot be reasonably defined as an attack.

A wizard with a phobia who casts mind blank will still be victim to his phobias, while a paladin is simply incapable of having a phobia.


I see this idea reasonable, but it is just assumption with no rules basis. There are very mane big scary monsters in manuals and not every of them are so terrifying.

I agree. Something posing a threat and thus spurring worry and caution is not the same as inflicting the game mechanic of fear. A paladin immune to fear will still be wary and cautious around a dragon, because they “fear” dying a poor death due to bad planning. Its not the mechanical kind of fear.

[loky1109]

which is a condition typically associate with fear

"typically associate with" doesn't mean "is"


My go-to example of a fear effect that is not a fear attack, and is thus not considered mind affecting is phobias.
I asked examples of fear and non-mind-affecting spells.

[Darg]

The cower condition was made a state of fear in the RC rather than a condition imposed by being in fear and being unable to escape. If the RC is an authoritative source and isn't making a mistake then turn undead is a fear effect.

I don't think the RC was proofed as much as it should have been because there are a lot of "mistakes" that one can't call mistakes because it is setting precedence.

[Rebel7284]

This wording is contentious ...

I see the contention is alive and well! Good job, nerds! :smallwink:

Taking this out of RAW discussion into RAI and reasonable houserules, here are my thoughts:

- The RC clearly indicates that at least some designers think that in general, abilities that cause fear should be mind affecting.
- This means that there are a handful of abilities that should have the descriptor added by DMs that care about the spirit of the rules.

- It is unclear about the designers intent about Intimidate, which is a mundane skill and can be used outside of combat.
- I think it's a good idea to allow Intimidate to not be mind affecting based on the principle of "Let martials have nice things" and also to increase roleplaying potential.

[Darg]

If we ignore the RC everything works as advertised and immunity to mind-affecting does not remotely come close to providing blanket fear immunity. I just ignore the RC so the few times it breaks things doesn't actually break anything. I put it in the same category as the FAQ. Good for ideas or general introspection but terrible for complete reliance.

[icefractal]

I think it's a good idea to allow Intimidate to not be mind affecting based on the principle of "Let martials have nice things" and also to increase roleplaying potential.If the Intimidate skill was in any way limited to martials, or if martials were generally better at it, then sure. But neither of those is the case.

I'd recommend the opposite - that Intimidate resistance/immunity shouldn't be too hard to get, because by mid levels Intimidate is basically "shaken no save" against even foes much stronger than you who really have no reason to fear you.

I mean, say we have a 20th level warrior-king (all martial). He's optimized and has the full set of defensive items, so against a 9th level Sorcerer he'd 99.99% likely win easily. But instead, the Sorcerer intimidates him (let's assume they both roll the same on the d20) -
Intimidate (12 ranks + 8 cha + 5 en*) = 25 vs Resist (20 levels + 3 wis) = 23

Guaranteed to go that way? No, but my point is that Intimidate is not really a "martial thing", and that at a certain point you can't "naturally" resist it and need to get immunity or else be scared a lot.

* Bracers of Armor with Fearsome, or use a spell that buffs it

[Doctor Despair]

If the Intimidate skill was in any way limited to martials, or if martials were generally better at it, then sure. But neither of those is the case.

I'd recommend the opposite - that Intimidate resistance/immunity shouldn't be too hard to get, because by mid levels Intimidate is basically "shaken no save" against even foes much stronger than you who really have no reason to fear you.

I mean, say we have a 20th level warrior-king (all martial). He's optimized and has the full set of defensive items, so against a 9th level Sorcerer he'd 99.99% likely win easily. But instead, the Sorcerer intimidates him (let's assume they both roll the same on the d20) -
Intimidate (12 ranks + 8 cha + 5 en*) = 25 vs Resist (20 levels + 3 wis) = 23

Guaranteed to go that way? No, but my point is that Intimidate is not really a "martial thing", and that at a certain point you can't "naturally" resist it and need to get immunity or else be scared a lot.

* Bracers of Armor with Fearsome, or use a spell that buffs it

Intimidation checks actually scale quite nicely/fairly throughout the game.

1d20 + ranks (HD+3) + cha

vs

1d20 + HD + wis

Now, you can get some flat modifiers to increase your odds at any level, but it's not a matter of intimidation scaling out of control in the mid-game.

Now, in terms of verisimilitude... sometimes things are scarier than they should be. Being shaken doesn't have to mean mean you're literally shaking in your boots. It could just mean you're a little unnerved at how this thing is presenting itself.

If you're worried about not being able to get immunity -- there are items that grant flat-out fear immunity. See: banner of the storm's eye, prayer of anger, horn of plenty, etc. Lots of spells grant immunity to fear. Lots of class features grant immunity to fear. If you want it, it's definitely there.

[Crake]

The cower condition was made a state of fear in the RC rather than a condition imposed by being in fear and being unable to escape. If the RC is an authoritative source and isn't making a mistake then turn undead is a fear effect.

I don't think the RC was proofed as much as it should have been because there are a lot of "mistakes" that one can't call mistakes because it is setting precedence.

While it's mechanically the same condition, considering turn undead describes it as "driving them off", I think it's more just a case of positive and negative energy repelling each other, rather than the undead themselves actually being afraid of anything. Especially since you can't really experience fear if you don't even have a mind.

Note that rebuked undead ALSO cower, but it says cowers as if in awe, so it's clear the "cower" condition can be used for more than specifically fear-related effects.

[Chronos]

There are a handful of abilities that cause fear, that aren't specified in the individual ability descriptions to be mind-affecting. But the general rule still applies, and so they're still mind-affecting. Specific Trumps General never applies here, because those abilities don't specifically say that they're not mind-affecting; they just don't mention it. One could in principle have a fear attack that specifically said that it wasn't mind-affecting... Could in principle, but we don't.


Quoth Nikker:

Some of the things I mentioned aren't fear attacks. An intimidate check isn't an attack, nor is it necessarily done by a monster (as in "Spells, magic items, and monsters can cause fear").

I don't think it's possible to have an intimidate check that's not done by a monster. The rules consider "monster" and "creature" to be synonyms, so even a PC is a monster. And anything with a Cha score is a creature (and hence a monster), and anything without a Cha score can't use a Cha-based skill.

[Doctor Despair]

While it's mechanically the same condition, considering turn undead describes it as "driving them off", I think it's more just a case of positive and negative energy repelling each other, rather than the undead themselves actually being afraid of anything. Especially since you can't really experience fear if you don't even have a mind.

Note that rebuked undead ALSO cower, but it says cowers as if in awe, so it's clear the "cower" condition can be used for more than specifically fear-related effects.

FWIW, I've always just interpreted that the specific case of turn undead overrides the general rules. Like... turn undead is mind-affecting, but explicitly bypasses undead immunity to it. However, that wouldn't mean it bypasses other sources of immunity to fear. I suppose I would rule that a zombie with mind blank (or, more specifically, lionheart) cast on it would be immune to turning, just like a zombie with protection from evil would be immune to commands given via rebuking.

[Darg]

While it's mechanically the same condition, considering turn undead describes it as "driving them off", I think it's more just a case of positive and negative energy repelling each other, rather than the undead themselves actually being afraid of anything. Especially since you can't really experience fear if you don't even have a mind.

Note that rebuked undead ALSO cower, but it says cowers as if in awe, so it's clear the "cower" condition can be used for more than specifically fear-related effects.

I'd agree, but the RC disagrees with you. Which is the problem with the RC. It sometimes doesn't make sense, or breaks things, or forgets to include important information that clears up any ambiguity while stating that if anything conflicts or says something different the RC takes precedence.

[ciopo]

I asked examples of fear and non-mind-affecting spells.

Blade of pain and fear can cause the frightened condition, but isn't tagged as mind affecting.

Turn undead is "a fear effect" because in rule parlance cower is on the fear line of escalation. If frightened is mind affecting just because the blanket "fear attacks are mind affecting fear effect", then so is cower, since that's the ultimate state on shaken-frightened-panicked-cowering.
Ergo if all fear effects are mind affecting, then undeads are immune to turn undead due to their blanket mind affecting immunity... or turn undead is a fear effect but not a fear attack, and thus not falling under the blanket mind affecting immunity.

Fear attacks are a subset of fear effects that cold hard ink on the page calls out as being mind affecting, thus establishing that a distinction may exists between fear effects and fear attacks. All fear attacks are fear effects, not all fear effects are fear attacks (but almost all of them are). Iirc for the longest time the biggest hill to cross was finding one such effect clearly labeled as a fear effect but not as mind affecting nor fear attack. Phobia fitted the billin the end. The exhaustive argument is buried in this forum somewhere but I'm fairly sure a google search for "mind blank and craven" will unheart the ancient lore


To be clear I'm not advocating that the undead mind-affecting immunity makes them immune to turn undead, that would be silly, like them being technically immune to hammer of righteousness

[Troacctid]

The cower condition was made a state of fear in the RC rather than a condition imposed by being in fear and being unable to escape. If the RC is an authoritative source and isn't making a mistake then turn undead is a fear effect.

I don't think the RC was proofed as much as it should have been because there are a lot of "mistakes" that one can't call mistakes because it is setting precedence.
No, it was made a state of fear in Heroes of Horror. If anything, RC walked that back by changing the description of the condition to say "frozen in fear or awe," instead of "frozen in fear" (like the description in the core rules) or "See page 53" (like the descriptions RC uses for shaken and frightened).


If we ignore the RC everything works as advertised and immunity to mind-affecting does not remotely come close to providing blanket fear immunity. I just ignore the RC so the few times it breaks things doesn't actually break anything. I put it in the same category as the FAQ. Good for ideas or general introspection but terrible for complete reliance.
How exactly did we get from "clarifying" to "breaking"? The rule that's supposedly being mucked up by RC was a dysfunction. "All fear attacks are mind-affecting, except ooh, we didn't specifically say this one is an attack, so technically..." is a bug, not a feature. Making it work the way people expect is fixing it, not breaking it.

That's not even getting into all the dysfunctions people poke fun at in the core rules that were fixed in RC, like lava dealing untyped damage that is 100% blocked by any fire resistance, or being unable to see a lit torch at night because it's too dark, or the grapple rules saying some of the available actions in a grapple take the place of an attack but failing to specify which ones. Etc.

[icefractal]

Now, you can get some flat modifiers to increase your odds at any level, but it's not a matter of intimidation scaling out of control in the mid-game.
You can get a lot extra modifiers to Intimidate (see any thread about boosting skills), you can't get anything to resist it other than bonuses vs fear. Is it really in question that skills scale faster than 1:1 in 3.5?

[Doctor Despair]

You can get a lot extra modifiers to Intimidate (see any thread about boosting skills), you can't get anything to resist it other than bonuses vs fear. Is it really in question that skills scale faster than 1:1 in 3.5?

Oh, certainly; I just meant that it requires investment. Immunity also isn't particularly hard to come by.

[Darg]

No, it was made a state of fear in Heroes of Horror. If anything, RC walked that back by changing the description of the condition to say "frozen in fear or awe," instead of "frozen in fear" (like the description in the core rules) or "See page 53" (like the descriptions RC uses for shaken and frightened).

The RC says "frozen in fear."


How exactly did we get from "clarifying" to "breaking"? The rule that's supposedly being mucked up by RC was a dysfunction. "All fear attacks are mind-affecting, except ooh, we didn't specifically say this one is an attack, so technically..." is a bug, not a feature. Making it work the way people expect is fixing it, not breaking it.

The problem is that the RC took all the sources of fear, threw them into a blender, and called them all fear attacks. HoH is only relevant when the book is in use. The RC is the book that codified cowering as a fear effect. This is what breaks turn undead as you could ignore HoH's implication with the primary source rule, but the RC was written to be definitive. So when it says something you aren't supposed to ignore it.

They way it worked before is that effects that caused fear (shaken, frightened, or panicked) were fear effects. The MM defined special abilities that harmed or hindered as special attacks. Fear is a special attack that causes a fear effect and therefore is a fear attack, which it mentions is a mind-affecting ability. Frightful presence is mentioned as mind-affecting. And spells were given the mind-affecting tag if they were mind-affecting. Turn undead is not a fear attack because it doesn't cause a fear effect. Really simple. Demoralize is not a fear attack because it isn't a special ability. The rare spell that causes a fear effect but is not mind-affecting is not a fear attack (well, all spells aren't fear attacks technically). A


That's not even getting into all the dysfunctions people poke fun at in the core rules that were fixed in RC, like lava dealing untyped damage that is 100% blocked by any fire resistance, or being unable to see a lit torch at night because it's too dark, or the grapple rules saying some of the available actions in a grapple take the place of an attack but failing to specify which ones. Etc.

I didn't know lava did untyped damage considering it's described to be everywhere in the plane of fire. Then again I did also assume acid does acid damage, cold does cold damage, and being on fire does fire damage. I do agree that the immunity to lava and magma from resistance was head scratching.

The RC says the exact same things about replacing attacks for grapple maneuvers as the PHB does.

Until now I never had to think about what you said about torches. It is such common sense that this is a surprising contention. Similar to carrying an armory and supermarket on your back without space saving aid. Then again, I hear people just assume characters are like video game characters with abstract inventories.

[Crake]

The RC says "frozen in fear."

It says frozen in fear specifically in the fear section of the RC, but under the condition section, it says fear or awe, with no reference to the fear section, unlike panicked, frightened, and shaken, which all refer back to page 53, the fear section. Also note that cowering is not actually itself on the fear escalation line, but rather is what panicked creatures do when incapable of fleeing.

When read as such, it seems that the cowering section under fear is specifically referring to cowering in the context of fear, but that cowering itself is not a fear exclusive condition.

[ciopo]

End of the day, I find it amusing that the quibble on cower "actually, cowering (frozen in fear) is not actually fear" is juxtaposed to "actually, not all fear is mind affecting"

Somewhat amusing also, cowering in the srd has the fear keyword as a hyperlink to the same general section of special abilities (I'm not taking this as proff, the srd are not the books)

Anyway, my takeaway with Blade of pain and fear : since the condition of cowering is not inherently mind affecting, then neither are the conditions shaken/frightened/panicked unless what is causing the shaken/frightened/panicked are explicitly tagged as either mind-affecting or fear attack

Some spells that cause shaken/frightened/panicked but aren't tagged as [fear] or [mind-affecting]

Battle line
Blade of pain and fear
Dark tide
Eye bite from the PHB itself can cause panicked, esplicitly as a fear effect but is not tagged as mind-affecting nor is an attack

Sacred item mentioned in a thread where I was asking for feedback against incorporeal enemies esplicitly says that it causes undead creatures touching it to save against fear or flee in terror, and yet "undead can't take craven, because they have blanket mind-affecting immunity"

it's counterpart profane item esplictly causes plants to flee in fear, in spite of plants blanket mind-affecting immunity

[Nikker]

Its worth noting that extraordinary abilities are in fact mundane, and nonmagical, also note that the list there is not a limited list, it says they CAN be those things, but are not exclusively limited to them. This alone does not rule out intimidation as a fear attack.
I disagree that extraordinary actions are mundane. They're not magical, ok, but they're... extraordinary. Not ordinary. Mundane actions means ordinary actions, things a regular basic humanoid could do.

I think they used "can be" colloquially, since the text gives a list after that. When I say to someone "you can pay me in cash or via PayPal" I mean "you can do it either way" not "whatever, be creative, you can send me money via a carrier pidgeon".

Moreover, they still need to be fear attacks. An intimidation is not at attack.

[Nikker]

As of Turn Undead, honestly in my eyes it always *looked like* fear, because of how Undead behave when Turned (they flee and/or cower). But I always assumed it wasn't real fear, because it wasn't clearly stated to be so... More like some kind of repulsion, due to the positive/negative energy interaction...

Bdw in this thread I first found out how much imperfect the RC is, lol, so thank you all for that haha. Oh my. Sometimes I really think game designers knew the game less than actual players.

[Nikker]

I asked examples of fear and non-mind-affecting spells.

Blade of pain and fear.

It's necromancy, not stated to be mind-affecting, unless you take RC in consideration.

[Chronos]

Quoth ciopo:

Somewhat amusing also, cowering in the srd has the fear keyword as a hyperlink to the same general section of special abilities (I'm not taking this as proff, the srd are not the books)

I don't think the SRD even contains hyperlinks at all. The SRD, itself, is a document published by WotC, in PDF format. Some third-party websites have converted that PDF into HTML, and added links for convenience, but they're added by the third-party sites, not from the definitive document, so those links not only aren't proof; they carry no weight at all.

And presumably spells like Blade of Pain and Fear don't have the mind-effecting tag, because they also have other effects. Give the whole spell the [Mind-Effecting] tag, and a mindless creature would be immune to the whole thing, whereas they wanted mindless creatures to still be subject to the pain even if they're immune to the fear. Again, though, unless those spells explicitly state that they're not mind-effecting, then there's no rules conflict, and by the general rule for fear effects, they are mind-effecting.

[Darg]

Again, though, unless those spells explicitly state that they're not mind-effecting, then there's no rules conflict, and by the general rule for fear effects, they are mind-effecting.

There is no general rule for fear effects. Both the MM and the RC state that only fear attacks are mind-affecting effects. The disagreement is that the RC made everything a fear attack. The DMG highlights that fear effects are shaken, frightened, and panicked.

The problem is that the RC juxtaposed 3 different sources of what fear is into a shoddy copy and paste job. This includes putting cowering into the list of fear effects and using the word "stages" to describe the states of fear. The use of the word "stages" immediately brings to mind progression. The escalation section does not say that panicked does not progress into cowering after including it in a list order implying escalation stages. Then it goes on to say that things that weren't originally fear attacks are now fear attacks (spells). It just heavily implies that anything inducing a state of fear is a fear attack, this includes turn undead.

If you assume cowering is not a fear effect and remove the "when they aren't spells" under fear attacks in the RC it works exactly as it did before the RC.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then again, if one makes the assumption that the earlier statement, "Fear attacks can have various consequences, but all of them are mind-affecting fear effects," is descriptive instead of declarative it also makes it work exactly like it was before the RC, but with a more cohesive and comprehensive collection of the rules with the only change being the implication of only mind-affecting fear spells as being categorized as fear attacks; which changes nothing mechanically, but makes a nice completed puzzle that serves as a reference for a DM to adjudicate with.

But as anyone can see the first thing people see the statement as is a declarative, exemplified with this thread and almost every thread on the internet about fear attacks. It's not unreasonable either as that is generally how the rules work when there isn't a bit of clarifying text to go with it.

[ciopo]

And presumably spells like Blade of Pain and Fear don't have the mind-effecting tag, because they also have other effects. Give the whole spell the [Mind-Effecting] tag, and a mindless creature would be immune to the whole thing, whereas they wanted mindless creatures to still be subject to the pain even if they're immune to the fear. Again, though, unless those spells explicitly state that they're not mind-effecting, then there's no rules conflict, and by the general rule for fear effects, they are mind-effecting.

By that logic, undeads are immune to "sacred item", unless you claim exception. But you don't need to create the exception if the general works just as well under the condition that not all fear effects are mind affecting. (Because not all fear effects are fear attacks)

I mean, Sacred item is somewhat quite clearly "body affecting" :D

Same with Profane item and plant creatures

Or eyebite which is esplictly a fear effect but not tagged as mind affecting. Presumably because the panicking is "omg they're eating my eyeballs" <starts scratching his eyes out> rather than whatever supernatural mumbo jumbo mind affecting fear spells do.

It's also kind of a big slippery slope saying that spells not tagged as mind-affecting "may actually be mind affecting". Blade of pain and fear itself, on a void from the mechanical effect, could well be fluffed that "the creature struct feels such intense pain that it's less willing to engage", flowery words to pretty up the shaken.

I mean, let me be absurb a moment: character with a phobia of fire, character is mind-affecting immune from this or that source. Fireball is now mind affecting in relation to that character, therefore that character is now immune to fireball

[Crake]

I disagree that extraordinary actions are mundane. They're not magical, ok, but they're... extraordinary. Not ordinary. Mundane actions means ordinary actions, things a regular basic humanoid could do.

I think most people on the forums generally use the term "mundane" to mean "nonmagical". A level 20 fighter is capable of pulling off great feats of strength that is way out of the realm of ordinary human beings, but people still refer to them as "mundanes".


I think they used "can be" colloquially, since the text gives a list after that. When I say to someone "you can pay me in cash or via PayPal" I mean "you can do it either way" not "whatever, be creative, you can send me money via a carrier pidgeon".

That's what it implies yes, but it doesn't exclude other options, merely presents those options as the main choices. The way it's phrased leaves it open to saying "Can I pay you via eftpos?" It leaves other options available, such as, in this case, the option of a natural ability fear attack.


Moreover, they still need to be fear attacks. An intimidation is not at attack.

What do you define as an attack? By most conventional descripions of the word, I would say demoralizing through intimidation definitely qualifies as an attack involving fear, hence would classify it as a fear attack.


I don't think the SRD even contains hyperlinks at all. The SRD, itself, is a document published by WotC, in PDF format.

Actually, im pretty sure it was published in rich text format, which is basically a rudimentary document file extension.


The use of the word "stages" immediately brings to mind progression. The escalation section does not say that panicked does not progress into cowering after including it in a list order implying escalation stages.

That's listed under the panicked description instead. It states that panicked creatures who are incapable of fleeing instead cower, so it's not an escalated stage of fear, it's instead a side-stage that occurs under specific conditions.

[Doctor Despair]

That's what it implies yes, but it doesn't exclude other options, merely presents those options as the main choices. The way it's phrased leaves it open to saying "Can I pay you via eftpos?" It leaves other options available, such as, in this case, the option of a natural ability fear attack.



What do you define as an attack? By most conventional descripions of the word, I would say demoralizing through intimidation definitely qualifies as an attack involving fear, hence would classify it as a fear attack.


It's open to there being a natural ability fear attack, sure, but there's no text saying that a natural ability is a fear attack. That's the issue with categorizing demoralizing as a fear attack. If a different section or different book listed demoralizing as a fear attack, it wouldn't conflict with the RC because of the way it's written -- but there's also no text rendering natural abilities into fear attacks. A DM can houserule that they are fear attacks, and there's no text prohibiting them from being such, but there's also no text that explicitly says that they aren't death effects either, or some other categorical oddity. At that point it's an appeal to your head-canon or RAI to what you house-rule certain effects to count as. Ultimately: there is no text saying it is a fear attack, so it isn't.

[Crake]

I mean, let me be absurb a moment: character with a phobia of fire, character is mind-affecting immune from this or that source. Fireball is now mind affecting in relation to that character, therefore that character is now immune to fireball

Well, as I stated earlier in the thread, phobias ARE actually the de-facto example of a fear effect that is not a fear attack, and is not specified to be mind-affecting at any point. Thusly a character with a phobia who gains immunity to mind-affecting does not actually gain immunity to their phobia.

[Darg]

That's listed under the panicked description instead. It states that panicked creatures who are incapable of fleeing instead cower, so it's not an escalated stage of fear, it's instead a side-stage that occurs under specific conditions.

Of course it's under panicked because it's not supposed to be escalated to. It's obvious to anyone who played the game without the RC. However WotC did not account for common parlance of stages meaning a vertical escalation of symptoms. The inclusion of cowering as a "stage of fear" was a mistake. It would have been clear if they left cowering as just a condition of a panicked creature unable to flee as it is in the DMG. Because it's now included as an effect of fear the latter definition of fear attack includes turn undead and therefore breaking it.

As I mentioned in my last post, any kind of dysfunction is cleared up if one sentence at the start of the fear section is descriptive instead of declarative. Meaning, not everything causing a fear effect is a fear attack and therefore not every fear effect is a mind-affecting effect. It's when it's taken as declarative that things simply stop working right.

[Crake]

It would have been clear if they left cowering as just a condition of a panicked creature unable to flee as it is in the DMG. Because it's now included as an effect of fear the latter definition of fear attack includes turn undead and therefore breaking it.

Cowering CAN be an effect of fear, it's just not EXCLUSIVELY an effect of fear. You act like, just because it's in the fear section of the rules compendium, that must mean it's exclusively a product of fear, which doesn't have to be true.

[loky1109]

I'm not sure, but I maybe saw somewhere non-fear shaken condition.

[Darg]

Cowering CAN be an effect of fear, it's just not EXCLUSIVELY an effect of fear. You act like, just because it's in the fear section of the rules compendium, that must mean it's exclusively a product of fear, which doesn't have to be true.

That's what defined a fear effect before: it was in the fear ability description in the DMG with a list just like the RC has.

The conclusion your making about cower implies that non-mind-affecting spells are in fact not fear attacks because they don't have to be because they aren't directly called out as being fear attacks.

[Crake]

That's what defined a fear effect before: it was in the fear ability description in the DMG with a list just like the RC has.

The conclusion your making about cower implies that non-mind-affecting spells are in fact not fear attacks because they don't have to be because they aren't directly called out as being fear attacks.

I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I honestly have no stake in this argument beyond pointing out what I see. All I’m here to say is that immunity to mind affecting is definitively not equivalent to immunity to fear. A dread witch cannot use their ability to pierce immunity to mind affecting, a craven rogue does not lose their bonus to sneak attack, and anything that requires immunity to fear does not qualify.

[Darg]

I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I honestly have no stake in this argument beyond pointing out what I see. All I’m here to say is that immunity to mind affecting is definitively not equivalent to immunity to fear. A dread witch cannot use their ability to pierce immunity to mind affecting, a craven rogue does not lose their bonus to sneak attack, and anything that requires immunity to fear does not qualify.

I agree with this whole heartedly. Fear effect =/= fear attack. Bam, fixes everything. And if we take the RC and understand that it says mind-affecting fear effects are fear attacks everything fits together really well.

[Nikker]

I think most people on the forums generally use the term "mundane" to mean "nonmagical". A level 20 fighter is capable of pulling off great feats of strength that is way out of the realm of ordinary human beings, but people still refer to them as "mundanes".
Fine, luckily mundane is not (afaik) a word used in WotC manuals. I meant I clearly see a difference between skill checks and a creature's salient special abilities.




What do you define as an attack? By most conventional descripions of the word, I would say demoralizing through intimidation definitely qualifies as an attack involving fear, hence would classify it as a fear attack.

I define an attack as something that requires either a to-hit roll on one side, or a save roll on the other side, or if it's neither of those, it's an action (for example a spell) that deals physical or mental damage.
An intimidation out of combat is not an attack, it's a rude or criminal approach to diplomacy.
An intimidation in combat is an action that hopefully will give you an advantage during the combat, but is it an attack itself? Maybe, if you consider debuffs in general to be attacks. But since you're only threatening to attack, I can't see it as an attack itself... it's not like you're imposing a spell on someone's mind to make them shaken for 1 round; them being shaken is a result of their own mind. It's their own reaction to a situation.

[loky1109]

I define an attack as something that requires either a to-hit roll on one side, or a save roll on the other side, or if it's neither of those, it's an action (for example a spell) that deals physical or mental damage.
Rage, for example, is special attack. And it just first came in mind. There are many attacks which don't deal any damage or requires any rolls.
Demoralizing looks much more like attack than Rage. It affects enemy, after all.

[Doctor Despair]

Rage, for example, is special attack. And it just first came in mind. There are many attacks which don't deal any damage or requires any rolls.
Demoralizing looks much more like attack than Rage. It affects enemy, after all.

Demoralizing doesn't appear in the special attack line; it effectively appears in the "skills" line of a statblock via the intimidate modifier.

[Nikker]

Rage, for example, is special attack. And it just first came in mind. There are many attacks which don't deal any damage or requires any rolls.
Demoralizing looks much more like attack than Rage. It affects enemy, after all.

Where is stated that rage is an attack? It's a classe feature defined as Extraordinary, but I'd say it's a quality rather than an attack. Rage it's a self-buff, it's like a condition, you could rage without attacking.

[loky1109]

Where is stated that rage is an attack? It's a classe feature defined as Extraordinary, but I'd say it's a quality rather than an attack. Rage it's a self-buff, it's like a condition, you could rage without attacking.
In the monster manual:

Ogre, 4th-Level Barbarian
Special Attacks: Rage 2/day
It isn't sole example.


Rage it's a self-buff, it's like a condition, you could rage without attacking.
Exactly!
Your attack definition just is wrong.

[Darg]

A special attack is anything the creature uses offensively to harm or hinder another creature.

Rage fits the bill here. The problem is that skills are not special attacks, they are skills. Otherwise hide, UMD, even craft could be a special attack. As was said, skills are in their own category.

The MM also says that special attacks and qualities are just subcategories of the broader category "special abilities."

[loky1109]

Rage fits the bill here. The problem is that skills are not special attacks, they are skills. Otherwise hide, UMD, even craft could be a special attack. As was said, skills are in their own category.

The MM also says that special attacks and qualities are just subcategories of the broader category "special abilities."
Well, skill itself can't be SA, but specific skill use... I'm not sure.

[Darg]

Well, skill itself can't be SA, but specific skill use... I'm not sure.

It's in its own category. If that's not enough then the rules break down in other ways too.

[ShurikVch]

Note:

(charms, compulsions, patterns, phantasms, and morale effects)

Fear is morale effect

And "combat application of Intimidate skill is named "Demoralize Opponent"

[Nikker]

Note:


Fear is morale effect

And "combat application of Intimidate skill is named "Demoralize Opponent"

"Demoralize" is a regular english word, doesn't mean it's a moral effect. An "effect" in D&D is the outcome of something magical, supernatural, or similarly not-normal, and a morale effect is something even better defined: something it's either stated to be a moral effect, or it's not a moral effect at all.

[ShurikVch]

An "effect" in D&D is the outcome of something magical, supernatural, or similarly not-normal
As far as I know, "effect" in D&D isn't a Glossary (https://web.archive.org/web/20150706192718/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary) term
Unless you have a quote which says differently, we should use a common English meaning


and a morale effect is something even better defined: something it's either stated to be a moral effect, or it's not a moral effect at all.
Once again, check the Glossary: "morale effect" isn't there ("morale bonus" is - but intimidation is not a bonus...)

[Chronos]

Be careful: "Moral" and "morale" are two different words. Holy Smite is a moral effect. Inspire Courage is a morale effect.

[Crake]

Be careful: "Moral" and "morale" are two different words. Holy Smite is a moral effect. Inspire Courage is a morale effect.

Yeah, but demoralize is based on the word morale, not moral.

[Darg]

As far as I know, "effect" in D&D isn't a Glossary (https://web.archive.org/web/20150706192718/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary) term
Unless you have a quote which says differently, we should use a common English meaning

The 3.0 glossary was much more expanded than what was given after the 3.5 update:


effect: One of several possible forms in which a spell or magic effect may manifest. Effect designators include ray, spread, and individual creatures or objects that have been summoned or created. Summoned or created effects appear wherever the caster designates, within the spell’s range. A mobile effect (such as a summoned creature) can thereafter move regardless of the spell’s range.

An effect is just what the ability/spell does.

As for morale itself, it is a modifier type. In 3.0 There were a lot of effects that gave morale bonuses and penalties. With the update to 3.5 I'm not sure morale penalties exist anymore. Fear effects used to imposed morale penalties for example. Now they're typeless. The point was probably so that morale immune creatures could still be affected by what used to be morale penalties. The change allows the new demoralize opponent use of the intimidate skill can be used on many more creatures than would otherwise be allowed.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho it all boils down to the same problem we are currently discussing in multiple threads here..

"Do you believe in Definitions or do you believe in Tags (which are imho "friendly reminder")?"

Let us look up the definition of the "mind-affecting"-tag:
Oh, we don't have one for 3.5...
So we have to fall back to the definition in the English language.

Which means, anything that fits as "mind-affecting" by common sense is valid and you may not narrow this down, since the rules don't reflect that.

If you believe in "tags" and that the absence of "friendly reminder" allows you to ignore definitions, you may come to a different conclusion. But such a conclusion seems to be contradicting what the Rules Compendium says about Fear effects (like Nikker poined it out in #4 on the first page):


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

Imho RC didn't change any rules. It just explains RAW, if you believe in definitions for a RAW interpretation (see my argumentation above).

I mean, how else does RC come to such a statement while some fear abilities mention that they are "mind-affecting" and others don't?
It can sole be if the "mind-affecting"-tag in those abilities are meant as "friendly reminders". You don't need the tag to apply the general rules by definition.

_____________
(offtopic)

btw... I didn't always had this point of view on this topic (definitions). And this also means that in my beloved BoBaFeat build is a slight misconception that does cut a lil of its power away (just a lil). Actually I'm waiting for someone to point out this issue of BoBaFeat with my current point of view (in the past 1-2 years I guess). Or lets better say that I use that as excuse, since I'm to lazy and don't have the time for an update atm. I intent to do it in the future when I will check all my builds for conflicts with my current point of view on rules (or if someone can find and pinpoint the issue out, I'm willing to do it ASAP^^).

[loky1109]

Let us look up the definition of the "mind-affecting"-tag:
Oh, we don't have one for 3.5...
So we have to fall back to the definition in the English language.

Which means, anything that fits as "mind-affecting" by common sense is valid and you may not narrow this down, since the rules don't reflect that.

And here we are again...
Common sense is a myth. It doesn't exist.

[holbita]

"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"

True, all fear attacks are mind-affecting. Now... let's see what fear attacks are:

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

Now let's see what Intimidate is, it's a natural ability. So it wouldn't be a fear attack, so it would not have the mind-affecting tag.

As such you can intimidate someone whithout caring that they have immunity to mind-affecting.

[icefractal]

If we're getting that into the wording - where is Intimidate defined as a natural ability? I mean, it makes sense to call it a natural ability, but it also makes sense to say "fearless people can't be intimidated".

[holbita]

So we have to go and check the definition of natural ability then:

"Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like"

Given that skills do not have any of the three supernaturals descriptors, they must be natural, same as ability checks and many combat maneuvers like grapple or disarm.

[ShurikVch]

If we're getting that into the wording - where is Intimidate defined as a natural ability? I mean, it makes sense to call it a natural ability, but it also makes sense to say "fearless people can't be intimidated".
The last part is even RAW:

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

[icefractal]

So we have to go and check the definition of natural ability then:

"Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like"

Given that skills do not have any of the three supernaturals descriptors, they must be natural, same as ability checks and many combat maneuvers like grapple or disarm.You don't have Intimidate ranks because of your physical nature though, you have them via class levels. Many class abilities are Ex/Su/Sp. If you used Alter Self to mimic a person with a high Intimidate bonus, you wouldn't get the bonus.

Of course it can be argued that since Intimidate can be used untrained, the ability itself is innate and class levels only make you better at it. But that's still not a RAW declaration that it's a natural ability, only a common-sense one.

And my common sense is that being immune to any and all "fear attacks" means also being immune to intimidate.

[holbita]

That's definitely an interesting point of view. Not one that I agree with, but an interesting one.

If you you say that skills are not natural abilites... what are they? Is it jumping not a natural ability? Are you going to arbitrarily differentiate between them?

Would ranks obtained from racial hit die count as natural ones?


And my common sense is that being immune to any and all "fear attacks" means also being immune to intimidate.

Regarding this, I agree. Immunity to FEAR makes you immune to intimidate. Immunity to mind-affecting is the one that does not apply to an intimidate check, as even though it is fear based, it is not mind-affecting.

[Crake]

Let us look up the definition of the "mind-affecting"-tag:
Oh, we don't have one for 3.5...
So we have to fall back to the definition in the English language.

Actually, the magic section clearly states that most spell descriptors have no mechanical effects on their own, and are merely used to describe how they interact with other effects and abilities.

It does also add that mind affecting spells can only work on creatures with an intelligence of 1 or higher.

Players handbook p174.

Why are we talking about meaningless semantics though?

[Darg]

The whole discussion falls under "what is a morale effect?" Looking at the 3.0 PHB it was quite obvious that it was anything that gave a morale bonus or penalty. The problem in 3.5 is that the morale type was removed from penalties. Meaning fear effects were morale effects in 3.0 and are no longer so in 3.5. The Occult Slayer's Blank Thoughts does not grant immunity to fear as a consequence.

And if we are fighting over what a fear attack is, just remember that the RC doesn't tell you what a fear attack is beyond giving only fear aura and frightful presence as examples. I'm willing to argue that it's a specific fear effect ability contained in the special attack category of a monster block. Considering there are non-mind-affecting fear effect spells, they don't qualify as fear attacks because they don't fit the description of the category as stated in the RC. I mean, it doesn't say that every fear effect is a fear attack. Just the mind-affecting ones.

[Gruftzwerg]

And here we are again...
Common sense is a myth. It doesn't exist.
Yeah here we are again.
Do you still wanna argue that RAW never exists because every sentence in the rules consist to 99% of undefined words, where you have to rely on general English definitions and make assumptions?
From your point of view we can't even read definitions, because for that we would be relying on words with no specific 3.5 definition where we would have to fall back to the general English definition.

I'm still waiting for an example sentence that you can read at all "RAW". And if you wanna claim that RAW doesn't exist, most people here in the forum make enough use of the term RAW that I can safely assume that not everybody shares your point fo view here. So if you don't believe in the existence of RAW, maybe don't respond to RAW arguments. Or you can make a separate topic where you can try to prove that a pure RAW reading never exists, and I'll happily join the discussion.



"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"

True, all fear attacks are mind-affecting. Now... let's see what fear attacks are:

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

Now let's see what Intimidate is, it's a natural ability. So it wouldn't be a fear attack, so it would not have the mind-affecting tag.

As such you can intimidate someone whithout caring that they have immunity to mind-affecting.

If we go strict RAW, this sole affects "Fear Attacks".


Fear (Su or Sp): Fear attacks can have various effects.
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 (for example, the aura of a lich). Other effects are
possible. A fear aura is an area effect. The descriptive text gives the
size and kind of area.
Fear Cones (Sp) and Rays (Su): These effects usually work like the
fear spell.
If a fear effect allows a saving throw, it is a Will save (DC 10 +
1/2 fearsome creature’s racial HD + creature’s Cha modifier; the
exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). All fear attacks
are mind-affecting fear effects.

We still don't know if we should rely on "tags" or on "definitions" to tell if something (outside of spells and Fear attacks) is "mind-affecting" or not. Imho the rules never tell you anywhere to keep track of "tags" (we always have the same debate about Special Abilities in general, if we should rely on "tags" or "definitions").
And since "mind-affecting" has no special 3.5 definition and ain't narrowed down in any way by RAW, we have to apply any possible legal interpretation of the general English definition.
_____

Imho if we go by definitions, even things like Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate become mind-affecting. And it should be that way if you consider mindless targets. Or would you allow Diplomacy against a mindless undead creature that doesn't even speak your language? While we are at it: ain't Diplomacy language dependent and relies on speech?
Imho just because something lacks a tag doesn't let you ignore definitions that designates those tags in the first place.

If somebody sells an oldtimer car without tagging it explicitly as one, does the car stop being an oldtimer? No, because we have definitions of what an oldtimer is (mostly local by country).

And we have real life examples where you are forced to tag stuff (e.g. car plates). But that doesn't apply to all kind of "tags" in life.

Same with 3.5. Unless the rules explicitly call out to keep track of tags, you can't assume that they are mandatory to proper designate stuff. As in real life, most stuff is simply designated just by the definitions of things. You would need an explicit rule call out to change that. And I don't see any 3.5 rule that tells you to keep track of tags.



Actually, the magic section clearly states that most spell descriptors have no mechanical effects on their own, and are merely used to describe how they interact with other effects and abilities.

It does also add that mind affecting spells can only work on creatures with an intelligence of 1 or higher.

Players handbook p174.

Why are we talking about meaningless semantics though?
We are talking about non-spell-abilities and if they need an explicit "mind-affecting"-tag to count as such.
Because these tags are also used outside of spells, just not as consistent as in the spells section. Like the example in the OP if you should have forgotten about it ;)


Blank Thoughts (Ex): At 5th level, an occult slayer can induce within herself a state of mental absence, thereby becoming immune to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, patterns, phantasms, and morale effects). She can suppress or resume this ability as a free action.


The question remains, "Does an ability/effect need to explicitly call itself out as "mind-affecting" or are definitions (in this case general English definition) enough to count as "mind-affecting" without an explicit call out (e.g. Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate..) (see my response to holbita above).

[loky1109]

I still point you out that there is difference between word and term. If you really need strict definition - it's term and you can't use "common" definition and saying "it's RAW".

[holbita]

And since "mind-affecting" has no special 3.5 definition and ain't narrowed down in any way by RAW, we have to apply any possible legal interpretation of the general English definition.

Actually, we do have a definition for it: "mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)", it does not have its own glossary entry, but that's the information that is given every time mind-affecting comes with a clarification parentheses.

So if we want to go that route we would need to define morale effect, that funny enough doesn't have a definition even though morales bonus has its own entry. I'm assuming that we don't have an issue agreeing that if anything feat would fall under that category.

So let's now discuss what merits having fear (and what parts of fear) being counted as morale effects.

"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. In most cases, the character makes a Will saving throw to resist this effect"

And let's also check the definition of Fear Cone that appears on the Monster Manual:

"Fear Cone: These effects usually work like the fear spell. If a fear effect allows a saving throw, it is a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 fearsome creature's racial HD + creature's Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature's descriptive text). All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects"

This is consistent with Rules Compendium. "Fear attacks can have various consequences, but all of them are mind-affecting fear effects", with no explicit mention to if other fear effects that are not fear attacks are mind-affecting. Even more interesting is that given that intimidate is not a spell or magical effect, this means that by these definitions, intimidate is not a fear effect.

Also, Turn Undead would be a fear effect if we follow these definitions... and that would be fine since fear effects don't need to be mind-affecting, only fear attacks do. So this reading still makes everything work under the rules presented.

Where do we find some issue with all of this? Extraordinary fear effects like frightful presence.

"Frightful Presence: This extraordinary ability [...]. Frightful presence is a mind-affecting fear effect."

Now, extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, so this MM definition contradicts the fear effect definition from PHB. We also know that the definition for Natural Abilities vs Special Abilities (Ex, Sp & Su) does not come up until Monster Manual, so I propose to understand that given that the term did not yet exist in PHB we should read magical effect in the definition of fear effect as special ability.

This would make the whole thing make sense once more, and it allows to make a claim like "Fear Attacks are both Fear Effects and Morale Effects" that is consistent with all the rules, and that still makes Turn Undead and Intimidate not affected by mind-affecting immunity. Our original conclusion to reading the fear rules.

In conclusion:

If you take the definition of mind-affecting you will need to define what a morale effect is, since it does not have one you can make up whatever you want here. So no, there is no actual "RAW correct answer", having said that I believe that the explanation that I just provided is the most in agreement with the rules, as it makes it so no text in the rules is irrelevant.

Feel free to use any other definitions though, as I said there is no single correct answer to this topic... even though mine is the most correct ^^

[ciopo]

I re-mention eyebite as specifically a fear effect that isn't tagged as mind-affecting

[holbita]

I re-mention eyebite as specifically a fear effect that isn't tagged as mind-affecting

And that would work perfectly under my interpretation. It would mean that Eyebite is a Fear Effect, not a Fear Attack, same as Turn Undead.

[loky1109]

Also, Turn Undead would be a fear effect if we follow these definitions... and that would be fine since fear effects don't need to be mind-affecting, only fear attacks do. So this reading still makes everything work under the rules presented.

I looked at Artaaglith (Ghoswalk, p. 157). It has turn undead and it is SQ, not SA.

[Crake]

YThe question remains, "Does an ability/effect need to explicitly call itself out as "mind-affecting" or are definitions (in this case general English definition) enough to count as "mind-affecting" without an explicit call out (e.g. Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate..) (see my response to holbita above).

[Mind-affecting] is an in-game descriptor, so yes, it does need to match that, it's not simply a common english definition, otherwise you could argue that everything is mind-affecting to a degree, as changes in the environment will affect someone's decision making process, thus "affecting their mind".

[holbita]

I looked at Artaaglith (Ghoswalk, p. 157). It has turn undead and it is SQ, not SA.

That would be interesting to see if it remains cosistent. But if it does it would really help with differentiating a Fear Effect (SQ) from a Fear Attack (SA)... I don't want to hope though.

As it is I don't see a clear connection between those two things.

[Gruftzwerg]

I still point you out that there is difference between word and term. If you really need strict definition - it's term and you can't use "common" definition and saying "it's RAW".
If you want to read more into an undefined word (by 3.5), you are not reading it RAW, but just using your own method to add definitions that are not presented by the RAW.
RAW allows you to sole use officially declared 3.5 definitions or the full extend of general English definitions. Adding your own definitions is not RAW.
You are extrapolating information and ignoring the hierarchy set by the Primary Source Rule to come to such an conclusion. Thus it is not RAW. You break to many rules for that. Reading RAW follows rules. And these rules are set by "logic" not by the community. The same "logic" that is applied by lawyers when they read "laws". Sole specifically called out definitions and general English definitions count.

You can identify the intent for a general definition by either:
- the title of an paragraph followed by its definition
- "XXX:" definition
- name of a table (not a single column or row, since a single stat doesn't explain anything. An entire table does)

If it is just in the mid of some other rule text, it's not a general declaration, but a specific one (like Invisibility redefines what an Attack is).

What you are doing is the same as "holbita" is trying to do below:


Actually, we do have a definition for it: "mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)", it does not have its own glossary entry, but that's the information that is given every time mind-affecting comes with a clarification parentheses.

That is extrapolated info and you are breaking the rule hierarchy if you try to make a general rule outta a specific rule.

It's not: Specific become General

It's: Specific Trumps General

What you are effectively doing here is like taking the definition of the invisibility spell, where it redefines what an Attack is, and pretending that this a general rule. Just that in our case the general definition is not set by 3.5 but by the general English language.
In both cases you lack the permission to do so. The Primary Source Rule doesn't allow for Specific Become General..


[Mind-affecting] is an in-game descriptor, so yes, it does need to match that, it's not simply a common english definition, otherwise you could argue that everything is mind-affecting to a degree, as changes in the environment will affect someone's decision making process, thus "affecting their mind".

It's an undefined (by 3.5) in-game descriptor. Just because it's a descriptor doesn't change the fact that you have zero permission to extrapolate info to make up your own definitions. You still have to fall back to general English definition as always in 3.5
Show me your permission to extrapolate information for definitions. Because the PSR does not allow it by the hierarchy it sets.

[Crake]

It's an undefined (by 3.5) in-game descriptor. Just because it's a descriptor doesn't change the fact that you have zero permission to extrapolate info to make up your own definitions. You still have to fall back to general English definition as always in 3.5
Show me your permission to extrapolate information for definitions. Because the PSR does not allow it by the hierarchy it sets.

What do you mean extrapolate? Nobody’s extrapolating but you. Unless something is declared as being mind affecting, its not. And the only interactions that the mind affecting descriptor has are those defined by different abilities. You’re the one trying to extrapolate it into common English definitions

[Darg]

Descriptors don't need definitions or rules text. It's a keyword system. A fire spell is even less defined but we know what it means. Though one thing is for sure, Eyebite like many other spells got neutered and I'm not even surprised if they messed up the descriptor tag.


Eyebite
Transmutation [see text]
Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/three levels (see text)
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: Yes

You can merely meet the gaze of a creature
and speak a single word to affect it with
one of four magical effects: charm, fear,
sicken, or sleep. You select one of these four
possible gaze attacks when casting the
spell. You retain the gaze power for 1
round for every three caster levels and can
use the gaze attack as a free action each
round.
These effects do not affect undead
creatures or extend beyond the plane you
currently occupy. You are subject to the
effects of your reflected gaze and are
allowed any applicable saving throw. In
the case of a reflected charm gaze, you are
held (as a hold monster spell).
The four versions of the spell are as
follows:
Charm: Equivalent to the charm monster
spell, except that the saving throw is based
on spell level 6.
Fear: The subject flees in blind terror for
1d4 rounds. Once it stops fleeing, the
creature refuses to face you for 10 minutes
per your caster level. If subsequently
confronted by you, it either cowers or bolts
for the nearest cover (50% chance of
either). This is an enchantment,
compulsion, mind-affecting effect; it can
be negated by a Will save.
Sicken: Sudden pain and fever sweeps
over the subject’s body. An affected
creature’s speed is reduced by half, it loses
any Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and it
suffers a –2 penalty to attack rolls. The
creature remains stricken for 10 minutes
per your caster level. The effects cannot be
negated by a cure disease or heal spell, but a
remove curse or successful dispel magic spell
is effective. This is a necromancy effect; it
can be negated by a Fortitude save.
Sleep: The subject falls asleep. The
creature sleeps for your caster level × 10
minutes but can be slapped awake. This is
an enchantment, compulsion, mind-
affecting effect; it can be negated by a Will
save.
Note: Each round, a gaze attack
automatically works against one creature
within range that is looking at (attacking or
interacting with) the gazing creature.
Creatures can avert their eyes, which grants
them a 50% chance to avoid the gaze but in
turn grants the gazer one-half concealment
(20% miss chance) relative to them. Creatures
can close their eyes or turn away entirely;
doing so prevents the gaze from affecting
them but grants the gazer total concealment
(50% miss chance) relative to them.

As you can see it originally had "see text" for a descriptor due to the different types of effects. In 3.5 it's just crappy and probably made it non-mind-affecting to give it marginal use.

[holbita]

That is extrapolated info and you are breaking the rule hierarchy if you try to make a general rule outta a specific rule.

It's not: Specific become General

It's: Specific Trumps General

What you are effectively doing here is like taking the definition of the invisibility spell, where it redefines what an Attack is, and pretending that this a general rule. Just that in our case the general definition is not set by 3.5 but by the general English language.
In both cases you lack the permission to do so. The Primary Source Rule doesn't allow for Specific Become General..

Well... obviously, that's why I started the post by saying that definition did not appear on the glossary but just in the clarification parentheses of the tag whenever it appears on text.

Regardless, it's the least relevant part of the post. It was just an attempt to show that even if we take what little information we have in game of the tag it still shows that it should not apply to all fear related abilities.

That's the point I want to make clear, intimidate not being mind-affecting is the most logic conclusion of RAW. To say otherwise you need to convolude the rules to suit you, instead of assuming good faith.

[Nikker]

You don't have Intimidate ranks because of your physical nature though, you have them via class levels. Many class abilities are Ex/Su/Sp. If you used Alter Self to mimic a person with a high Intimidate bonus, you wouldn't get the bonus.

Of course it can be argued that since Intimidate can be used untrained, the ability itself is innate and class levels only make you better at it. But that's still not a RAW declaration that it's a natural ability, only a common-sense one.

And my common sense is that being immune to any and all "fear attacks" means also being immune to intimidate.

Since, as you say, Intimidate can be used untrained, and every creature has at least a portion of a HD (or class levels, since humanoids with 1 HD get one class level instead), it's impossible not to have at least 1 skill point somewhere. I say skill points are a Natural ability because it's impossible not to have any...

[Nikker]

And that would work perfectly under my interpretation. It would mean that Eyebite is a Fear Effect, not a Fear Attack, same as Turn Undead.

Differentiating between fear attacks and fear effects, albeit counter-intuitive, really works imho. Thank you for your contribution.

[Crake]

Since, as you say, Intimidate can be used untrained, and every creature has at least a portion of a HD (or class levels, since humanoids with 1 HD get one class level instead), it's impossible not to have at least 1 skill point somewhere. I say skill points are a Natural ability because it's impossible not to have any...

Incorrect, certain creature types, and mindless creatures do not get skill points

[Darg]

Even so, skill points are at a minimum based on an ability score which is a natural ability. So as long as a creature has intelligence, they all get skill points.

[Crake]

Even so, skill points are at a minimum based on an ability score which is a natural ability. So as long as a creature has intelligence, they all get skill points.

Keep in mind that if you're gonna call skill points natural abilities, then alter self should be giving you the skill points of the form that you transform into, which I don't think is something ANYONE does. I don't think skill points/ranks are natural abilities.

[Doctor Despair]

Keep in mind that if you're gonna call skill points natural abilities, then alter self should be giving you the skill points of the form that you transform into, which I don't think is something ANYONE does. I don't think skill points/ranks are natural abilities.

Access to skills can be natural though, regardless of whether the ranks are. The ability to jump is a skill, after all. Of course, just because the ability to use a skill is natural doesn't mean that every creature can do it -- the jump skill is a natural ability, but not every creature can jump. Flight is natural (although not a skill), but not every creature can fly.

[Crake]

Access to skills can be natural though, regardless of whether the ranks are. The ability to jump is a skill, after all. Of course, just because the ability to use a skill is natural doesn't mean that every creature can do it -- the jump skill is a natural ability, but not every creature can jump. Flight is natural (although not a skill), but not every creature can fly.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this?

[Doctor Despair]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this?

I'm just noting that whether or not skill ranks or skill points are natural abilities (which you are arguing most people don't play with in your comment) has no bearing on whether or not skills are natural abilities.

[holbita]

I would take it a step further and compare it to your BAB. the +1 you get from your fighter level is not a natural ability, what is a natural ability is your BAB itself, the +1 or skill points you get to use on skills are just the mechanism you use to calculate how good you are at your natural ability.

They should not be treated as a natural ability themselves, same as you wouldn't count any other game mechanic that exists only to calculate stuff. Calling skill points a natural ability is like calling HP a natural ability.

[Crake]

I'm just noting that whether or not skill ranks or skill points are natural abilities (which you are arguing most people don't play with in your comment) has no bearing on whether or not skills are natural abilities.

Right, but I was responding to this:


I say skill points are a Natural ability because it's impossible not to have any...

[Doctor Despair]

Right, but I was responding to this:

I'm aware of what you were responding to. I was grounding the conversation in the topic at hand (whether intimidation is a natural ability) by noting that disputes over whether skill points are natural abilities or not is tangential and ultimately irrelevant. Essentially, I was rejecting the premise of the tangent: that proving that skill points are not natural abilities would serve a purpose for the debate.