PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 Mind-Affecting or no?



goram.browncoat
2008-11-19, 04:26 AM
Certain feats give will-save effects.
For example: Mark of Nessus from Fiendish codex II has opponents make a willsave or they have to targe their attacks at something else.
Firghtfull presence (as a feat from drac or as an (ex) from core) has the ability to do an AoE fear/shaken on a will save.

What i'm wondering: Since these things are not mentioned in their description as being minde-affecting, is it safe to assume they work on mind-affecting immune creatures so long as they are not immune to the produced effect?

For example: A devil with the mark of nessus and frightful presences fights a construct of some kind. Is the construct immune to both effects because it is immune to mind affecting, or only to the frightfull presence because it is immune to fear?

Maybe this is a silly obvious question but I'm not very familiar with the monster side of DnD, having spent most of my time as a player. So there could be something I'm missing.

I would appreciate input on both RAW and RAI, but please indicate which of these two you are making a statement towards. I guess the question for mark of nessus boils down to "Is a compulsion anything that smells like one or only what is mentioned to be one".

BobVosh
2008-11-19, 06:41 AM
Can you quote the mark exactly?

kamikasei
2008-11-19, 06:44 AM
I'm curious about this in general myself. The rules around what constitutes a mind-affecting effect seem very vauge. I would certainly say that just allowing a will save doesn't mean an effect is mind-affecting, but am not confident in stating that if the effect doesn't explicitly state it's mind-affecting it therefore isn't.

Mastikator
2008-11-19, 07:02 AM
Well, fearfulness is a state of mind, so I'm willing to say that frightful presence is a mind affecting effect.

The mark of nessus sounds like it's some kind of compulsion, since it'd probably require a fort (or possibly strength) check to resist targeting something else if it was affecting your body instead of your mind. So I'm also willing to say it too a effect on the mind.

goram.browncoat
2008-11-19, 08:05 AM
I cant quote the mark exactly as I am away from the book at this time. Though the exact wording doesnt interest me at this time. I do know that nowhere in the description of the feat the word mind affecting, charm, morale, fear or compulsion is used to describe it.

Whereas i remember certain effect descriptions explicitely stating "this is a mind affecting effect" or "This is a compulsion effect".

It does however seem to meet the description of a compulsion effect. Random Bob wants to attack the devil with mark of nessus but he fails his willsave so he has to attack something else. That seems like a compulsion (though its not strictly speaking direct control over random bobs actions, he gets to pick his secondary target himself).

So essentially what im wondering is if it has to be specifically mentioned to be a certain type of effect before it is one. By RAW or RAI. Spells are always clearly marked mind-affecting, but feats and special abilities arent always (yet are sometimes, which is where my confusion stems from)

As a silly example: When damage is not specifically mentioned to be of a certain type it is considered untyped. This because damage is failry consistently typed throughout all source books. One could therefor assume this holds true for other types of stuff too. Im not the least bit certain that it does though.

hewhosaysfish
2008-11-19, 08:06 AM
Well, all fear attacks are mind-affecting effects (MM 309).
Can't say for definite about the Mark of Nessus. It sounds like it should be a compulsion and thus mind-affecting. If it's not, I would be inclined to call that a rules-bug and declare it mind-affecting any way.

goram.browncoat
2008-11-19, 08:13 AM
Well, all fear attacks are mind-affecting effects (MM 309).
Can't say for definite about the Mark of Nessus. It sounds like it should be a compulsion and thus mind-affecting. If it's not, I would be inclined to call that a rules-bug and declare it mind-affecting any way.

Indeed, for frightfull presence it is explicitly in the rules under fear effects. I had overlooked this at time of posting and picking my examples.

Still, I'm sure theres other examples, I just picked two that came to mind.

Now i am also of the idea that, by the RAI, an effect is a compulsion/charm/whatever as long as it acts like one. But the way certain things are worded in DnD, there could always be debate on this (which offcourse is where DM ruling comes in). But I'm not entirely sure how it would be seen by a RAW ruleslawyer. It wouldnt be the first silly thing in RAW