Enchantment Optimization

[bekeleven]

There are 12 Enchantment spells in D&D that lack the mind-affecting tag. There are a number of ways to rule this. The most prevalent thing to look at is this:

All enchantments are mind-affecting spells.

How do we reconcile?

1. Specific trumps General: Generally, enchantments are mind-affecting spells. But besides those several hundred, here's a dozen that aren't. This ruling is used in cases such as the fact that Orb of Electricity is SR:No despite conjuration stating: "These spells are usually not subject to spell resistance unless the spell conjures some form of energy." Or, I dunno, the general rule of 5 five-foot step per turn being broken by the boots of sidestepping. Take your pick here.
2. Applies to the Cores: This one is pretty common in the PHB. It frequently refers only to core items, since after all, nothing else existed at the time. Consider when it says, "A character gets a base allotment of 2, 4, 6, or 8 skill points for each new level," which is broken by some levels. Or on the subject of spell description, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance reading "Unlike other scrying spells..." then listing properties of Elemental Eye from Complete Mage
3. The PHB is just explicitly wrong. Do you really need an example of this? Ok... "Fighter: A warrior with exceptional combat capability and unequaled skill with weapons."
4. Crazy is Majority Rules: The spells are still mind-affecting, and the writers just forgot to put the tag in, despite putting it into other enchantments in the same book.

The spells:

Addiction, Drug Resistance, Evil Eye, Masochism, Sacrificial Skill, Sadism, Sap Strength, Word of Savagery (BoVD). Includes many self-buffs, which presumably they didn't want foiled by mind blank.

Anathema (CoR). a 9th level spell with no Save or SR. Presumably the target line and spell level are restrictive enough, and they went the extra steps of removing descriptors.

Freezing Glance (FB): It appears that the enchantment is on you, and then you use a non-school-associated gaze attack, so they stripped the descriptor to make it clear that the gaze attack wasn't foiled by mind blank.

Immediate Assistance (CM): Another self-buff.

Proud Aroogance (RoD): A spell that grants buffs against other enchantments. If you give a mind-blanked wizard a +4 against compulsions in a forest, does it make a sound?*

*Proud Arrogance protects against mundane fear effects like intimidate, which Mind Blank skips, so there is a sliver of utility.

Thoughts?

[Vogonjeltz]

The first number is correct.

You can always research custom enchantment spells that don't carry the mind affecting descriptor as well.

[nedz]

1. Specific Trumps General.

You can read the line in the PH as being descriptive of all of the Enchantment spells in the PH rather than a prescriptive rules. This is rather like the line which states: There are (only) 11 Base classes.

I don't think I've ever seen any of these spells cast, but then 2/3rd of them are in BoVD which only sees occasional use in one of the groups I play with.

[bekeleven]

1. Specific Trumps General.

You can read the line in the PH as being descriptive of all of the Enchantment spells in the PH rather than a prescriptive rules. This is rather like the line which states: There are (only) 11 Base classes.

I avoided that example because no other book uses the term base classes, making it true. They use standard classes or somesuch.

[Psyren]

Specific trumps General: Generally, enchantments are mind-affecting spells. But besides those several hundred, here's a dozen that aren't. This ruling is used in cases such as the fact that Orb of Electricity is SR:No despite conjuration stating: "These spells are usually not subject to spell resistance unless the spell conjures some form of energy." Or, I dunno, the general rule of 5 five-foot step per turn being broken by the boots of sidestepping. Take your pick here.

The absence of a rule is not more specific than a rule. If the spells you listed specifically said "this spell is not mind-affecting" I would agree with you - but by simply lacking the tag, they do not override or contradict the general rule.

In any event, if you want to make enchantment stronger just play Pathfinder. Protection from X and Mind Blank were nerfed, and there are metamagic feats like Thanatopic Spell and Coaxing Spell to help dedicated enchanters.

[Segev]

When the rule goes to the effort to say "generally," it is not really giving a blanket rule so much as a guideline for homebrew design and a window into the philosophy that was used to design the game.

"Generally" very much means that, if it indicates otherwise (by explicit mention OR nonexplicit omission), the general case doesn't apply. "Generally, Enchantment spells are mind-affecting" in no way renders the [Mind-Affecting] tag redundant. Without that tag, a spell is not Mind-Affecting. "Generally," that rule says, enchantment spells will have that tag.

Really, it's not a rule. It's a discussion point explaining typical situations.

[Psyren]

When the rule goes to the effort to say "generally," it is not really giving a blanket rule so much as a guideline for homebrew design and a window into the philosophy that was used to design the game.

"Generally" very much means that, if it indicates otherwise (by explicit mention OR nonexplicit omission), the general case doesn't apply. "Generally, Enchantment spells are mind-affecting" in no way renders the [Mind-Affecting] tag redundant. Without that tag, a spell is not Mind-Affecting. "Generally," that rule says, enchantment spells will have that tag.

Really, it's not a rule. It's a discussion point explaining typical situations.

General means general. Whether they intended it to be a default state or merely a guideline, the fact remains that it is a "general rule."

For something to be "specific" it has to specify. Not stating anything is not specifying - in fact, it is the opposite.

[mangosta71]

If a rule applies to over 90% of cases, it's fair to call it a general rule. However, "generally" does not mean "always is" or "must be". The word implies that exceptions exist. So here we have a dozen spells (out of over a hundred) that constitute exceptions to the general rule.

[Segev]

General means general. Whether they intended it to be a default state or merely a guideline, the fact remains that it is a "general rule."

For something to be "specific" it has to specify. Not stating anything is not specifying - in fact, it is the opposite.

If a rule applies to over 90% of cases, it's fair to call it a general rule. However, "generally" does not mean "always is" or "must be". The word implies that exceptions exist. So here we have a dozen spells (out of over a hundred) that constitute exceptions to the general rule.

As mangosta says, "generally" does not mean "always unless otherwise specified." It means "most of the time." Generally, enchantment spells are labeled as mind-affecting. This makes the general statement that, generally, enchantment spells are mind-affecting true. Because it is a "general" statement, there are exceptions. The exceptions are marked by not having the tag which the non-exceptions have.

[Psyren]

If a rule applies to over 90% of cases, it's fair to call it a general rule. However, "generally" does not mean "always is" or "must be". The word implies that exceptions exist. So here we have a dozen spells (out of over a hundred) that constitute exceptions to the general rule.

I'm fine with that - but something has to say it is an exception to be an exception. If they left off the [mind-affecting] tag on a pattern illusion, it would still apply.

[Segev]

I'm fine with that - but something has to say it is an exception to be an exception. If they left off the [mind-affecting] tag on a pattern illusion, it would still apply.

Correct, but that is because the rules for Patterns specifically say "all patterns are mind-affecting." Not "generally," not "most," but "all." That's absolute, and thus requires specific called-out exception.

"Generally, X is true" doesn't mean X is always true unless otherwise stated. It means it usually is, so it is to be expected and is a safe bet if you can't check. But since X gets labeled on those things which are X, lacking X's label means it's one of those exceptions.

[Agincourt]

Correct, but that is because the rules for Patterns specifically say "all patterns are mind-affecting." Not "generally," not "most," but "all." That's absolute, and thus requires specific called-out exception.

"Generally, X is true" doesn't mean X is always true unless otherwise stated. It means it usually is, so it is to be expected and is a safe bet if you can't check. But since X gets labeled on those things which are X, lacking X's label means it's one of those exceptions.

This argument is really confusing me. The rules specifically says, "All enchantments are mind-affecting spells." (PHB 173). I gather by bekeleven's quote in the OP that the SRD says the same thing. By your logic, Segev, enchantments require a specific called-out exception. I am mystified how you can read it any other way.

[Psyren]

Agincourt beat me to it. "All enchantments are mind-affecting spells." That is just as absolute as the patterns entry.

[Chronos]

Yeah, if an enchantment spell specifically said that it wasn't mind-effecting, then that would be a Specific Trumps General. If it just doesn't say one way or the other, though, that's just a sloppy writer who forgot to include the tag. The sloppy-writer hypothesis is reinforced by the fact that most of these are from the same book.

[bekeleven]

Yeah, if an enchantment spell specifically said that it wasn't mind-effecting, then that would be a Specific Trumps General. If it just doesn't say one way or the other, though, that's just a sloppy writer who forgot to include the tag. The sloppy-writer hypothesis is reinforced by the fact that most of these are from the same book.

The same book includes enchantment spells with the [Mind-Affecting] tag. As does every other book that includes one.

Personally, I think #2 is the most realistic answer. Everyone seems to be saying if it's not 1, it's 4.

[Agincourt]

The same book includes enchantment spells with the [Mind-Affecting] tag. As does every other book that includes one.

Personally, I think #2 is the most realistic answer. Everyone seems to be saying if it's not 1, it's 4.

If WotC had otherwise been a model of good copyediting, the idea that an omission was intentional would carry a lot more currency for me. Unfortunately, there are mistakes in every book and WotC didn't even seem to care about fixing mistakes in later printings. Even when they weren't making out-and-out mistakes, most books have spells, feats, or special abilities that need more clarity. Most of these could have been fixed with more editing.

[Optimator]

#4 would certainly be in line with the dogmatic stance the developers have over rules hierarchy, but #1 and #2 seem more like what the writers of the specific spells had in mind. I highly, highly doubt that these spells missing the [Mind-Affecting] tag is merely "sloppy editing". When you look at the spell effects it makes sense. It's not like they're overpowered or anything. Give Enchantment a break!

My DM rules as #1.

[Segev]

This argument is really confusing me. The rules specifically says, "All enchantments are mind-affecting spells." (PHB 173). I gather by bekeleven's quote in the OP that the SRD says the same thing. By your logic, Segev, enchantments require a specific called-out exception. I am mystified how you can read it any other way.

Agincourt beat me to it. "All enchantments are mind-affecting spells." That is just as absolute as the patterns entry.

Huh, you are right. Well, then, that's sloppy, but the RAW would require that non-mind-affecting Enchantments be called out as such, specifically, not merely left unlabeled. I was seeing "generally" somewhere, rather than a specific "all." I concede the point.

[Cruiser1]

This looks like a conflict between the rules of "specific trumps general" and "text trumps table". We have general text saying all Enchantment spells are [Mind-Affecting]. We also have a specific table (the header for the specific spell) saying it's not [Mind-Affecting]. If we had specific text for the spell, then there would be no issue, e.g. if the spell's text said "unlike most Enchantment spells, this spell is not [Mind-Affecting]" then there would be no ambiguity.

Therefore it comes down to which rule dominates here, general text, or specific table? (Ignore the fact it was likely a typo that left off [Mind-Affecting], since we're analyzing RAW here.) Me I'd go for "specific trumps general (even a specific table)" over "(general) text trumps table", and rule those Enchantment spells aren't [Mind-Affecting], i.e. #1 above. The Enchantment school is underpowered in 3.5 anyway, so anything that gives it a slight boost is appealing when resolving rules ambiguity.

[bekeleven]

This looks like a conflict between the rules of "specific trumps general" and "text trumps table". We have general text saying all Enchantment spells are [Mind-Affecting]. We also have a specific table (the header for the specific spell) saying it's not [Mind-Affecting].

The argument against this appears to be that the spells aren't specifying anything unless they make a new tag called [Not-Mind-Affecting].

[Psyren]

This looks like a conflict between the rules of "specific trumps general" and "text trumps table". We have general text saying all Enchantment spells are [Mind-Affecting]. We also have a specific table (the header for the specific spell) saying it's not [Mind-Affecting].

The header says no such thing. It merely has no descriptor at all. That doesn't mean it needs one. Rather, it has to specifically deny being mind-affecting to contradict and therefore trump the general rule.

[Zanos]

I agree there there is no rules conflict. All Enchantment Spells are Mind-Effecting is an absolute statement, not a general one, and no text in any of the listed spells disagrees with that.

From a logical statement I'm also hard pressed to consider any of those spells not mind-effecting, although I suppose that has little place in RAW. Immediate Assistance is a Transmutation, by the way.

[bekeleven]

Immediate Assistance is a Transmutation, by the way.

Fun fact: There's a mind-affecting spell 2 spells before it and another 3 spells after (in the next column over).

[Zanos]

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata
CM Errata, page 2

Page 108 - Immediate Assistance[Substitution]
Should be of the Transmutation school.

[bekeleven]

Well, that makes this whole situation much more complicated. Why would that change?

1. Is it a reason unrelated to this issue (like "it fits thematically with changing stuff" or "guys we accidentally printed a good enchantment spell")?
2. Is it because they wanted to balance the spell with transmutation weaknesses (like shapechanger resistances)?
3. Is it because of this very reason, where they wanted to use it on mind blanked people and "all enchantments are mind-affecting"?
4. Alternatively, is it because there was a dispute over the previous ruling and the objection was later overruled, or because the previous ruling is incorrect but this way leads to less ambiguity?

Not that the errata is without issue. Immediate Assistance is now, to my knowledge, the only Transmutation(Compulsion) spell in existence.

[Psyren]

Not that the errata is without issue. Immediate Assistance is now, to my knowledge, the only Transmutation(Compulsion) spell in existence.

Compulsion is not a descriptor of transmutation and so that would fall off when they implemented the errata.

[nedz]

Compulsion is not a descriptor of transmutation and so that would fall off when they implemented the errata.

So some dysfunctional errata

[Vogonjeltz]

Huh, you are right. Well, then, that's sloppy, but the RAW would require that non-mind-affecting Enchantments be called out as such, specifically, not merely left unlabeled. I was seeing "generally" somewhere, rather than a specific "all." I concede the point.

That's going about it backwards. Not having the tag is the raw means of saying something isn't a certain way.

[Psyren]

So some dysfunctional errata

Depends on how you read it. If it replaces the entire "school" line with "Transmutation," then it is fine because it overwrites everything that was there (including "compulsion.")

That's going about it backwards. Not having the tag is the raw means of saying something isn't a certain way.

Not saying something is saying something?

This smacks of "the rules don't say I can't" territory.

[bekeleven]

Not saying something is saying something?

It's more saying not something is saying something. But let's continue this for a few more iterations because I want to see if the end result still resembles english.

3.5 has over 250 published enchantment spells, according to marventpa; I think CaptnQ's count is higher. Either way, funny that they got it "right" on all but these few, including all the other ones in the same books.