...I'm just full of questions, today...
I was looking over the heroism spell, and noticed it is an enchantment (mind-affecting) spell. Would a character under the effects of the spell "mind blank", which reads, "this spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects" still get the benefits of a heroism spell, or is he out of luck, by having mind blank active when the spell was cast?
|
Hmm. Good question.
EDIT: Retraction of previous post.
PHB page 77:
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even if a character with special resistance to magic (for example, and elf's resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.
So, yes, a character can "give up" the protection from mind-affecting effects to receive the benefits of a spell.
This would not apply to a creature that has a total immunity to a specific effect (ie. an undead cannot "accept" mind-affecting spells, as they have no "mind" to be affected).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm. Good question.
EDIT: Retraction of previous post.
PHB page 77:
A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even if a character with special resistance to magic (for example, and elf's resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.
So, yes, a character can "give up" the protection from mind-affecting effects to receive the benefits of a spell.
This would not apply to a creature that has a total immunity to a specific effect (ie. an undead cannot "accept" mind-affecting spells, as they have no "mind" to be affected).
I disagree, I don't think Mind Blank is something you can lower. The creature doesn't have special resistance, the spell does.
along my line of thought is, you can't lower a ring of deflection to get a touch spell cast on you. You need to remove the ring, ending hte effect.
|
|
I disagree, I don't think Mind Blank is something you can lower. The creature doesn't have special resistance, the spell does.along my line of thought is, you can't lower a ring of deflection to get a touch spell cast on you. You need to remove the ring, ending hte effect.
That is exactly what my original post said before I retracted it. Quite frankly, I think you can make a legitimate case for both. I can understand a creature not having control over a spell cast on it.
You know, this would be a great time for Sean K Reynolds to give an official response!
I disagree, I don't think Mind Blank is something you can lower. The creature doesn't have special resistance, the spell does.along my line of thought is, you can't lower a ring of deflection to get a touch spell cast on you. You need to remove the ring, ending hte effect.
That is exactly what my original post said before I retracted it. Quite frankly, I think you can make a legitimate case for both. I can understand a creature not having control over a spell cast on it.
You know, this would be a great time for Sean K Reynolds to give an official response!
I'm not sure what saving throws really have to do with the OPs question? mind blank does not grant an extra saving throw or something like that. Its blanket immunity.
For the record, a search of the FAQ and erratta with the keywords mind blank comes up zip.
I'm going to go with the idea that mind blank makes you immune to even beneficial mind affecting spells. Essentially it all seems to come down to what 'protect' means in this case. The word is maybe not idea since it gives one the impression that the spell only makes one immun to mind affecting spells that are unwanted or harmful.
That said I'd argue that one can be 'protected' from something even if one does not want to be so protected. In this case your being protected from the beneficial mind affecting effects of heroism.
|
|
I'm not sure what saving throws really have to do with the OPs question? mind blank does not grant an extra saving throw or something like that. Its blanket immunity.
The PHB entry on voluntary acceptance states saving throw, but then provides an example using a blanket immunity (simialr to mind blank), that is why it got brought up.
I think Jal Dorak's answer is correct. As he points out, the example (elven immunity to sleep) doesn't "grant an extra saving throw or something like that," either, so it seems to be precisely on point.
I think Jal Dorak's answer is correct. As he points out, the example (elven immunity to sleep) doesn't "grant an extra saving throw or something like that," either, so it seems to be precisely on point.
Well the real question would be:
Can an elf choose to fail the save for a sleep spell?. Maybe more germane to the argument would be undead since they are normally immune to mind affecting effects? Can a Lich choose to fail the save versus sleep?
|
|
I think Jal Dorak's answer is correct. As he points out, the example (elven immunity to sleep) doesn't "grant an extra saving throw or something like that," either, so it seems to be precisely on point.Well the real question would be:
Can an elf choose to fail the save for a sleep spell?. Maybe more germane to the argument would be undead since they are normally immune to mind affecting effects? Can a Lich choose to fail the save versus sleep?
Yes, an elf can voluntarily suppress their resistance and fail a save versus sleep, see my above quote from the PHB.
But as to undead, I had that same internal debate when responding, here is how I justify it:
An elf is immune to magical sleep effects, and so can suppress that immunity in an identical way to voluntarily failing a saving throw against a spell, as per the PHB (think of the elf immunity as an automatic success on all saves).
An undead is immune to EVERYTHING that is mind-affecting, hence they cannot suppress that - it is not magic, it is inborn. Same applies to a red dragon's fire immunity, or a half-fiend's immunity to poison.
Yes, an elf can voluntarily suppress their resistance and fail a save versus sleep, see my above quote from the PHB.But as to undead, I had that same internal debate when responding, here is how I justify it:
An elf is immune to magical sleep effects, and so can suppress that immunity in an identical way to voluntarily failing a saving throw against a spell, as per the PHB (think of the elf immunity as an automatic success on all saves).
An undead is immune to EVERYTHING that is mind-affecting, hence they cannot suppress that - it is not magic, it is inborn. Same applies to a red dragon's fire immunity, or a half-fiend's immunity to poison.
PHB page 176...blah...blah...blah...'voluntarily give up resistance to magic.'
OK I concede to your argument - if you can voluntarily give up resistance to magic, even in a case where you are normally immune to magic, as this sentence indicates, then it stands to reason that you can do so even when the effect is only temporary.
|
|
Yes, an elf can voluntarily suppress their resistance and fail a save versus sleep, see my above quote from the PHB.But as to undead, I had that same internal debate when responding, here is how I justify it:
An elf is immune to magical sleep effects, and so can suppress that immunity in an identical way to voluntarily failing a saving throw against a spell, as per the PHB (think of the elf immunity as an automatic success on all saves).
An undead is immune to EVERYTHING that is mind-affecting, hence they cannot suppress that - it is not magic, it is inborn. Same applies to a red dragon's fire immunity, or a half-fiend's immunity to poison.
PHB page 176...blah...blah...blah...'voluntarily give up resistance to magic.'
OK I concede to your argument - if you can voluntarily give up resistance to magic, even in a case where you are normally immune to magic, as this sentence indicates, then it stands to reason that you can do so even when the effect is only temporary.
Hey, I was still willing to be persuaded by you!
I still think in the case of mind blank, that since the spell protects against everything (not just magic) that you A) can lower the magic resistance only (nah) or B) can't lower it, since it is a blanket immunity - similar to an undead, it is not a "special resistance to magic" it is a "catch-all resistance".
But even if you concede, now we must decide: what kind of action does it require to lower the immunity? ;)