D&D 5E Mind Blank against Command

[Maxperson]

It seems pretty obvious that in 5e they tried to de-technicalize and shorten the wording from the previous versions (while throwing in protection from the new psychic damage type), with the issue that "[mind-affecting]" was no longer a special spell label. Since pretty much everybody in the playtest would know "how it's supposed to work" from the way it worked in previous editions, and high levels (where mind blank enters) wouldn't have gotten much testing anyway, any ambiguity with the new wording would have been hard to catch.

I think it's more likely that this was deliberate. They like using natural language and setting things up so that DMs make rulings. My belief is that they wrote it so that it's pretty darn clear that it stops mind affecting things and that all charm spells are mind affecting, while still allowing those who want to change it an avenue for preventing mind affecting spells from being stopped by a spell designed to stop them.

 

[jgsugden]

They did. It's called rules. The spell blocks everything that affects the mind. Enchantments are by RAW all mind affecting spells. It's right there in crystal clear language. To spell it out further within the spell would be redundant.

It is not in crystal clear language. Crystal clear language would have been putting the word enchantment in the description. It was an obvious potential option. They did it for divination, which is less clear cut than enchantments as to how they impact individuals. For whatever reason, they did not take the crystal clear and obvious option of including enchantments, by the simple and most common one word reference, as language.

If it were "crystal clear" we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Dausuul]

The spell is badly written.

The first sentence of mind blank is a mix of natural language ("any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts") with a modest amount of game jargon (psychic damage, divination spells, the charmed condition). The result is crisp and clear. There is room for debate around the margins--does X effect count as sensing emotions/reading thoughts? what does immunity to divination spells do if you aren't the direct target of the spell?--but these are corner cases which can and should be left to the individual DM. If it ended here, it would be fine.

But then we get to the second sentence and it all goes to hell. This sentence is phrased as if it were merely clarifying the first (mind blank is powerful enough to trump even a wish). But it then offhandedly introduces a whole new scope for the spell--"affect the target's mind or gain information about the target"--which is neither mentioned nor implied in the first sentence. And it's not clear whether that is deliberately meant to expand the spell's capabilities, or whether it was just a poorly-executed attempt to rephrase the first sentence*.

If we read it strictly and literally (the way you aren't supposed to read natural language), this new scope applies only in the context of wish and similarly powerful effects! So a lowly suggestion spell works on a person under mind blank, but wish used to duplicate suggestion does not. I'm fairly positive that isn't the design intent. But it's what the spell says.

All that said, the effects given in the first sentence are pretty weak for an 8th-level spell. So I would go ahead and apply that new scope from the second sentence, across the board. As for command: While the actions given are physical, command requires that the target can hear you and understand your language. That strongly implies that mind control is involved, and I would allow mind blank to stop it.

*My guess: It started out as an accurate rephrasing of the first sentence, and then somebody changed the first sentence and forgot to adjust the second.

 

[Maxperson]

The spell is badly written.

The first sentence of mind blank is a mix of natural language ("any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts") with a modest amount of game jargon (psychic damage, divination spells, the charmed condition). The result is crisp and clear. There is room for debate around the margins--does X effect count as sensing emotions/reading thoughts? what does immunity to divination spells do if you aren't the direct target of the spell?--but these are corner cases which can and should be left to the individual DM. If it ended here, it would be fine.

But then we get to the second sentence and it all goes to hell. This sentence is phrased as if it were merely clarifying the first (mind blank is powerful enough to trump even a wish). But it then offhandedly introduces a whole new scope for the spell--"affect the target's mind or gain information about the target"--which is neither mentioned nor implied in the first sentence. And it's not clear whether that is deliberately meant to expand the spell's capabilities, or whether it was just a poorly-executed attempt to rephrase the first sentence*.

If we read it strictly and literally (the way you aren't supposed to read natural language), this new scope applies only in the context of wish and similarly powerful effects! So a lowly suggestion spell works on a person under mind blank, but wish used to duplicate suggestion does not. I'm fairly positive that isn't the design intent. But it's what the spell says.

All that said, the effects given in the first sentence are pretty weak for an 8th-level spell. So I would go ahead and apply that new scope from the second sentence, across the board. As for command: While the actions given are physical, command requires that the target can hear you and understand your language. That strongly implies that mind control is involved, and I would allow mind blank to stop it.

*My guess: It started out as an accurate rephrasing of the first sentence, and then somebody changed the first sentence and forgot to adjust the second.

It's more than implied, command is an enchantment spell and page 203 of the PHB is pretty clear that all enchantments are mind affecting.

 

[Umbran]

It's more than implied, command is an enchantment spell and page 203 of the PHB is pretty clear that all enchantments are mind affecting.

Then, we should ask why they didn't say, "All enchantment spells" and be done with it?

Bane and Bless are enchantments, so now we must interpret them as impacting the mind, instead of, say, the power of a deity altering probability?

Several of the Enchantment spells can be read as taking over the BODY, but not the mind - Hideous Laughter, Hold Person, and Otto's Irresistible Dance among them, can have the creature's mind entirely its own, but the body not following orders.

 

[Maxperson]

Then, we should ask why they didn't say, "All enchantment spells" and be done with it?

Bane and Bless are enchantments, so now we must interpret them as impacting the mind, instead of, say, the power of a deity altering probability?

Several of the Enchantment spells can be read as taking over the BODY, but not the mind - Hideous Laughter, Hold Person, and Otto's Irresistible Dance among them, can have the creature's mind entirely its own, but the body not following orders.

Sure, the language of those spells are written without explicitly stating they affect the mind, but we have the rule on page 203 saying that they are all absolutely mind affecting, so to interpret them contrary to the rule runs afoul of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that all those spells are mind affecting.

It's really easy to interpret them in accordance with the rule, too. Tasha's Hideous Laughter is emotional control, Hold Person causes mental paralysis like sleep paralysis does, Otto's mentally forces the subject to dance and Bane/Bless affect the minds of the subjects, bolstering skill or diminishing it.

You can and should ignore what is written in Mind Blank and the rule on page 203, making them physical/divine influence if that fits your game better, but if you do that you should probably change the saving throws to constitution. Wisdom, intelligence and charisma saves are mental and should be used for mind influencing spells. You would not resist a physical paralysis in the same way that you would a mental one.

 

[Umbran]

but we have the rule on page 203

Rule? Or general description? Or is everything in the book a rule, to you? It is formatted as a sidebar, which aren't usually positioned as hard and fast rules, and it speaks about what spellcasters believe, not what is absolutely known to be true.

I ask, because general statements have exceptions.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It's really easy to interpret them in accordance with the rule, too. Tasha's Hideous Laughter is emotional control, Hold Person causes mental paralysis like sleep paralysis does, Otto's mentally forces the subject to dance and Bane/Bless affect the minds of the subjects, bolstering skill or diminishing it.

While I agree that it would be strange to have Tasha's Hideous Laughter just physically mimic a laughter crisis while in his mind the target is still dead serious but complied to fall on the floor saying "ha ha ha" loudly, instead of just having the target... laugh, the case might be less clear cut for the other examples.

The worse thing is that we're discussing it and left to wonder (or ask the DM) about the meaning, but in universe the answer is easy to get.

-- Master, is Otto's Irresistible Dance mind-affecting or physical ?
-- Young grasshoper casts Otto's Irresistible Dance, do you want to dance wildly or are you just dancing wildly?
-- Stop that Master... I am just moving against my will and can't stop. What am I doing?
-- You're dancing the Macarena choreography, which you didn't know until I cast the spell.
-- So, it's physical?
-- Yes young grasshopper. You will now wipe the floor of my lab for the next three month to teach you not to ask questions you could answer through a well designed experiment. We're INT casters, dammit!

 

[Iry]

Bane and Bless are enchantments, so now we must interpret them as impacting the mind, instead of, say, the power of a deity altering probability?

While not specified in 5E, they were morale based spells in 1E, 2E, and 3E.

 

[Maxperson]

Rule? Or general description? Or is everything in the book a rule, to you? It is formatted as a sidebar, which aren't usually positioned as hard and fast rules, and it speaks about what spellcasters believe, not what is absolutely known to be true.

I ask, because general statements have exceptions.

The sidebar is backed up by the saving throws. I haven't seen a single enchantment spell that controls the physicality of the target, or we would see strength, constitution and dexterity saves for those enchantment spells. They're all mental saves, since they all target the mind.