Still Mind vs. Gibbering Mouther

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

EDITED.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I revise my opinion. Earlier, I misread the monk's ability as applying to "saving throws against spells and spell-like effects from the school of enchantment."

Compulsion, as a game term, refers only to Enchantment effects. Not all Enchantments are Compulsions, but all Compulsions are Enchantments (and are, of course, mind-affecting). Specifically, Compulsion, unlike, say, Fear, is a subschool of Enchantment. Fear, as a descriptor, may be applied to spells and effects from multiple schools of magic. Compulsion, as a subschool, may not.

Therefore, the monk's ability applies against the gibbering mouther's special ability. Note that it would apply against the gibbering mouther's special ability even if that ability read:

Gibbering (Su): As soon as a mouther spots something edible, it begins a constant gibbering as a free action. All creatures (other than mouthers) within a 60-foot spread must succeed on a DC 13 Will save or be affected as though by a Cause Fear spell for 1d2 rounds (though the subject may only be frightened, not shaken). This is a sonic mind-affecting compulsion effect. A creature that successfully saves cannot be affected by the same gibbering mouther’s gibbering for 24 hours. The save DC is Charisma-based.

The spell mechanics it borrows in order to resolve its effects are largely secondary; the important part is that the ability is a "mind-affecting compulsion effect."

So, the OP should have received the bonus on his or her saving throw.

 

[Hjorimir]

As the DM in question, I'd just like to say this is purely academic at this point. I've agreed to give him the bonus on future saves (it doesn't really break the game and not worth getting upset over either way really).

My ruling was based on the (SU) indicator. I don't see the confusion as the spell, but merely the method in which you resolve the effect. Much like I don't see a red dragon's breath weapon as an evocation (though some would argue it is).

Be that as it may, we all play the game to have fun and if this makes the difference between fun and fury I choose to err on the side of fun. I will add, however, that I think this is a pretty silly thing to argue over, but D&D is an emotional game and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[AuraSeer]

Compulsion, as a game term, refers only to Enchantment effects. Not all Enchantments are Compulsions, but all Compulsions are Enchantments (and are, of course, mind-affecting). Specifically, Compulsion, unlike, say, Fear, is a subschool of Enchantment. Fear, as a descriptor, may be applied to spells and effects from multiple schools of magic. Compulsion, as a subschool, may not.

I would agree with you if the mouther's ability stated that it was of the (Compulsion) subschool. It doesn't say that. The rules simply do not say that all compulsion effects must be enchantments. By the strict letter of the rule (which is exactly what the OP asked about), the Gibbering effect is not of any school of magic.

It's perfectly sensible to call it an enchantment anyway, but that is not required by the literal meaning of the RAW. ForceUser's DM did not err.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

As the DM in question, I'd just like to say this is purely academic at this point. I've agreed to give him the bonus on future saves (it doesn't really break the game and not worth getting upset over either way really).

My ruling was based on the (SU) indicator. I don't see the confusion as the spell, but merely the method in which you resolve the effect. Much like I don't see a red dragon's breath weapon as an evocation (though some would argue it is).

A dragon's breath is energy damage, but energy damage can come from any of a few different schools of magic, the most obvious being evocation. There's also conjuration, abjuration, transmutation, to name a few. So there's no special connection between energy damage and the evocation school.

However, there is in fact a specifically spelled-out relationship between compulsions and the enchantment school. So the analogy doesn't hold. The mouther's ability is affected by Still Mind according to the RAW, due to it being a compulsion, as Patryn and others have demonstrated.

 

[dcollins]

As the DM in question, I'd just like to say this is purely academic at this point... Be that as it may, we all play the game to have fun and if this makes the difference between fun and fury I choose to err on the side of fun. I will add, however, that I think this is a pretty silly thing to argue over, but D&D is an emotional game and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Here's hoping you don't take this discussion personally. You're right to consider this forum like an academic roundtable... most folks here would like to know what the "ideal" answer would have been, even if we all agree that in practical terms, at the table, it's more important to make some decision and move on.

I agree with your revised what-you'll-do-in-the-future ruling. Pretty much every night I ever DM, I walk away needing to debrief myself on the 3 or 4 screwups I made during the game (not that my players catch all or most of them -- like if you know any theatre actors they'll admit that a lot of messed-up lines take place, ad libs happen, and the audience never catches on).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Frankly I'm all for dumping the entire EX/SU/SLA/Natural ability divides and just go with:

"It's magic"

or

"It's not magic"

 

[Hjorimir]

A dragon's breath is energy damage, but energy damage can come from any of a few different schools of magic, the most obvious being evocation. There's also conjuration, abjuration, transmutation, to name a few. So there's no special connection between energy damage and the evocation school.

However, there is in fact a specifically spelled-out relationship between compulsions and the enchantment school. So the analogy doesn't hold. The mouther's ability is affected by Still Mind according to the RAW, due to it being a compulsion, as Patryn and others have demonstrated.

Well let me ask you this, then: Does Still Mind work vs. psionics as written? There is no enchantment school for powers. My personal take is, yes, it should apply. But within the wording fo the ability it is easy to say that it does not. Why doesn't Still Mind read as a +2 to Will saves against all mind-effecting spells/abilities/powers? Why did the authors opt to include the word enchantments specifically?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

However, there is in fact a specifically spelled-out relationship between compulsions and the enchantment school. So the analogy doesn't hold.

I disagree. The fact that there currently isn't a compulsion spell of a school other than enchantment doesn't mean there can't be. Just within the last couple splatbooks, we've seen a flood of Conjuration spells that act like Evocations for all intents and purposes. WotC could come up with a Transmutation spell that creates a compulsion effect at any time. Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean the rules forbid it.

As AuraSeer pointed out, the DMG does not state that all compulsions are enchantments. Until it does, by a strict reading of the rules, Still Mind does not apply to Gibbering.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I disagree. The fact that there currently isn't a compulsion spell of a school other than enchantment doesn't mean there can't be.

Actually, there can't be.

As I mentioned above, Compulsion is specifically a subschool. Anything that is a part of a given subschool is necessarily part of its superschool. The superschool of Compulsion is Enchantment.

Note that, again, as I mentioned before, a subschool is entirely different from a [Desriptor]. Descriptors - [Fire], [Force], [Lawful], [Fear], [Mind Affecting], etc. - can cross school boundaries.

Subschools cannot cross school boundaries; you cannot have a spell or effect that is simultaneously Necromancy and (Calling), because (Calling) is a subschool of Conjuration. However, you may have both Necromancy and Enchantment spells that share the [Mind Affecting] descriptor - like, say, Charm Person and Cause Fear.