Invisibility and Mind Blank vs True Seeing or See Invisibility?

[anon]

The fireball analogy is very weak. It's not a divination spell and therefore completely irrelevant to the primary discussion. It is an offensive spell which conveys no direct information. The indirect information which MAY be gotten from it (see previous response to your fireball example) has nothing to do with the spell but is a result of a simple observation. No one is claiming that Mind Blank ought stop Spot checks. Mind Blank stops Spells (of a certain school and type) not Spot.

 

[Arravis]

The Fireball discussion isn't productive or reasonable, let's move on.

I think many people think of spells like True Seeing, See Invisibility, etc to be passive spells that enhance the viewer, not something directly affecting other targets. I think that's the assumption, but it may not be supported by the rules as written. Honestly, I don't know.

To put it simply:

A) True Seeing and See Invisibility are passive spells that only affect the caster, enhancing his vision to see as all things as written in the description. So it wouldn't matter if an invisible person had Mind Blank or not because he's not being affected in any way.

B) True Seeing and See Invisibility are active spells (perhaps something like sonar or somesuch), which directly affect creatures within spell effect in relation to the caster. Thus Mind Blank would come into effect, since the target is being directly affected.

Is there any rule or other such thing clarifying this issue? Fireballs aside, thanks for the help guys.

 

[andargor]

I think many people think of spells like True Seeing, See Invisibility, etc to be passive spells that enhance the viewer, not something directly affecting other targets. I think that's the assumption, but it may not be supported by the rules as written. Honestly, I don't know.

Personally, I think it's a great way to justify how you would house rule them. However, the rules say that they are Divination spells, and that Divination spells are blocked by mind blank.

Why are we having this discussion?

Andargor

 

[Arravis]

But, wouldn't it be, by definition, Divination spells directed at the caster? Other divination spells simply don't affect the person Mind Blanked.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Divination spells are blocked by mind blank.

No, divination spells are not blocked by mind blank. If the spell said that, there'd be no further discussion.

The spell actually says "information gathering by divination spells and effects."

The point, then, is if they meant "MB blocks all diviniation spells and effects," they could have written that and saved us all a lot of grief.

They didn't write that.

Therefore, what they wrote either means something different - it blocks certain kinds of divination spells and effects, a subset of the divination school - or is a bad attempt at writing "all divination spells and effects."

I prefer to believe that the people writing the rules knew what they were doing absent overwhelming proof to the contrary.

And calling the fireball discussion unproductive and unreasonable just because you don't like where it leads? Cowards and copouts, the lot o' ya!

 

[andargor]

No, divination spells are not blocked by mind blank. If the spell said that, there'd be no further discussion.

The spell actually says "information gathering by divination spells and effects."

The point, then, is if they meant "MB blocks all diviniation spells and effects," they could have written that and saved us all a lot of grief.

They didn't write that.

Therefore, what they wrote either means something different - it blocks certain kinds of divination spells and effects, a subset of the divination school - or is a bad attempt at writing "all divination spells and effects."

I prefer to believe that the people writing the rules knew what they were doing absent overwhelming proof to the contrary.

That's why there is a FAQ entry on this very subject, posted above in this very thread.

Let me reiterate to save you the trouble of backscrolling:

Can someone using a discern location spell find someone using mind blank spell?

No. While the discern location spell description contains some pretty strong language about the spell’s ability to overcome effects that block scrying of divinations, the general rule in the D&D game favors defense over offense, so mind blank’s ability to block scrying and all forms of divination trumps discern location’s ability to penetrate such defenses.
Blocking spells of 7th level or less, however, are still ineffective against discern location.

Doesn't this qualify as overwhelming proof of the contrary?

Andargor

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, it doesn't (to me, anyway), because in this case the FAQ is responding to a different question, and is only obliquely addressing this point. I hesitate to argue that the writer of the FAQ even looked at the mind blank spell while writing his answer. Moreover, I don't trust the FAQ as far as I can throw it.

Additionally, if you read the text of the Discern Location spell, you'll find the following gem:

A discern location spell is among the most powerful means of locating creatures or objects. Nothing short of a mind blank spell or the direct intervention of a deity keeps you from learning the exact location of a single individual or object.

It is specifically called out that mind blank blocks discern location - which is, again, redundant if the "mind blank trumps all divinations" reading is accurate, and is a useful example of the kind of divinations blocked if the "mind blank trumps certain kinds of divinations" reading is accurate.

If instead, someone had asked, "In the Mind Blank entry, it says it blocks 'information gathering by divination spells or effects.' Is this a redundant statement (i.e., all divinitation spells or effects are information gathering), or is Mind Blank supposed to block only certain kinds of divination spells or effects (i.e., those like detect evil or discern location but not necessarily true seeing)?" I'd trust the FAQ answer more.

EDIT: And, for the record, that's a 3.0 FAQ response which is not included in the 3.5 FAQ.

 

[Arravis]

Is the FAQ considered "official"? If so, trusting it or not doesn't matter since this is the rules forum. If it isn't, that's a different story.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Is the FAQ considered "official"?

Yes, and no. It's official, but it's not Core. This is an important distinction.*

The important "levels of officialness" go as follows:

1. Core - the PHB, DMG, MM, including errata to same
2. Expansions to Core - Complete Series, MM 2 & 3, Campaign setting, etc., including errata to same
3. Everything else

The FAQ falls into category 3. If it directly contradicts #1 or #2, it's wrong (or, really, it's a house rule).

So, basically, if there was an FAQ entry that said "Because all elves start off with darkvision ..." it would be in contradiction of the Core rules, and would be wrong.

If it said, "In the Forgotten Realms, it's not required to have a divine patron in order to cast divine spells," it would be in contradiction of the Expansion rules, and would be wrong.

The question re: Mind Blank and Divinations is a Core issue. So, if the FAQ uses as the basis for its ruling an incorrect reading of a Core rule, it's wrong.

The question for us, then, is "Has the FAQ misinterpreted the Mind Blank spell?"

* - From the 3.5 PHB Errata:

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

 

[dcollins]

For what it's worth, my reading of the spells is that the Improved Invisibility & Mind Blank combination is in fact proof against See Invisibility & True Seeing. I used this this to effect with a sorcerer in a recent high-level game.

It is a reasonable target for House Ruling by the DM in a very high-level game. The DM said if we played again he'd have to House Rule it differently, and I thought that was reasonable.