DM Question: Mind Blank

[Celtavian]

Re

I think that see invisibilty and true seeing to divine information about an individual and are not general sensory enhancements.

See invisibility detects particular people who are invisible. If an invisible, mind blanked person is there, why would see invisibility allow the caster to gather information about that person? The information being that he or she is invisible. Is that not a form of information gathering?

Same thing with true seeing. It basically gathers information about an individuals who are polymorphed, invisible, or covered by an illusion. It gives information that the person is polymorphed, invisible or covered by an illusion. This is a form of individual form of information gathering though not as specific as scrying or discern location. But it does indeed give information, and not indirectly.

A person must first be invisible, polymorphed or covered by an illusion for either spell to even give any benefit. Thus, an individual or object must be using one of the above spells. This is definitely information gathering.

I understand that often for gameplay balance WOTC might call against it, but the spell wording does indeed indicate that information gathering spells fail. I feel both true seeing and see invisiblity are information gathering spells that tell you how many invisible, polymorphed, or illusory people or objects are in an area.
If that is not information gathering, then I don't know what is.

And if Mind Blank does not work against detect invisibility, true seeing and detect magic, then what spell does? Non-detection?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree with the first one.

The spell should not protect against information that Legend Lore may have access to (things other people know about the protected target or things known about the protected target's past when he was not protected).

It should only protect against "current information", i.e. information that the spell is currently hiding from other divination spells about the target.

You divine information about the target's home, his job, or some other external piece of information, the divination is not stopped.

But if I take "information gathering" at face value then Legend Lore certainly would be stopped. What else could it mean?

If you agree that 'information gathering' divine spells does not mean the same as 'all' divine spells, what is left? Legend Lore is definitely about gathering information.

Here is a list of the arcane divine spells (it is harder to sift through the cleric list):
Detect Poison
Comprehend Languages
Detect Secret Doors
Detect Undead
Identify
True Strike
Detect Thoughts
Locate Object
Clairaudience/Clairvoyance
Tongues Speak
Arcane Eye
Detect Scrying
Locate Creature
Scrying Spies
Contact Other Plane
Prying Eyes
Rary's Telepathic Bond
Analyze Dweomer
Legend Lore
True Seeing
Greater Scrying
Vision
Discern Location
Foresight

They all look like information gather spells to me. Maybe that leaves Detect Scrying?

The fact is the spell is miswritten. Neither of our positions is 100% consistent with what the spell text actually says IMO. So we are left guessing to the best of our ability.

 

[KarinsDad]

Originally posted by Ridley's Cohort
But if I take "information gathering" at face value then Legend Lore certainly would be stopped. What else could it mean?

Just like any other spell, it means that the target is protected, but others are not.

If you have Protection From Elements: Fire up and I fireball you, you may take zero damage. But, that doesn't protect your dog.

So, any divination spell that tries to get its information from the protected character, in any manner, would be stopped.

Any divination spell that tries to get its information from a source external to the character would not be stopped.

Examples of this could include: Legend Lore, Commune.

Just because we disagree on intent here does not mean that we cannot use common sense.

Caveat on Legend Lore/Commune: If you use Commune to ask your deity "Is the creature in the tower?", the deity should answer "Don't know". A deity could bust through the defense of Mind Blank, but typically wouldn't bother. "Don't know" is a reasonable answer to a Commune. If you use Commune to ask your deity "Is the creature I just saw a moment ago the same one who attacked us last month?", the deity can get the information as to which creature from the mind of the Commune caster and should be freely able to answer unless the creature was protected a month ago as well (in which case the deity would again have to rely on external information).

Originally posted by Ridley's Cohort The fact is the spell is miswritten. Neither of our positions is 100% consistent with what the spell text actually says IMO. So we are left guessing to the best of our ability.

Actually, I think your "fact" is not a fact at all. I think the spell is written perfectly fine. I think people are "used to" Mind Blank working differently from earlier editions of the game and that combined with the Sage's agreement that it should not stop certain divination spells fuels the disagreement.

However, even Monty said that, as written, the spell does prevent divination spells that target the protected character.

But, you and I disagree with a lot of aspects of this spell, so us disagreeing on how well it is written is probably par for the course.

 

[Ristamar]

Re: Re: Re: arcane eye and detecting thoughts and emotions

That is what he said, it is just not supported by saying the first sentence is a limitation on the second. If you say the first is a limitation on the second then where does scrying come in? Only in the later sentences where specific examples are given. For Skip's answer to work you have to say that remote information gathering is its own category derived from the examples, and unconnected to the sentence about information gathering divinations which only apply to detecting thoughts and emotions.

Based upon the text of the spell scrying and information gathering wishes seem more of an example of information gathering divinations to me then their own discrete category.

I disagree with Skip's interpretation, I feel it is unsupported by the text of the spell.

Ristamar, did you also save Monte Cook's post about thinking it worked as skip described but then thinking differently upon reading the spell carefully? He was a bit ambivalent, saying he would let a PC argue it with him based on the text of the spell.

No, nor do I recall such a post.

Monte did post a reply on his board to an inquiry regarding True Strike vs. Mind Blank, saying initially he didn't think it would affect True Strike, but after looking over the spell, he changed his mind and said he'd let it block the spell. However, that was long before Skip was ever tapped for a ruling.

As for how I interpret Mind Blank, it's not based on any sort of logical formula or quantifiable semantics. The wording of the spell is poor and it's applications were easily debatable (obviously).

When I first emailed the Sage, I had half the mind to simply say. "The description of Mind Blank sucks. What does it really do?"

Anyway, as always, Skip almost never qualifies his email answers with reasons. I'm sure there is some explanation to the answer he gave (whether it's 'yeah, the description sucks, throw it out and follow these rules,' or something else entirely) but he likely doesn't have the time and/or inclination to spell it out.

All in all, the explanation doesn't matter much to me. He provided a concise set of guidelines to follow when using Mind Blank. That was satisfactory (and useful) for me.

I don't even care what the spell description says anymore. We can all argue over the 'true meaning' 'til we're blue in the face, and we're never going to come close to forming a concensus. That's why I emailed him in the first place.

Apparently some people aren't happy with the answer. It isn't the first time. I doubt it'll be the last. Regardless, at least for now, that is the answer. I know I didn't like his original ruling on pr. class stat bonuses stacking with MM size increase stats for the Dragon Disciple. However, I let it drop. It was a dead issue (fortunately, IMO, he later changed his mind, but that's irrelevant).

I think this issue needs to die, as well. Let the dead horse lay peacefully. The poor thing has been beat for so long...

 

[Voadam]

Ristamar,

I think that is the post I was remembering. IIRC he said his first reaction was "of course mind blank does not protect against TS." Then on looking over the "protects against all information gathering divination" he thought ooh, that's the whole backstory of TS, so he'd let a character with MB convince him he was protected from the TS scanning him for the insight bonus.