DM Question: Mind Blank

[Ridley's Cohort]

KarinsDad,

Your position hinges on putting paramount importance on the second sentence. My position is based on accepting the first sentence as most important.

It is the nature of the English language that neither position is provably correct. All we can do is make our best effort at interpreting what is written and guestimate the intent of the author.

BTW, it is not quite as clearcut as you may like to think that See Invisibility gives information about the target. One could view it as a spell that simply partially nullifies Invisibility. From this POV Mind Blank has nothing to do with it.

 

[Zenon]

Ah, another old, heated topic. Hehe.

Yup. I wonder if this thread will attain the 8-10 page length of the old ones.

I believe that the other threads boiled down to this simple advice:

"Use it as you are comfortable with it in your game. Remember it's an 8th level spell, and thus fairly powerful."

 

[Voadam]

from the srd:

See Invisibility

Divination
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Cone
Duration: 10 minutes/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

The character sees any objects or beings that are invisible, as well as any that are astral or ethereal, as if they were normally visible.

The spell does not reveal the method used to obtain invisibility, though an astral traveler is easy to identify if he has a silver cord. It does not reveal illusions or enable the character to see through opaque objects. It does not reveal creatures who are simply hiding, concealed, or otherwise hard to see.

You don't see invisible things beyond the range or outside of the cone. It does not transmute your senses to be better in general for the duration of the spell as darkvision but allows you to gain visual information on things in the area covered by the spell. Sounds like scrying for invisible things to me.

 

[Voadam]

Mind blank vs true seeing

from the srd:

True Seeing

Divination
Level: Clr 5, Drd 7, Knowledge 5, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

The character confers on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus her vision to see into the Ethereal Plane. The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.

True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not cancel concealment, including that caused by fog and the like. True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by mundane means. In addition, the spell effects cannot be further enhanced with known magic, so one cannot use true seeing through a crystal ball or in conjunction with clairaudience/clairvoyance.

Additionally, the divine version of this spell allows the subject to see auras, noting alignments of creatures at a glance.

Material Component: Worth at least 250 gp.

So I would say true seeing allows you to see a mind blocked invisible character because it sees through the illusion of the spell, leaving the character unprotected by the invisibility spell. If it just allowed you to see invisible and things as they really are then I would rule that it is blocked. Because it specifically says it "sees through illusions," It can pierce an invisibility spell.

 

[Ristamar]

Yup. I wonder if this thread will attain the 8-10 page length of the old ones.

I believe that the other threads boiled down to this simple advice:

"Use it as you are comfortable with it in your game. Remember it's an 8th level spell, and thus fairly powerful."

I would hope not. Not that one wouldn't expect dissension among the ranks, but all in all, like it or not, it's a dead issue (in concern to official rules, although house rules are another matter entirely).

Ridley's Cohort pretty much hit the nail on the head. The ambiguity hinges upon where you put the main emphasis in the spell description. The focus of the emphasis has been clarified.

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad,

Your position hinges on putting paramount importance on the second sentence. My position is based on accepting the first sentence as most important.

My position hinges on accepting all sentences in the spell description, not just those that fit my world view of how it should work.

Where in the first sentence does it limit the information gaining portion of the second sentence?

Originally posted by Voadam
Additionally, the divine version of this spell allows the subject to see auras, noting alignments of creatures at a glance.

Material Component: Worth at least 250 gp.

So I would say true seeing allows you to see a mind blocked invisible character because it sees through the illusion of the spell, leaving the character unprotected by the invisibility spell. If it just allowed you to see invisible and things as they really are then I would rule that it is blocked. Because it specifically says it "sees through illusions," It can pierce an invisibility spell.
[/B]

Wouldn't learning someone's alignment be viewed as gaining information about them?

Would you rule that just the divine alignment detection portion of True Sight not work?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My position hinges on accepting all sentences in the spell description, not just those that fit my world view of how it should work.

Where in the first sentence does it limit the information gaining portion of the second sentence?

From a mathematical POV, you must surmise whether a list of sentences is trying to describe a set as an intersection of sets, or the union of sets. It is not so simple as to say "I accept all sentences at their literal value." Language just isn't designed mathematicaly so you need to guess based on context.

Suppose a crotchety mailman said: "I hate dogs. When I see a hint of meanness I use the pepper spray."

Interpretation 1: Mailman uses pepper spray on dogs that look mean.

Interpretation 2: Mailman uses pepper spray on everyone who looks mean: dogs, little old ladies, his wife, street urchins, police men, etc.

The moral of the story is you can't just rip a sentence out of its context and assert it means what it says. Doesn't work.

 

[Voadam]

Wouldn't learning someone's alignment be viewed as gaining information about them?

Would you rule that just the divine alignment detection portion of True Sight not work?

Yes.

I would rule that with true sight you can not see the true image of a character who is polymorphed or a natural shapechanger or their alignment if you use the divine version of the spell. These are information gathering. If they hid behind an illusionary wall, invisibility, displacement or blur spell, the true seeing sees through these illusions because the spell explicitly says it does that. It also says they see the true form or location of these creatures but that function would fail except by operation of piercing the illusion.

 

[Voadam]

RC

Context is very important but here is a different analogy

Mailman says "Dogs are mean. Small mammals are mean. Look at wolverines and badgers!"

Interpretation 1: He is talking about two similar but discrete groups even though the second overlaps the first.

Interpretation 2: Since the two overlap, when he says small mammals he only means dogs.

In Mind blank, it seems clear to me that the sentences are each discussing effects, not one effect with an explanation.

Why?

If you take the first sentence about thoughts and emotions as limiting the next (mind affecting and info gathering) it is directly contradicted by the example given: scrying. Scrying clairaudience and clairvoyance and arcane eye do not detect thoughts or emotions, only sights and sounds.

 

[Voadam]

arcane eye and detecting thoughts and emotions

For those who say MB only protects against detecting or influencing thoughts and emotions please explain how it protects against arcane eye.

From the srd

Arcane Eye

Divination
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Unlimited
Effect: Magical sensor
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

The character creates an invisible magical sensor that sends the character visual information. The arcane eye travels at 30 feet per round (300 feet per minute) if viewing an area ahead as a human would (primarily looking at the floor) or 10 feet per round (100 feet per minute) if examining the ceiling and walls as well as the floor ahead. The arcane eye sees exactly as the character would see if the character were there. The arcane eye can travel in any direction as long as the spell lasts. Solid barriers prevent the passage of an arcane eye, although it can pass through a space no smaller than a small mouse hole (1 inch in diameter).

The character must concentrate to use the eye. If the character does not concentrate, the eye is inert until the character again concentrates. The powers of the eye cannot be enhanced by other spells or items (though the character can use magic to improve the character's own eyesight). The character is subject to any gaze attack met by the eye. A successful dispel magic cast on the character or the eye ends the spell. With respect to blindness, magical darkness, and other phenomena that affect vision, the arcane eye is considered an independent sensory organ of the character's. (For example, it is not blinded if the character's normal eyes are blinded.)

Any creature with Intelligence 12 or higher can notice the arcane eye by making a Scry check or an Intelligence check (DC 20). Spells such as detect scrying can also detect the eye.