DM Question: Mind Blank

[Ristamar]

Re: 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.

As Skip said: Mind blank protects against devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. And against scrying, which is magical information gathering conducted remotely.

Arcane Eye clearly qualifies as remote scrying, hence Mind Blank would block it. I don't think any spells that directly reference magical scrying were ever disputed.

 

[Arravis]

*bump*

I'd like to see this answered

 

[Ristamar]

*scratches his head* Hm? It was answered. Unless there's some other question I'm missing here....

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

That is a good point. But for some reason the text of the spell has a vague notion of scrying as a means of detection that seems rather confusing, at least to me:

In the case of scrying that scans an area that the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected.

The nagging thing about that second sentence is that it mentions 'information gathering' at all. If your interpretation is right, then the second sentence should read:

This spell protects against all mind-affecting and divination spells or effects.

Mentioning 'information gathering' seems to imply the author meant something a bit more specific and narrow than a global all-encompassing protection.

The author chose the phrase 'information gathering by divination spells' when he could have used 'all divination spells' with less effort. Rather he bends over backwards to not use or imply the word 'all' in this situation.

In conclusion, I believe that
(1) 'information gathering' != 'all'
(2) to understand what 'information gathering' means we must look at the first sentence.

 

[KarinsDad]

In the case of scrying that scans an area that the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected.

The nagging thing about that second sentence is that it mentions 'information gathering' at all.

It doesn’t have to. That is not the point of this sentence. An area scan could have several results depending on DM ruling if they did not explain what happens:

1) A blank spot could show up. Like a Black Hole, you see that something is there (since the spell might be unable to see past the protected target), but you cannot gain any information on that target (height, weight, eye color, etc.).

2) The protected character prevents the area spell from working at all, hence, it would protect other creatures in the area by accident.

3) The spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected.

This sentence is not mysterious. They just explained what happens with a visual area divination. If they would not have explained what happened, sooner or later we would be reading a thread here on the forum asking what happens.

If your interpretation is right, then the second sentence should read:

Hmmm.

So, although the wording as written does support our position and is merely a clarification sentence, you don't buy it because it is not written in a way that makes it crystal clear to you?

In conclusion, I believe that
(1) 'information gathering' != 'all'
(2) to understand what 'information gathering' means we must look at the first sentence.

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.

I disagree totally with the second one since I think the first sentence of the spell ("detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts") has nothing to do with the overall divination protection portion of the spell. Just because they have the word “detect” in the first sentence does not mean that it supercedes somehow sentences further in the spell description. They went out of their way to state that it protected vs. Scrying or Arcane Eye which have nothing to do with emotions or thoughts.

This "first sentence is the god of intent" theory for the entire spell is not supported by further examples within the spell (such as Scrying or Wish), or other spells in the book that reiterate that they are stopped by Mind Blank. Nor, is it supported by the Sage's Ruling on Discern Location. It is, however, supported by the Sage’s ruling on this.

People also keep mentioning that long range location is what they mean by "protection from information".

So, if you use a Wish spell to figure out the protected target's location, it is stopped. But, if you use a Wish spell to figure out the protected target's alignment, it is not stopped. Huh?


But, this discussion (like last time) is getting nowhere since intent vs. literal discussions rarely do.

 

[LordAO]

Ok, if the sage has alreafy ruled on this issue why are we even debating it? Obviously he knows more about the rules than any of us (at least I'd hope, since he has the final say).

 

[doktorstick]

I presently have no opinion on this. On one hand, it is an 8th-level spell and the wording seems fairly straightforward. On the other hand, it doesn't seem immediately obvious that true strike and see invisibility would be stopped by mind blank.

On true strike: The character that will be the victim of the spell has, in his mind, either by instinct or plan, what he is about to do in the next instance or three. This spell, discerns that information and bestows upon the user this knowledge. Using this knowledge, the user has intimate knowledge on where to strike his foe.

On see invisibility: The character that is invisible has intimate knowledge of his self. Otherwise, he would be bumbling about and unable to perform (as if blinded). Since he knows his location relative to his surroundings, it is information that can be learned by others. This spell uses that knowledge to give the user that information as well so they can see the person.

Counter to see invisibility: An invisible object does not have knowledge of its location, nor itself. It couldn't give up its location in such fashion. However, this spell still works on invisible objects.

These rationalizations do not help the problem, but are my weak attempt at providing information to this discussion. I personally like the idea that mind blank stops a wide variety of spells.

/ds

 

[rhammer2]

Clairvoyance and Clairaudience are location specific scrying spells.

Funny, I thought scrying only allowed you to target creatures, not areas (which I didn't like, personally). So how do you randomly scry areas? If I understand correctly, if you try to scry on someone, you will only see the area they occupy, but not them. As far as what spells will work and what won't, I think that only spells which target the creature DIRECTLY won't work. The spell says it stops spells that influence or detect thoughts, or gather info about the subject. Only spells which do that are blocked by the spell. That is why I don't think mind blank has any effect on true seeing or see invisibility, they aren't actively "detecting" the character, merely allowing you to see them, despite illusions. Spells like locate creature, know alignment, scrying, etc actually target the individual or detect them, so they wouldnt work. See Invisibility isn't detecting their thoughts or gathering info about the subject, so it wouldn't be blocked. The thing with true seeing and See Invisibility that sets them apart is that they still rely upon mundane observation. You still have to spot an invisible creature, even if you have see invisibility on. That opposed to having a detection or scrying spell that says (theyre over there!).

 

[Voadam]

Re: Re: arcane eye and detecting thoughts and emotions

As Skip said: Mind blank protects against devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. And against scrying, which is magical information gathering conducted remotely.

Arcane Eye clearly qualifies as remote scrying, hence Mind Blank would block it. I don't think any spells that directly reference magical scrying were ever disputed.

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.

 

[Voadam]

Looking it over I'd have to say the statement about wishes is its own category, an expansion of how powerful the information gathering protection is, because miracle, limited wish and wish are not divinations.