Mind Blank and Telepathic Bond = The Uninformed Barbarian?

[KarinsDad]

Furthermore, the FAQ and CustServ have been quoted to support arguments, but considering how both of them are notedly unreliable, they hardly belong in the Rules forum.

Actually, the FAQ is the official clarification of the rules and does belong in the rules forum.

Customer Service is the low paid assistance program for people who cannot take the time out to read the rules, but quite frankly, Customer Service appears to be wrong about as often as they are right, so they are hardly a reliable source.

Really, it comes down to the question of wether "Information Gathering" is a game term. If not, then all Divinations reveal info, and so all are defeated. If it is a game term, the negligence of WotC forces DMs to define it, so that it's easy to see which Divinations are blocked.

I suspect that you with not find the phrase "information gathering" anywhere else in the rules. It is basically flavor text similar to stating "as well as deception by illusion spells or effects". This phrase would not mean that there are illusions that are not deceptive (the entire idea behind illusions), just like there are no divinations that do not gather information (the entire idea behind divinations).

 

[Felix]

Actually, the FAQ is the official clarification of the rules and does belong in the rules forum.

Actually, eratta is official, the FAQ is quaint; we share the same opinion of CustServ.

I suspect that you with not find the phrase "information gathering" anywhere else in the rules.

Suspect away; I'm actually confident you won't. That's why I said it was poorly defined or poorly worded. If all Divinations were to be defeated, it'd be pretty bloody easy to say "and all Divination spells and effects". It doesn't; it modifies the word Divination. For what reason? I say because not all Divinaton spells are thwarted.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually, eratta is official, the FAQ is quaint; we share the same opinion of CustServ.

Erratta is official modification of RAW when there is an error or omission.

FAQ is official clarification of RAW as written (without changing it).

Both are official.

I have no idea where you get your idea that FAQ is not official.

Suspect away; I'm actually confident you won't. That's why I said it was poorly defined or poorly worded. If all Divinations were to be defeated, it'd be pretty bloody easy to say "and all Divination spells and effects". It doesn't; it modifies the word Divination. For what reason? I say because not all Divinaton spells are thwarted.

Tell me what the definition is of a Divination spell that does not gather information.

Joker was unable to do that. All of his examples had Divination spells which gave information.

 

[Aesmael]

It's not called Thought Blank either.

And, how exactly does a divination spell influence emotions or thoughts? That would be an enchantment spell.

Doesn't. Some of them do not read or detect thoughts or emotions either, and those work fine. May not be called Thought Blank, but it is called Mind Blank. Primary purpose is to protect mental integrity and privacy. Thus, spells which would control, compel or otherwise affect mental state are blocked (mind-affecting). Thus also, any divination spell that extracts personal information is blocked. No detects, no scrys (but they are mentioned seperately in the text), but telepathic bond does not in and of itself give information so it works. You are under no compulsion to provide any information while under the telepathic bond. If you were, mind blank would protect against it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Primary purpose is to protect mental integrity and privacy.

Where does it state that?

Everything about the spell indicates that it prevents your mind from being affected AND it prevents anyone from divining anything about you (you are even non-detected within Scrying type spells such as Scry or Arcane Eye).

People are attempting to make it mean that it prevents your mind from being affected and it prevents your mind from divulging information and it protects from Scrying.

But, it does not state that the information gathering limitation is mental only. In fact, it never once states that. That is a spin people are putting on it after reading the first sentence.


In fact, if you carefully read the spell, Scrying is mentioned later on in the spell as an afterthought to divination. Scrying is not mentioned as the core of the spell in the first two sentences. Why not? Because the second sentence covers divination and that includes Scrying.

Hence, it is reasonable that they then go into details about Scrying later on.

"In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all."

Look at how strangely this is worded with your interpretation.

Instead of starting out with something like:

"Additionally, Scrying does not work on the Mind Blank subject."

and actually mentioning Scrying as an additional effect, they start out with:

"In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in"

as if they had already been talking about Scrying. Why did they think that? Because they had. They already covered Scrying with the sentences "This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it.".

As far as the author was concerned, he had not ONLY covered all Mind Affecting and Divination spells, but he also covered super powerful Limited Wish, Miracle, and Wish spells in the two cases of affecting the mind or gaining ANY information on the subject.

And that is why Scrying comes up as almost an afterthought. It was already covered except for the special case of area affect Scrying still working, but not detecting the protected character. It was clarification only.


I think people read the first sentence of "The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts.", combine it with the spell name "Mind Blank" and go, "Yup, it doesn't do anything more.". According to what is written there (and according to the FAQ), it does.

 

[Felix]

I have no idea where you get your idea that FAQ is not official.

My contempt for the FAQ comes form Hypersmurf, actually. As far as I'm concerned, I trust him more than the FAQ. And I'm getting a sense of deja vu... have we railed about this before?

Tell me what the definition is of a Divination spell that does not gather information.

Joker was unable to do that. All of his examples had Divination spells which gave information.

Joker didn't do that because he'd gotten tired of banging his head against your wall, so I completely sympathize with him; this is barely worth it. Why? Because I've already said that your point of view is reasonable, and in return you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that Joker and I have anything worthwhile. Thanks, buddy.

Secondly, if you define "Information Gathering" broadly enough, every fraggin spell can gather information. Why? Because when you're walking around living life, every time something changes, you've gained information. "Hey, that's different. Hadn't noticed that before..." and you now have more information than you did.

Reduce Person: Hey, now that I'm closer to the ground, I can see it clearer, and know more about it.

Fly: So that's what a thermal feels like!

Magic Jar: Here's every male wizard's opportunity to feel a woman's monthly pain.

Get the point? It's too broad, because everything can fit in there. So what's the problem? Hmmm... could it be that it's

Badly defined

?

So no, "information gathering" is not a game term. But the circumstances they put it in are too bloody vague for any definition to work properly. So until it's better defined by the powers that be, we're adrifit. What's the solution? Hey, a DM could do what you're doing and bugger Divination. Or they could take 7 minutes to look through all the divination spells and decide for themselves which ones they think Mind Blank defeats. I can tell you that for me, True Strike ain't one of them, and neither is Rary's Telepathic Bond.

And that is why Scrying comes up as almost an afterthought.

It wasn't an afterthought. They talked about it because it's possible to see people in a scrying sensor that are not the target of the spell. Not because it was a redundancy from the Charybdis of "Information Gathering".

 

[KarinsDad]

My contempt for the FAQ comes form Hypersmurf, actually. As far as I'm concerned, I trust him more than the FAQ. And I'm getting a sense of deja vu... have we railed about this before?

No, we have not.

However, the 3E FAQ is not bad. The 3.5 FAQ is full of holes.

That still does not mean that it is not the official source for clarifications. In fact, in the early days of 3E, a group of game designers reviewed the 3E Errata and FAQ answers. It appears that like Customer Service, only one person writes things in them anymore without consulting anyone else.

Secondly, if you define "Information Gathering" broadly enough, every fraggin spell can gather information. Why? Because when you're walking around living life, every time something changes, you've gained information. "Hey, that's different. Hadn't noticed that before..." and you now have more information than you did.

Reduce Person: Hey, now that I'm closer to the ground, I can see it clearer, and know more about it.

Fly: So that's what a thermal feels like!

Magic Jar: Here's every male wizard's opportunity to feel a woman's monthly pain.

Get the point? It's too broad, because everything can fit in there. So what's the problem? Hmmm... could it be that it's

Funny, I only mentioned Divination spells which gather information because it is every single one. How come your argument leads into an area (of non-divination spells that could give some level of information) that does not support your position and is totally illogical and non-sequitor? Hmmmm.

We are talking game rules and mechanics here, not made up stuff.

So no, "information gathering" is not a game term. But the circumstances they put it in are too bloody vague for any definition to work properly. So until it's better defined by the powers that be, we're adrifit. What's the solution?

We have two important clues here:

1) The entire intent of the Divination School is to gather information.
2) The FAQ clarifies that Mind Blank stops all divinations.

That seems extremely simple to me. I do not understand why it is complex to you and you are insisting that "information gathering by divination spells or effects" somehow means less than what it says.

It wasn't an afterthought. They talked about it because it's possible to see people in a scrying sensor that are not the target of the spell. Not because it was a redundancy from the Charybdis of "Information Gathering".

But the way they talked about it was as if they had already mentioned it. With your interpretation, that is not the case and it is therefore strangely worded.

Like someone talking about combat and then suddenly segueing into a discussion of hiding without leading into the new topic of conversation.

 

[Aesmael]

Where does it state that?

In the first sentence of the spell description. The one that tells people what they can expect from the spell, before said description goes into the specifics.

Everything about the spell indicates that it prevents your mind from being affected AND it prevents anyone from divining anything about you (you are even non-detected within Scrying type spells such as Scry or Arcane Eye).

People are attempting to make it mean that it prevents your mind from being affected and it prevents your mind from divulging information and it protects from Scrying.

People like the designers, you mean?

In fact, if you carefully read the spell, Scrying is mentioned later on in the spell as an afterthought to divination. Scrying is not mentioned as the core of the spell in the first two sentences. Why not? Because the second sentence covers divination and that includes Scrying.

In fact, if you carefully read my post, you will see that I note scrying as being mentioned seperately. This is because scrying does not detect, influence or read thoughts. However, Mind Blank does protect against it, and it therefore must also be mentioned in the description.

Hence, it is reasonable that they then go into details about Scrying later on.

"In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all."

Look at how strangely this is worded with your interpretation.

Instead of starting out with something like:

"Additionally, Scrying does not work on the Mind Blank subject."

and actually mentioning Scrying as an additional effect, they start out with:

"In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in"

as if they had already been talking about Scrying. Why did they think that? Because they had. They already covered Scrying with the sentences "This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it.".

As far as the author was concerned, he had not ONLY covered all Mind Affecting and Divination spells, but he also covered super powerful Limited Wish, Miracle, and Wish spells in the two cases of affecting the mind or gaining ANY information on the subject.

And that is why Scrying comes up as almost an afterthought. It was already covered except for the special case of area affect Scrying still working, but not detecting the protected character. It was clarification only.

Not so. Scrying effects are mentioned in the second of two 'additional' effects.

Description goes: Protects thoughts and emotions from being read, detected or influenced. Clarified as protection from spells that are 'mind-affecting' as well as those divination spells and effects which gather information. (note that the second sentence is indeed unclear wert divination - the first sentence is actually more clear, referring specifically to 'reading' and 'detecting' thoughts [influencing is, as I pointed out earlier, covered by the block on mind-affecting spells] as opposed to 'information gathering' [which, unlike those two terms, is not used elsewhere); when checking to see if a divination spell is blocked by mind blank refer to the spell in question to find out if it reads or detects thoughts, those are the ones blocked).

The description then goes on to clarify that, yes, even limited wish, miracle and wish are foiled when used to

affect the subject's mind or to gain information about it

. 'It' could indeed be taken as referring to the subject, but more likely means the exact article mentioned already in the sentence, that being the 'subject's mind'.

The description then goes on to describe the additional case of mind blank's interactions with scrying effects. Specifically, it also prevents the subject from being seen by any scrying effects, even though those effects do not provide information about the subject's state of mind or emotions (nor allow them to be influenced), except by inference. That is an extra effect of mind blank.

I think people read the first sentence of "The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts.", combine it with the spell name "Mind Blank" and go, "Yup, it doesn't do anything more.". According to what is written there (and according to the FAQ), it does.

Actually, it does do more. It also protects against scrying. But that is the limit of its powers.

 

[RuminDange]

Have to agree with Karinsdad this time.
This argument almost made it a year since the last time it came up. The last time resulted in no clarification as well but didn’t last nearly this long.
Here's the link to the last time for those interested: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=79092

"Information gathering" is a broad undefined term that could result in the interpretation that all divination spells are blocked. So until the designer wish to clarify this term or list those spells that Mind Blank stops or doesn’t in more detail, this will probably have to be decided at each game table how each group wishes to run it. My group has decided…for now, and the spell blocks all divination spells.

RD

 

[KarinsDad]

People like the designers, you mean?

Yes, the designers. The ones who said in the FAQ that Mind Blank stops all divinations.

It does not get more clear than that.


The problem people are having is that they read the first sentence and the name of the spell as a limitation. Like most spell descriptions, the first sentence is more flavor text (i.e. general description of what the spell does) than it is actual game mechanics. The second sentence starts in with the more specific game mechanics. The only game mechanic in the first sentence is the fact that it works against both spells and devices.