Mind Blank and Telepathic Bond = The Uninformed Barbarian?

[Philip]

So if I am understanding you, it is not okay to Scry the person in the present with Arcane Eye, but it is ok to effectively Scry the person in the future with True Strike.

That's quite correct, since you're not scrying THE PERSON in the future, you are divining THE FUTURE itself. If you agree that a person's future (with respect to true striking someone) is only partially dependant on the person itself, then Mind Blank should also be able to block indirect divinations to undo true strike, thus creating the whole information gathering problem concerning divinations I have sketched above. If you think that a person's future is solely dependent on himself, well, than we don't need to argue this issue anymore with respect to true strike.

The protected character is not viewed, but obviously this does not stop the results of his actions and the rest of the physical environment around him from being viewed.

Precisely, I don't have to know what the person WANTS to do in the near future, I only want to know the results of his actions, so that I know at which angle I should strike my blade. I can use true strike with my eyes closed.

"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."

I would rule the spell acts as if the creature had a permanent invisibility effect on itself. Scrying is clearly mentioned as 'effect', of the Mind Blank, and I have no trouble with it, as long as it is not linked to the 'all divinations are blocked' argument.

Again, this focus on "information gathered" screws with people's heads. The simple view of "it does not divine him directly, or divinations do not work with regard to the target and ONLY the target" makes more sense.

That is correct, but the "information gathering" argument was used to extend Mind Blank to covering ALL divination spells. "because all divination spell gather information", duh.... :\ The whole sentence was meant to cover gathering information about someone's MIND through divination.

Maybe another quote would help.:

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.

What do you suppose IT mean's in this sentence? I think it refers to the mind, and not to the subject. Ergo, the previous divination reference probably also means to refer to the subjects mind.

If the divination spell explicitly states that it gains it's information from a different source (outsider, deity, etc.), then you are not getting the information from the target.

Do you mean to say that you do think there are some divinations that work with respect to gathering information about the target, but only when they do this indirectly? (such as the aforementioned Contact Other Plane)

 

[KarinsDad]

I would be inclined to treat sound coming from an Mind Blanked creature's mouth no different as an arrow coming from her bow, saliva dripping from her mouth, shadows cast by her body, impression made by her feet or reflections in the mirror made by her person. If I would treat Mind Blank as completely blocking all divinations, that is.

Or light coming from her body?

If Arcane Eye would not see the light from her body, why would Ghostharp hear the sound from her body?

 

[Philip]

Or light coming from her body?

If Arcane Eye would not see the light from her body, why would Ghostharp hear the sound from her body?

Precisely, my entire argument in a nutshell. If Mind Blank blocks A, why wouldn't it block B, and C, and D, and E .....

All of A t/m Z can be used to "gather information" about a person, one more indirect than the other. A t/m Z is a slippery slope I'd rather not walk upon, thus my 'works like invisibility with respect to scrying' ruling. Simple and effective.

 

[KarinsDad]

Do you mean to say that you do think there are some divinations that work with respect to gathering information about the target, but only when they do this indirectly? (such as the aforementioned Contact Other Plane)

Yes, any divination that does not interact with the target, even slightly.

To me, DND since the inception of 3E has had a mindset of defense trumps offense. Especially for 8th level spells. So, all divinations fail unless you can illustrate that the divination in no way interacts with the target. That is not only the simplest interpretation, it is also the easiest to adjudicate, not only for a given DM, but between DMs and groups.

In the case of True Strike, for example, although the True Strike spell is personal, it directly affects the target and directly gains information about that target. As a DM, I don't want to have a 60 minute discussion (even out of game) with a player about which divination spells work and which do not. I want it to be simpler than that.

Plus, I think the concept of "mental information" only is not clearly called out. It is an implication based on what part of which sentences you focus on.


As for the:

"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."

argument, it is very compelling except for one detail. This sentence in no way discusses how Mink Blank works with divinations. It discusses how Mind Blank works with non-divinations.

This is an invalid debating tactic often used here on the boards. If x refers to y, then z too must refer to y because it is in the same paragraph. z only refers to y if it is stated that z refers to y.

This sentence in no way indicates how divinations work with Mind Blank. It extends the power of Mind Blank beyond Enchantments and beyond Divinations, but does not say anything about how Mind Blank works with either Enchantments or Divinations.

 

[KarinsDad]

Precisely, my entire argument in a nutshell. If Mind Blank blocks A, why wouldn't it block B, and C, and D, and E .....

All of A t/m Z can be used to "gather information" about a person, one more indirect than the other. A t/m Z is a slippery slope I'd rather not walk upon, thus my 'works like invisibility with respect to scrying' ruling. Simple and effective.

All of the arguments are slippery slopes. No matter where you draw the line, I can find a fuzzy spell that can be interpreted either way.

 

[Philip]

"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."

argument, it is very compelling except for one detail. This sentence in no way discusses how Mink Blank works with divinations. It discusses how Mind Blank works with non-divinations.

This is an invalid debating tactic often used here on the boards. If x refers to y, then z too must refer to y because it is in the same paragraph. z only refers to y if it is stated that z refers to y.

On the contrary, this is a very valid debating tactic, and even a valid scientific approach. It not sufficient for definitive proof, I agree, but were not exactly practicing rocket science here.

I would not even have mentioned it, were it not for the linkage/comparison word EVEN in the sentence. The word EVEN refers to something else, most probably the previous sentence, and thus it would be a quite valid and logical interpretation that the EVEN [...] IT sentence refers to the same IT that is implied in the previous sentence.

Meaning the sentence could be rewritten like thus:

"This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects, even 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."

Without losing its intention.

Thus I was compelled.

 

[KarinsDad]

Thus I was compelled.

Well, just don't let your significant other find out that you were compelled.

 

[Felix]

Sorry for the hiatus... ah, where to begin? With pleasantries, I suppose.

Thanks, Felix

Welcome.

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.

My "Non-sequitor" shows how every bloody spell in creation can be information gathering, regardless of then intent of the school. If that is so, then "information gathering" ceases to be any kind of yard stick for determining which spells are blocked and which are not because everything is included. And when that happens, "information gathering" loses its meaning and becomes

Badly defined.

So we have an apparent game term in the spell description that doesn't mean anything because it's too vague. It remains up to us to define it. You have. You define it as "All divination spells". Ok. Bully for you. I don't. I prefer to pick and choose which spells are blocked and which arn't.

The 3.5 FAQ is full of holes.

2) The FAQ clarifies that Mind Blank stops all divinations.

Is it so hard to believe that your FAQ clarification is one of those holes?

That's the thing... if your FAQ were so infallable, then your argument would be unassailable; Mind Blank would stop all Divinations. The trouble is, the FAQ holds as much water as my cullander because of bad rulings and oversights. Sure, it can be used as a guideline, or a suggestion, but not as a source for Core rulings.

the phrase [information gathering] is clear when you understand that all divination spells gather information in one way, shape, or form.

And the phrase becomes meaningless when you understand that the phrase can be contorted in its vagueness to encompass every spell in the PHB. Like I said, you've chosen Divination=Imfo gathering. I've not.

Easy peasy.

I don't even know why I bother. Nap time.

"And being perfect, were I to speak,
I would reveal my imperfection."
--Book of Job

It's tough sometimes.

 

[KarinsDad]

Is it so hard to believe that your FAQ clarification is one of those holes?

That's the thing... if your FAQ were so infallable, then your argument would be unassailable; Mind Blank would stop all Divinations. The trouble is, the FAQ holds as much water as my cullander because of bad rulings and oversights. Sure, it can be used as a guideline, or a suggestion, but not as a source for Core rulings.

Just like you twist the words in the rules, you twist the words that people write.

The 3.5 FAQ is full of holes as I stated. I also stated that "the 3E FAQ is not bad".

The "so mind blank's ability to block all forms of divination" is in the 3E FAQ that is not full of holes. And yes, it is a reasonable clarification.


Where do you draw the line? What are the rules criteria (according to RAW) as to which divination spells are blocked and which are not according to you?

At least I have a line that is supported by both RAW and the FAQ.

And the phrase becomes meaningless when you understand that the phrase can be contorted in its vagueness to encompass every spell in the PHB. Like I said, you've chosen Divination=Imfo gathering. I've not.

Easy peasy.

Except that the phrase specifically mentions divination spells, not non-divination spells.

Opps. Another one of your arguments that is totally meaningless.

This is called muddying the waters, a technique used by people who do not have rules to back them up.

 

[Philip]

Well, just don't let your significant other find out that you were compelled.

Actually, I just told my hamster. Fortunately he was quite apathetic about the whole affair.