Mind Blank and Telepathic Bond = The Uninformed Barbarian?

[Felix]

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".

No twisting here. I simply missed the part when you mentioned that it was the 3.0 FAQ you have been talking about for the past two pages of thread.

...Nope, you just clarified that for me in your last post. Didn't miss a thing apparently...

And I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was still beholden to 3.0 stuff. I thought all that was supposed to have been revised and kept around for those who didn't want to change. So is the 3.0 still "official"?

And yes, it is a reasonable clarification.

And so are they all reasonable clarifications. I never said your argument wasn't valid at all, I just said that there is enough room to interpret the RAW differently. I'm not saying you're wrong, although I wouldn't play that way, I'm saying we're both right. Both supported by different interpretations of the RAW. Do you think I am attacking you? That was never my intention, surely.

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

Indeed it does. But because there is no spell that cannot be information gathering, then all that does is file it down to Divination spells and effects. But its meaninglessness remains intact. "Divination" is the only word with meaning in there, and "information gathering" is still adrift upon the neglegence of WotC.

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

Considering we're arguing about made-up rules sets for a game designed to allow thirty-somethings to slay dragons wielding magical firebrands, I'd say it's all fairly meaningless.

And if you're going to be snarky, then: it's spelled "Oops".

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

"When you have the law on your side, argue the law.
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
When you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, pound on the table."


And that's a technique called "using humor to deflect degredations aimed at your argument style." Did you have that one in your book of techniques?

Anyways, I repeat my question: is it so impossible for you to see that Joker and my interpretation of the RAW leads us to believe that not all Divinations are defeated? And that that interpretation of the RAW is a reasonable one?

 

[KarinsDad]

And I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I was still beholden to 3.0 stuff. I thought all that was supposed to have been revised and kept around for those who didn't want to change. So is the 3.0 still "official"?

To my knowledge, the 3.0 FAQ is official clarification for 3E and for 3.5 unless either the 3.5 rules supercede it or the 3.5 FAQ supercedes it.

Apparently, they did not want to just cut and paste 90+% of the 3E FAQ into a 3.5 one.

In our current discussion, the rules (and wording) for Mind Blank has not changed between the versions with one exception.

The word "him" was replaced with the word "it" in the wish sentence:

3E

"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 him."

3.5

"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."

This change can be interpreted in one of two ways (or possibly more):

1) The designers wanted to allow the wish type spells to get non-mental information about the target.

2) The designers wanted to emphasize that the divination information gathering limitation is constrained to mental only information.

The problem with the second interpretation is that they cleaned up one word in the entire description as if that would stop the debate (which, btw, has been raging on and off for four years now). If this was their attempt at clarity in support for your interpretation, they failed miserably.

And if you're going to be snarky, then: it's spelled "Oops".

I apologize. I thought you were being snarky to me, so I decided to return the favor.

Anyways, I repeat my question: is it so impossible for you to see that Joker and my interpretation of the RAW leads us to believe that not all Divinations are defeated? And that that interpretation of the RAW is a reasonable one?

Not impossible, just not reasonable.

It's sometimes a very difficult thing to explain when you interpret sentences totally different from someone else.

In this case, the bottom line does indeed come down to the phrase "as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects". To me, this phrase is no different than "as well as mind affecting by enchantment spells or effects". To me, all divination spells gather information in some manner (just like all enchantment spells are mind-affecting), so the phrase "information gathering" is totally superfluous to the conversation at hand (i.e. a red herring or muddying the waters).

Secondly, I look at ease of drawing the line. If no divination spells work with regard to the target, then that is fairly easy to adjudicate. Picking and choosing on a case by case spell basis is more difficult and open to more debate in game.

And finally, I do indeed check both FAQs to find out designer intent. I might not agree with it, but I do want to find out what the designers thought the sentences meant when possible.

So, on all three of these counts (in this case), I see your interpretation as non-reasonable. Understandable in general (but not in the specifics as to where the line is actually drawn, that's still murky), but non-reasonable.

 

[Felix]

I apologize.

Accepted.

To me, this phrase is no different than "as well as mind affecting by enchantment spells or effects". To me, all divination spells gather information in some manner (just like all enchantment spells are mind-affecting)

I see a similar relationship between Divination and information-gathering as there is between mind affecting and Enchantment. And yet, [Mind-affecting] is a very well defined game term and information gathering is mentioned nowhere else. Were it to be defined as you say in something other than the FAQ (eratta, for instance) then I would be happy to subscribe to your ruling.

Secondly, I look at ease of drawing the line.

Of course you are welcome to do so, but just because something is the easy way, doesn't mean it's necessarily the right way. Like Joker and I have said before, we are willing to make rulings on a spell-by-spell basis.

And finally, I do indeed check both FAQs to find out designer intent.

And here is where we are irrevocably divided. I happen to think the FAQ is a big smelly pile, and avoid it as I would one.

I guess this kind of argument will keep going until [information gathering] is defined, or Rapture. Either way, eh?

Later.

 

[KarinsDad]

And here is where we are irrevocably divided. I happen to think the FAQ is a big smelly pile, and avoid it as I would one.

Like I think you are mistaken on your ruling, I think you are mistaken here as well. The FAQs are there to help people and a few minor errors should be overlooked (just like a few minor errors in the core books themselves should be overlooked).

The 3E FAQ is 66 pages long, but it might have 3 or 4 rules mistakes in it (at least according to what appears in RAW).

The 3.5 FAQ is 45 pages long, but it has a few more mistakes in it, maybe as many as 6 (hence, the reason I think it is not as well reviewed as the 3E one was).

However, that is still a lot of good material to work with and to get a quick answer on. Your percentage of getting the correct (RAW) answer there (if the answer is in there) is even better than here on the boards where many topics will get you two or more answers and possible an argument over them.

It's surprising how many people post questions here on the boards that are actually answered in the FAQs where a quick search gets you your answer. I think many people are either too lazy to look, or do not know where to look, or just want to socialize here and ask a question to do so.

The SRD is also a good place to do a quick search. The problem with the SRD is that it is broken down into so many individual files that if what you are looking for is obscure, you might not find it until your 4th or 5th attempt (if ever, some things are not in the SRD).

 

[Joker]

I see the Core supporting two different viewpoints but you don't see it that way.

...

Well, this is awkward.