Mind Blank defeats the effect of a True Strike?

[Ristamar]

The point is that nobody is adding anything to it. The spell's description already states what it does. If you think that is too powerful for your game, dummy it down.

Well, the spell's description states something, but as to what it precisely means (in terms of 'information gathering') is still being hotly debated.

I have to agree with Shard, especially looking back to my statement about designer intent. Judging from Monte's words, it certainly sounded like True Strike was never intended to be affected by Mind Blank, which would lead me to believe that the Sage might suggest an acceptable house ruling, but officially rule that Mind Blank has no effect on it (this is pure speculation, of course). I'm curious to see what his response will be.

Personally, I'd like to see a comprehensive list of spells (core rules only) that are affected by Mind Blank. It would make it far easier to adjudicate spells from other sources with that many examples on hand.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

Mind Blank vs. Discern Location

Since this seems to be the hot "Mind Blank" thread, I'll ask this here.

Does mind blank block a discern location spell?

At first, I think "sure it does, that's what mind blank does." However, then I read discern location more closely...

Disern Location
Nothing short of the direct intervention of a deity keeps the character from learning the exact location of a single individual or object.

Seems like discern location beats mind blank, but I could be wrong....

 

[IceBear]

You're wrong, at least according to the DNDFAQ.

Here's the relevant question and answer:

Can someone using a discern location spell find
someone using mind blank spell?
No. While the discern location spell description contains
some pretty strong language about the spell's ability to
overcome effects that block scrying of divinations, the
general rule in the D&D game favors defense over
offense, so mind blank's ability to block scrying and all
forms of divination trumps discern location's ability to
penetrate such defenses. Blocking spells of 7th level or
less, however, are still ineffective against discern location.

IceBear

 

[Zenon]

Personally, I'd like to see a comprehensive list of spells (core rules only) that are affected by Mind Blank. It would make it far easier to adjudicate spells from other sources with that many examples on hand.

This is what I saying. The old version gives a list (at least a partial) which indicates the types of spells which Mind Blank will block. I too would like to see such a list (but I doubt we ever will). It would sure make adjucating the spell a little easier.

 

[Zenon]

The point is that nobody is adding anything to it. The spell's description already states what it does. If you think that is too powerful for your game, dummy it down.

That's where you're wrong. The spells description states what it does, but is vague on what it protects against.

If it were crystal clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Comparing the old version to the new, you'll see the first sentence is exactly the same. However, in modifying the second and other sentences to remove the spell list and update the spell, they introduced ambiguities into it.

In placing "prevents any divination used to gather information about you" into it, they opened a loophole. I believe their intent was to prevent any of these spells from gathering information about your mind, thoughts, etc., but the wording they used gives it an even higher boost which I don't think was anticipated by the designers (for example, read Monte's post where he says he hadn't considered it).

I would prefer not to house rule it, but to use it per the rulebooks with any clarifications by the designers. I'm not saying that it's "too powerful!" or "it must be changed!", but rather using the example of it's current power to show why it's implied powers (like protecting from True Strike, Detect Invisibility) should be examined closely.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

The Reason why we don't have just a list of what it affects is a very good reason, one I'd like to see used more often.


Anytime they give a list in the game it causes problems, new add-on materials cannot be added to the list. If mind Blank used a list then it wouldn't block spells from other source books like FRCS, not without debates like this.


Look at the trouble with trying to use Summon Monster to get anything not listed in the PHB. Lists are bad, descriptive qualifiers good

 

[IceBear]

The Reason why we don't have just a list of what it affects is a very good reason, one I'd like to see used more often.


Anytime they give a list in the game it causes problems, new add-on materials cannot be added to the list. If mind Blank used a list then it wouldn't block spells from other source books like FRCS, not without debates like this.


Look at the trouble with trying to use Summon Monster to get anything not listed in the PHB. Lists are bad, descriptive qualifiers good

I agree

IceBear

 

[Ristamar]

The Reason why we don't have just a list of what it affects is a very good reason, one I'd like to see used more often.


Anytime they give a list in the game it causes problems, new add-on materials cannot be added to the list. If mind Blank used a list then it wouldn't block spells from other source books like FRCS, not without debates like this.


Look at the trouble with trying to use Summon Monster to get anything not listed in the PHB. Lists are bad, descriptive qualifiers good

I guess I'll have to disagree.

If they (WotC or the Sage) would simply qualify the list (or any list, for that matter) with a little phrase like "this applies to spells from the core rules; spells from other sources need to be adjudicated on a case by case basis," there really wouldn't be a problem.

I believe a list would help clarify many of the more ambiguous spells and provide a nice guideline for future spells. It's a shame that bull-headed DM's/players could spoil a little advice by trying to turn it into something it's not meant to be.

As for Summon Monster spells, I'm not sure that's even a fair comparison. The criteria for judging which Summon Monster list a creature would land on, should one choose to modify them, is beyond vague. Such decisions rely much more heavily on DM/Player discussion and playtesting and campaign flavor rather than designer intent, IMO.

 

[IceBear]

I don't know, it states pretty well what it protects against. I don't think anyone disagreed with what it said, but with how True Strike worked in this thread.

If you, as a DM, feel that Mind Blank is too powerful, then you can take whatever steps you want to reduce it's power but I don't feel it's very ambiguous.

Is it a Divination spell? Does it gather information about your target? If yes to both, then Mind Blank will work. Again, the main argument of this thread was whether or not True Strike gathered information about the target.

I do agree that Monte didn't think of the ramifications of the spell as written, and perhaps the designers didn't intend for it to work that way, but he did agree that as the two spells are written, it would work.

IceBear

IceBear

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, the main argument of this thread was whether or not True Strike gathered information about the target.

I do agree that Monte didn't think of the ramifications of the spell as written, and perhaps the designers didn't intend for it to work that way, but he did agree that as the two spells are written, it would work.

I agree.

The clause in True Strike that shouts that it gains information about its target is the fact that it negates concealment bonus. If you are 100% concealed, the spell still finds you.

Note: It is arguable whether bypassing the concealment bonus also bypasses the concealment for this one attack (e.g. even though an archer using True Strike against a target does not know which exact space he is in, the dropping of the concealment bonus implies that the divination quality of the spell enables the archer to fire precisely at the target, even though he does not know exactly where the target is located).

Others may disagree that negating the concealment bonus implies that the spell is divining some amount of information about a target’s location, but I have yet to see a good counter to this logic. In fact, I have yet to see a single counter to this logic.

With that in mind, I really do not see how you can interpret it any other way. I think what bothers some people more is the fact that Mind Blank as written is very powerful. Even Nondetection has a DC check for failure of the spell.

The Flying, Improved Invisible Mind Blanked caster becomes quite potent. Of course, he is a minimum of 15th level at that point unless he is using an item for the Mind Blank, so I guess maybe he should be potent. YMMV.