Mind Blank defeats the effect of a True Strike?

[Ristamar]

It's fairly obvious that the answer isn't clear in the rules. Had Mind Blank said "the target is protected from and immune to any and all Divination spells that even peripherially involve him or her", then we probably wouldn't be having this argument

It's a judgement call. By many readings (mine included), True Strike quite clearly doesn't fall into any of the categories laid out under Mind Blank. Many others think otherwise, or think that it logically should do so even if it technically doesn't.

No-one is going to prove anything either way at this stage, unless one of the designers would like to weigh in with the spell's original intention. Failing that, we can all use our different rulings whenever it comes up in play

Preach on, brother...

 

[KarinsDad]

It's a judgement call. By many readings (mine included), True Strike quite clearly doesn't fall into any of the categories laid out under Mind Blank. Many others think otherwise, or think that it logically should do so even if it technically doesn't.

It all comes down to whether you think True Strike gives the caster of it information about his target.

If your answer is no it does not, then an Invisible target where the caster does not know his exact space would be immune to True Strike.

If your answer is yes, then that same Invisible target would not be immune to True Strike.

So, a Flying Improved Invisible Mind Blanked character should be immune to True Strike either because TS gives information and the MB stops it, or TS does not give information and the II stops it.

I wonder how many people have run into the TS vs. II Flying caster question. I know it has come up in our game. My PCs consider TS to be a divination spell, so the reason you get the +20 and no enemy concealment is due to you divining his exact location in the next round.

I kind of question how TS could drop enemy concealment without giving out information on his location.

 

[hong]

Why? Because an 8th level protection spell actually does something?

This word "rationale", I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[FANGO]

People, please...

WHEN SOMEONE IS INVISIBLE, THEY NOT ONLY GAIN A 50% MISS CHANCE, BUT YOU MUST ALSO LOCATE THEM TO EVEN BE ABLE TO TARGET THEM!!!!!

So true strike does absolutely nothing about a flying invisible spellcaster, unless he is making a lot of noise in the air, or you can otherwise tell wher ehe is because he's flinging melf's acid arrows all the time or something. You still need to know what square he is in in order to target that square, and only then do you get the miss chance.

Yeesh...

 

[Tom Cashel]

This word "rationale", I do not think it means what you think it means.

It means go to the General D&D forum if you want "Philosophy of Rules." Only a designer can tell you what their rationale was. We have the words in the rule books to work with, and nothing else.

 

[Tom Cashel]

It's fairly obvious that the answer isn't clear in the rules. Had Mind Blank said "the target is protected from and immune to any and all Divination spells that even peripherially involve him or her", then we probably wouldn't be having this argument

No, we'd be having 100 arguments over which spells "peripherally involve" Mind Blank.

I think they meant what they said: "all Divinations,"--but you're right: the language is not clear when applied to this specific case.

I've posted a note to Monte on his boards, and e-mailed The Sage. We'll see what they have to say about it.

 

[IceBear]

Based on how I think the True Strike spell works - taking a "picture" of the immediate future and then guiding your attack to best effect when you attack something in that "picture" (which is why there is no target per se because it's working with providing an insight into the future), and how Mind Blank states that it blocks all information gathering about you (thus removing you from the "picture") I'd have to agree that Mind Blank would protect you from True Strike.

IceBear

 

[hong]

It means go to the General D&D forum if you want "Philosophy of Rules." Only a designer can tell you what their rationale was. We have the words in the rule books to work with, and nothing else.

You also have the ability to exercise this thing called "judgement" that tells you when the words in the rulebooks are nonsensical.

 

[IceBear]

You also have the ability to exercise this thing called "judgement" that tells you when the words in the rulebooks are nonsensical.

My judgement, and others, don't make those words nonsensical. Why do you feel that way?

IceBear

 

[hong]

My judgement, and others, don't make those words nonsensical. Why do you feel that way?

Great! Good for you. You obviously have your own interpretation of the way these spells interact with each other, which works for you. This interpretation also happens not to work for me.