Mind Blank - Immune to True Seeing?

[Li Shenron]

The bad thing about Mind Blank is IMHO that it seems to grant an immunity to spells which are not cast on the target but on the caster.

True Seeing is cast on yourself and grant you some magic ability to "see things as they really are".

Scrying spells (specifically spoiled by Mind Blank) affect the target, and not the caster.

The Mind Blank spell (at least by its name and its "title": Subject is immune to mental/emotional magic and scrying) seems to imply that it shouldn't protect from other divinations which don't interact with you or your mind at all. But unfortunately the full spell description seems to lean towards protecting from the whole Divination school (expect -maybe- True Strike, but not necessarily).

 

[WingOver]

Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed here, it is not what the rules say. And I would say that Greater Arcane Sight is stopped by mindblank, given that it does negate Arcane Eye by specific example in the rule.

GM12

OK, I went back and looked at the difference between Arcane Eye and Arcane Sight. Arcane Eye is in the [Scrying] subschool. It is an actual scrying spell which Mind Blank explicitly guards against.
Arcane Sight is a line-of-sight divination spell (not a scrying spell).

I know that doesn't bolster my argument much, but that's all I have since I can't find the sage reference.

Another thing to consider is if you interpret Mind Blank as guarding against all divination school spells, and not just guarding the user's mind and against "information gathering" (which I interpret as against spells like Legend Lore or Locate Creature), then you have a (essentially) 24 hour duration super-spell that protects against all divination school spells like True Strike, See Invisibility and True Seeing. The user could sneak attack with impunity with Greater Invisibility. I don't think the designers meant for Mind Blank to guard against visual divination spells because it can abused.

 

[RuminDange]

Another thing to consider is if you interpret Mind Blank as guarding against all divination school spells, and not just guarding the user's mind and against "information gathering" (which I interpret as against spells like Legend Lore or Locate Creature), then you have a (essentially) 24 hour duration super-spell that protects against all divination school spells like True Strike, See Invisibility and True Seeing. The user could sneak attack with impunity with Greater Invisibility. I don't think the designers meant for Mind Blank to guard against visual divination spells because it can abused.

Ok, I'd agree that by making it work against all divination spells is in effect making it very powerful, also allowing for a lot of abuse, and possibly against the intent of the designers. However, consider this form of argument:

True Sight: What does this spell do for the caster against the target?

You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.

So that being the case, it grants the caster knowledge about the target's location in a few seconds to better aim his shot and ignores the fact the target may have displacement. That seems like Information Gathering to me.

See Invisibly: likewise without repeating the SRD allows you to determine the location of the target creature. Again that would be Information.

True Seeing: More powerful, but nonetheless still gathering information about the subject, including the alignment on the divine version.

Arcane Sight: Tells you the power of magical aura’s and if the target creature can cast spells and what levels are available. More information gathered.

Arcane Eye: Now this is where you really have to start wondering.

You create an invisible magical sensor that sends you visual information. You can create the arcane eye at any point you can see, but it can then travel outside your line of sight without hindrance. An arcane eye travels at 30 feet per round (300 feet per minute) if viewing an area ahead as a human would (primarily looking at the floor) or 10 feet per round (100 feet per minute) if examining the ceiling and walls as well as the floor ahead. It sees exactly as you would see if you were there.
The eye can travel in any direction as long as the spell lasts. Solid barriers block its passage, but it can pass through a hole or space as small as 1 inch in diameter. The eye can’t enter another plane of existence, even through a gate or similar magical portal.
You must concentrate to use an arcane eye. If you do not concentrate, the eye is inert until you again concentrate.

Notice the bold sentence? If the arcane eye sees as you see and you have True sight, See Invisibility, and/or Arcane Sight going then do you now see the mind blanked individual since it sees are you do? If by itself due to being a scrying sensor it cannot see, but it sees as you do and you would be able to see the invisible mind blanked person why can’t the sensor now see due to those spells being in place?
I’m not trying to be a rules-lawyer or anything of the sort…only repeating the arguments presented to me about the way the spell is written and works. I don’t even play with people that are rules-lawyers, but they do read the rules and take the literal written words into case, and present a good argument about what they reading. If something is written as Mind Blank saying

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

Then they expect to stop those spells that gathering any kind of information about them while under mind blank period. Now they would allow a house rule to change this, and they know if they use the tactic all the time, so shall the enemies, they also now they would face a lot more dispelling attacks and disjunctions if they started using this too much since that is what they would do those using it against them.

Try explaining how Discern Location still finds the location of a Mind Blanked Creature in 3.0E since I see they corrected it in the 3.5E SRD.

RD

 

[WingOver]

You're casting a pretty wide net over the definition of "information". I believe the intent was for Mind Blank to guard against attempts to discern personal information (as in what's in the user's mind).

Try explaining how Discern Location still finds the location of a Mind Blanked Creature in 3.0E since I see they corrected it in the 3.5E SRD.

Actually, they corrected that with a FAQ for 3.0...

I found a website that references the Sage Advice I read a while back. I still can't find the actual sage advice on WOTC's site. Monte Cook also comments on the issue and basically reverses the sage's opinion.

http://hometown.aol.com/westronic/DnD.html

Until there's an official FAQ or errata update, Mind Blank will be subject to interpretation. Our group plays by the sage advice rule, and I'm glad for it.

 

[RuminDange]

You're casting a pretty wide net over the definition of "information". I believe the intent was for Mind Blank to guard against attempts to discern personal information (as in what's in the user's mind).

Yeah I might just be, but information whether about your mind or position is information about you. It was a group decision at this time that might be house ruled later if it gets out of hand which it hasn't yet. As the DM for many years I get feedback from the group on weird stuff like this and go from there. It is a last ditch use when they do use it as the combination has it's own drawbacks when used in a party enviroment.
On another note as well, if I didn't want to be seen or found I would consider that very personal information about me as well and so should be protected by my powerful 8th level spell against some little 2nd level spell or even 1st level spell if someone wanted to detect magic in the area to find me.
Maybe they made it a little too powerful as written, I myself don't attempt to read the designer's mind and gave up on sage advice a long time ago due to inconsistant and wrong answers on subjects. I understand that nobody is perfect but the wording as taken no interpretation is required to understand the one sentence that makes it so powerful "as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects". Whether is spell is cast on or at you or is cast on someone to grant the effect to see makes no difference you should be protected. The effect of allowing one to see invisible is blocked by the protection of another. D&D has always favored the defense over the offense. And when you consider that, abjuration magic is defense, divination although not damaging, is the offense.

Actually, they corrected that with a FAQ for 3.0...

Yeap read it, but didn't really correct it that well. Search the messageboards on EnWorld and WOTC a long time about it and got no answer then that cleared it up. So we went with ours as powerful as it may be.

I found a website that references the Sage Advice I read a while back. I still can't find the actual sage advice on WOTC's site. Monte Cook also comments on the issue and basically reverses the sage's opinion.

http://hometown.aol.com/westronic/DnD.html

Until there's an official FAQ or errata update, Mind Blank will be subject to interpretation. Our group plays by the sage advice rule, and I'm glad for it.

Interesting site, thanks for the link to hit, however do you find it strange in the answer that Non-Detection on an Invisibile creature will stop see invisibility from detecting them but Mind Blank won't? Very strange answer to me. Mind Blank has always seemed to a more powerful version of Non-detection and the lesser version works to block the line-of-sight detections but Mind Blank won't. Don't buy it, wouldn't never allow such an illogical conclulsion to stand. I have to side with my players still....Information, no matter the form is still Informantion, if you can't get it one way (ie though Scrying) then you shouldn't be able to get another way (ie though line-of-sight).
And I still wonder, if Line-of-Sight detection spell still can detect you why couldn't an Arcane Eye since it has the same spells in effect on it as you have on you when you cast it and sees as you do? A loophole around the all powerful mind blank.

RD

 

[Ovinomancer]

Both spells (non detection and mind blank) protect against divinations used against you. See invisible does not target you, it targets the caster. So do true sight and arcane sight. The only hurdle to mind blank is the sentence "... information gathering by divination spells or effects." Is gathering information on an effect upon you (ie invisiblity) gathering information on you or the effect? Can you consider the effect part of you? I would allow true seeing to detect a creature/character with mind blank and invis, but not the other effects of true seeing such as alignment etc.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm curious why people keep saying Mind Blank makes you immune to ALL Divinations. If it made you immune to the entire school, why does it list the specific types of divinations that it protects against?

I do not believe Mind Blank would make someone immune to True Seeing, See Invisibility, or True Strike. The spell seems to me to have been designed to stop things like scrying, legend lore, detect thoughts and discern location. This is of course my interpretation, but from reading the spell that does seem to be what it was intended to accomplish, not make the ultimate power gaming spell.

I do agree that clarification of this spell would be helpful. This spell has come up in debates many times in the past, and I'm disappointed that the designers didn't clarify or revise it in the 3.5 edition, since clarifying confusing things like this was, after all, what the 3.5 edition was supposed to have been for.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm curious why people keep saying Mind Blank makes you immune to ALL Divinations. If it made you immune to the entire school, why does it list the specific types of divinations that it protects against?

I do not believe Mind Blank would make someone immune to True Seeing, See Invisibility, or True Strike. The spell seems to me to have been designed to stop things like scrying, legend lore, detect thoughts and discern location. This is of course my interpretation, but from reading the spell that does seem to be what it was intended to accomplish, not make the ultimate power gaming spell.

I do agree that clarification of this spell would be helpful. This spell has come up in debates many times in the past, and I'm disappointed that the designers didn't clarify or revise it in the 3.5 edition, since clarifying confusing things like this was, after all, what the 3.5 edition was supposed to have been for.

You are right on every account, but as pointed before it's the "information gathering" sentence that is confusing, because it is everything but precise. What is Divination if not magic that lets you gather information? Every single Divination spell could qualify by this wording.

 

[Tarril Wolfeye]

How about this:

Mind Blank protects against information gathering as the skill by divination spells or effects.

This would let you see the subject with True Seeing, but block you from getting any information about it, that you could get with gather information - things like name, alignment, race, where he was born, where she was yesterday, if the subject is female (if disguised), etc.

This protection is of course in addition to the other effects of Mind Blank.