Mind blank vs. see invisibility/true seeing

[kreynolds]

While that could be true, it is not obvious that it must be true. You are relying on a very modern scientific light theory, and rememberances of Star Trek and Predator style "cloaking devices".

The are other theories of Invisiblity that could work in a fantasy world.

For example, an illusion of the surrounding background overlayed on top of the image of the invisible person. That is effectively the same as what you suggest, except True Seeing would penetrate any "overlays" without affecting the invisible person in any way.

I always like how invisbility worked with the One Ring. Bilbo could still be seen...if you can see into the Shadow world.

Invisibility effects light. It does not effect the mind. Go to Sean K. Reynolds site for more information

 

[KarinsDad]

For example, an illusion of the surrounding background overlayed on top of the image of the invisible person. That is effectively the same as what you suggest, except True Seeing would penetrate any "overlays" without affecting the invisible person in any way.

While this is a fine theory, the point is that the light traveling from any one point to another and passing through the location of the invisible character must somehow stop when it reaches him and start up again in the exact opposite point on his body and continue in the same direction.

How it is done is basically irrelevant.

The point is that True Seeing, regardless of whether it gives the recepient super senses, ignores the effects of the invisibility or actually disperses and detects the target for the recepient, it still is a divination spell and it still allows the recepient to gain information on the location of the target which could not (generally) be gained without a spell.

Sounds like Mind Blank stops that type of stuff.

 

[Voadam]

vote for mindblock protecting

Invisibility is a glamer illusion so it is not a mind affecting effect.

for mindblank, the operative language is:

"Target: One creature"

and also

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

It seems that the spell protects the creature from divination, not his spells.

I would think there is a legitimate difference between a spell caster and his spells.

For instance, with detect magic, a reasonable interpretation is that you can detect the strong magic of a mind blank, but not pinpoint it to a particular caster or area (that would gather information on the mindblanked caster through divination).

You could detect a caster's spells through divinations but not connect them to the mindblanked caster.

Making a deduction from the lack of information seems different from gathering information directly through a divination. Otherwise using a detect life type spell on somebody you see will give you information whether there is a positive hit or not. Either the divination reveals he is alive, or it does not at which point the caster can deduce the target is an illusion, undead, construct, or mind-blanked, but regardless he will have gathered the information that the mindblanked character does not register on the detect life divination.

True seeing however, seems to directly give information about the creatures looked at,

"The character confers on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things."

The ability to see a caster as he actually is through a divination seems to be stopped by the mind blank. Similarly seeing an invisible creature normally seems to be gathering information about that creature.

A differently worded spell that made a creature not see glamers would seem to work. They would then not see the invisibility glamer which targets the mindblanked caster.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: vote for mindblock protecting

The ability to see a caster as he actually is through a divination seems to be stopped by the mind blank. Similarly seeing an invisible creature normally seems to be gathering information about that creature.

I respectfully disagree.

True Seeing specifies it "sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions". I do not consider that as "gathering information", but as ignoring the Invisibility.

The Invisibility spell is not part of the creature. That is why SR is irrelavent to Dispel Magic.

What do you see when you see through an Invisibility? Nothing? Or Something?

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Re: vote for mindblock protecting

I respectfully disagree.

True Seeing specifies it "sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions". I do not consider that as "gathering information", but as ignoring the Invisibility.

The Invisibility spell is not part of the creature. That is why SR is irrelavent to Dispel Magic.

What do you see when you see through an Invisibility? Nothing? Or Something?

The problem with this point of view is that it effectively castrates the anti-divination power of Mind Blank, Nondetection, and any other anti-divination spells.

Examples:

Using Detect Poison to detect the poison on the blade of the protected character, not the character.

Using Detect Magic (which by the way is not a divination spell, but WotC dropped the ball on it) to detect the magic on the character's sword or the magic of his Mind Blank.

Using Scry to find the famous sword of the protected character, not the character directly.


Do you really want to play a game where your players say "I am going to take Detect Magic so that we can find any Invisible opponents, even ones protected by Nondetection."?

Do you really want a zeroth level Detect Magic to be unstoppable by every anti-divination spell that can be thought up? Do you really want a 9th level anti-divination spell that protects your spells and items as well as your character, or is 8th level high enough?


When you are talking anti-divination (Nondetection or Mind Blank), you really have to include the items and spells on the protected creature, or you do not really have anti-divination since there are way around it by not targetting the protected creature directly.

 

[Ristamar]

Detect Magic vs. Invisible Opponents

Do you really want to play a game where your players say "I am going to take Detect Magic so that we can find any Invisible opponents, even ones protected by Nondetection."?

Do you really want a zeroth level Detect Magic to be unstoppable by every anti-divination spell that can be thought up? Do you really want a 9th level anti-divination spell that protects your spells and items as well as your character, or is 8th level high enough?

I'm still undecided on the overall issue, but I wanted to point out that, in my opinion, the potential use of Detect Magic in the context of locating Invisible/Mind Blanked/etc. opponents is being a bit overstated.

In an old Dragon, the Sage detailed the procedure for locating invisible creatures via Detect Magic. Thankfully, it's also in the FAQ. Here's the passage:

Is it possible to use a spell such as detect magic or
detect evil to detect an invisible foe?

Yes, but not very efficiently. Let’s say a character uses a
detect magic spell; the spell reveals nothing about the
invisible foe unless the character happens to aim the spell
the area containing the invisible foe. If the foe is using an
invisibility spell, a spell-like invisibility power, or a
supernatural invisibility power, the detect magic spell
merely reveals that there is magic somewhere in the area.
The detect magic caster has no idea where the magical
aura is, what sort of creature or object bears the aura, or if
the aura is in motion or not.

One round later, the detect magic user can search for
magical auras again. If the user aims the spell at the
invisible foe again, detect magic spell will reveal the
number of magical auras on the foe and the strength of
the strongest aura. (The user has scanned the same
subject for two consecutive rounds.) The detect magic user
still has no idea exactly where the foe is, what the foe is
like, or whether the foe is moving.

After another round goes by, the detect magic user can
scan for magical auras once again. If the user is lucky
enough to catch the invisible foe for a third time, she will
have scanned the same subject for three consecutive
rounds. The detect magic spell now reveals the strength
and location of each aura. The detect magic user still does
not ioseelo the foe and does not know whether it’s moving
or not. She only knows the strength and locations of
magical auras during her turn in the initiative order. In
this case a ialocationl. is the 5-foot square that contains the
aura. If the creature or item bearing the aura takes up
more than one square, the detect magic user can get some
idea of its size. (See Big and Little Creatures in Combat in
Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook.) It is possible for the
detect magic user to attack the location of one of the auras
the spell has revealed. If the spell revealed auras in
different locations, the detect magic user still might not
choose the right location to attack. Even if she does, the
foe has 100% concealment and the attack has a 50%
chance to miss no matter what the attack roll is.

Remember that all of the foregoing depends on the
detect magic spell user scanning the invisible foe for three
consecutive rounds. If the detect magic user guesses
wrong about where to scan even once, she’ll have to start
the process of zeroing in on the invisible foe all over
again.

Just some food for thought...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: Re: Re: vote for mindblock protecting

When you are talking anti-divination (Nondetection or Mind Blank), you really have to include the items and spells on the protected creature, or you do not really have anti-divination since there are way around it by not targetting the protected creature directly.

You make some good points.

I question whether spells on a character should be classified the same as spells on the creature. Typically you get to make saving throws to protect your items. Frex, your sword only needs to save versus that Fireball if you roll a '1'. Nor do you bother to roll a save if your SR stops the Fireball. However, you do not get to save vs. Slow to keep your Haste.

Detect Magic is an extremely poor method for finding an opponent under the best of circumstances unless it is metamagicked up. Even then it hardly works if the target moves.

 

[Ristamar]

Eh... Sorry about the weird spelling errors in my previous post. I copied and pasted from a PDF file. Obviously the transition wasn't too clean.

 

[KarinsDad]

Re: Detect Magic vs. Invisible Opponents

Just some food for thought...

Yes, I understood the limitations before you posted it.

Out of combat, it is not that difficult to use. In combat, it is more problematic, but still not impossible. Especially if the character using Detect Magic is also invisible and is hasted. Then, he could detect and cast a spell at the target in round 3.

And, in this case, it is the out of combat situation which is slightly unbalanced. The high level Invisible Mind Blanked Wizard who snuck into the castle and is spying on the conference (maybe the room is shielded from scrying) is detected by the low level grunt Sorcerer hired to make sure nobody sneaks in.

 

[Ristamar]

Re: Re: Detect Magic vs. Invisible Opponents

Yes, I understood the limitations before you posted it.

Out of combat, it is not that difficult to use. In combat, it is more problematic, but still not impossible. Especially if the character using Detect Magic is also invisible and is hasted. Then, he could detect and cast a spell at the target in round 3.

And, in this case, it is the out of combat situation which is slightly unbalanced. The high level Invisible Mind Blanked Wizard who snuck into the castle and is spying on the conference (maybe the room is shielded from scrying) is detected by the low level grunt Sorcerer hired to make sure nobody sneaks in.

Eh, I don't know.... it actually sounds kinda cool to me. A few simple spells, a little ingenuity, and a lot of persistance defeats the cocky archmage. I like it. Serves Mr. High Level Wizard right for not being completley prepared. He could've scryed the place. He could have cast True Seeing on himself. But Noooo....

Besides, hasted low level sorcerors arent just going to be standing around casting Detect Magic all day at secret conferences like a bunch of paranoid watch dogs. That is, if you can actually call a 6th+ lvl. sorceror "low level" (unless he's got a hell of a lot of potions/scrolls to keep casting Haste). Not to mention the fact that he'd need to metamagic that Haste spell to keep it Silent if he wanted to be completely hidden, so to speak.

Considering the amount of resources, time, and power it'd take to pull off this strange stunt just to keep Mr. High Level Wizard from spying, I doubt I'd have a problem with it.

Casting my silliness aside, though, I do see where you're coming from. Very interesting...