Mind blank vs True seeing and divinations

[fafhrd]

Personally, I have no problem with it foiling an entire school of magic, just like True Seeing foils an entire school of magic (i.e. Illusion school). But, other people do not see it that way.

Out of curiosity, do you rule that someone under the effects of True Seeing needn't make a Will save against Phantasmal Killer?

 

[KarinsDad]

Out of curiosity, do you rule that someone under the effects of True Seeing needn't make a Will save against Phantasmal Killer?

You tell me. What do the rules say?

True Seeing: "sees through illusions"

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.

 

[fafhrd]

Then would a spellcraft check suffice to stave off Phantasmal Killer?

 

[KarinsDad]

Then would a spellcraft check suffice to stave off Phantasmal Killer?

You already know the answer to that.

Spellcraft: 15 + spell level

Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

 

[fafhrd]

Last question, oh cagey one:

If the subject of a phantasmal killer attack succeeds in disbelieving and is wearing a helm of telepathy, the beast can be turned upon you. You must then disbelieve it or become subject to its deadly fear attack.

Is the above just sloppy?

 

[KarinsDad]

Last question, oh cagey one:

...

Is the above just sloppy?

It depends. Do you know that the spell was turned back on you?


If you do know that it was turned back on you, it is an exception to the normal "proof" rule.

Any rule can have an exception if it is explicitly called out like this one.


If you do not know, then the "proof" rule is not applicable because you do not have proof.

 

[Thanee]

So, when does it work and when does it not work?

When a divination spell directly gives you information.
When a divination spell does not directly give you information.

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

When a divination spell directly gives you information.
When a divination spell does not directly give you information.

What does this mean?

One DM rules that True Seeing versus Mind Blank and Invisibility directly gives information on the location of the invisible creature, hence, ...

 

[Thanee]

What if you close your eyes? Do you still know where the invisible creature is?

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

What if you close your eyes? Do you still know where the invisible creature is?

Typically not unless the creature is making enough noise to be easily heard.

So, instead of a concrete rule, you have a set of very subjective suggestions. That's the problem I have with those types of rulings.