Sage Response: More on Mind Blank
- Thread starter Ristamar
- Start date
IceBear
Explorer
Artoomis said:I stayed out of this one all the way through (can you believe it?) but I'll now chime in just to say that the Sage's response is by far the most reasonable answer I've seen on this topic.
Actually I agree with you (can you believe it?
)While, by the rules, I don't think it's the right answer - I still don't see how True Sight works without divining something about the target - it's probably the most reasonable. Especially how it seems that Mind Blank would become nearly unstoppable otherwise.
IceBear
IceBear said:
Actually I agree with you (can you believe it?
While, by the rules, I don't think it's the right answer - I still don't see how True Sight works without divining something about the target - it's probably the most reasonable. Especially how it seems that Mind Blank would become nearly unstoppable otherwise.
IceBear
The real problem is that the wording in the PHB totally suXX0rs. A little more descriptiveness (rules-wise) and a little less flavor text would've gone a long way.
nwn_deadman
First Post
It is wierd how Monte Cook rules the exact opposite on this issue.
IceBear
Explorer
I think because he thought about *HOW* True Strike works and I don't get that impression from The Sage's answer.
A good followup question for The Sage is to have him explain how True Strike gives the caster a +20 insight bonus into attacking his target and negates concealment. If it gave a +20 enhancement bonus to the attack I'd not have a problem, but the only way I can see someone getting an insight bonus is to divine something about the target.
Anyway, that's an old discussion. Like I said, while I think Monte is more right (by the rules) the repercussions of allowing it (Mind Blank vs True Seeing and Detect Invisible) are too great in my opinion, that I can see myself ruling like Skip. I'll have to think about it some more.
IceBear
A good followup question for The Sage is to have him explain how True Strike gives the caster a +20 insight bonus into attacking his target and negates concealment. If it gave a +20 enhancement bonus to the attack I'd not have a problem, but the only way I can see someone getting an insight bonus is to divine something about the target.
Anyway, that's an old discussion. Like I said, while I think Monte is more right (by the rules) the repercussions of allowing it (Mind Blank vs True Seeing and Detect Invisible) are too great in my opinion, that I can see myself ruling like Skip. I'll have to think about it some more.
IceBear
kreynolds
First Post
IceBear said:
Wait a sec, if you though the repercussions were that bad, which they obviously were as Mind Blank was quickly becoming the Uber Munchkin/Defeat-all-magical-and-mundane-attacks spell, why did everyone carry on so long about it? It seems to me that there was never anything wrong with Mind Blank, but it was the description of True Strike that was the real problem. So, change the +20 insight bonus to a morale, competence, luck, whatever bonus and have a good day.
Besides, like the sage said, there wasn't anything wrong with True Strike either. At least, I didn't see a problem with it. But I didn't over-analyze or rape the spell beyond belief. Man, Skip has got to hate us by now. Aha! So our mistake was that we thought about it too much! In order to divine the Sage's answer, just read the question, put on your grumpy-DM hat, and answer the first thing that comes into your mind. All this careful reading, in-depth analysis, and discussion only leads to problems. Now why didn't we think of that?
Similar Threads
