Sage Response: More on Mind Blank
- Thread starter Ristamar
- Start date
IceBear
Explorer
Vanye said:
Not going to get into the old thread again, but basically how can you know about your own future - combatwise - if you can't "see" your opponent in it. If you are going to hit an opponent with Mind Blank isn't that gaining information about your opponent? Anyway, like someone else said, that's a slippery slope of reading too much into it the spell/
Anyway...I'm not arguing for Mind Blank to trump True Strike. I was looking at the issue from a completely neutral perspective in the old thread (as I stated I've never had the spell used in my campaign) and felt that the arguments for Mind Blank to block True Strike seemed to fit better with my understanding of how True Strike works.
Afterwards, when the threads about Mind Blank stopping EVERYTHING started I realized that a line had to be drawn somewhere.
IceBear
Last edited:
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.
You mean like his answer of:
"In short, if you could offer up a more detailed and comprehensive explanation of Mind Blank and the protections it does or does not afford (beyond what is provided in the PHB), it would be much appreciated.
See previous answers. "
That was informative.
I have no problem with a good explanation that disagrees with my point of view.
But, when he says "True strike doesn't reveal anything about a particular creature” and “Mind blank is not effective against see invisibility (non detection is)” and doesn’t say why, that bugs me like always.
There is absolutely nothing in the Nondetection spell that would indicate that it would be any more powerful against See Invisibility than Mind Blank.
How can See Invisibility be "a divination attempted against the warded creature" with regard to Nondetection, but not be a divination attempted against the warded created with regard to Mind Blank?
That makes ZERO sense.
Typical Sage answer: a lot of information signifying nothing.
Totally worthless.
Can anyone answer the question “Is Nondetection helpful against True Strike?”? I cannot based on the Sage’s lack of real information.
Ristamar said:
Oh, so I guess the very next sentence of:
"Mind Blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject's mind or to gain information about him."
wasn't meant either.
Best I can tell, the Sage read the short description of Mind Blank on page 170 when he answered this question.
I understand why you might be frustrated, but I think you're being a little harsh. Skip probably doesn't offer up ultra-detailed answers delving into the realm of D&D magic related logic and pseudo-physics because he doesn't have the time. Heck, 99% of the people who write him likely don't want them, either. I'm sure if you wanted to engage in a rules discussion via email, he'd be willing to do so. In the meantime, the answer provided, IMO, is clear enough to allow myself and others (though please speak up if I'm assuming too much) to fairly and confidently adjudicate the Mind Blank spell, which I could not do with his initial short answer.
To answer your other question concerning Nondetection, no, I'm almost positive it does not affect True Strike. Admittedly, if I thought about it too much, I'd probably start doubting myself, though. I don't want to overanalyze anymore spells this week... that leads to the Dark Side. 
To answer your other question concerning Nondetection, no, I'm almost positive it does not affect True Strike. Admittedly, if I thought about it too much, I'd probably start doubting myself, though.
I don't want to overanalyze anymore spells this week... that leads to the Dark Side. Ristamar said:
What I am getting at is that twice in the spell description, it states "protects against information gathering by divination spells or effects" and "even foils Wishes when used in such a way to gain information about him".
It explictly calls out that any spell, divination or otherwise, that gathers or gains information about the protected target is foiled.
You seem to think it is some other unknown and unquantified set of information (possibly mental) with your statement of "It seems to me that's not what they REALLY meant."
The problem with the Sage's answer that Nondetection stops See Invisibility but Mind Blank does not is that there is no given reason as to why this occurs. From what I can read of the two spells, they both stop divinations that gain information about the protected character.
What is the difference?
Nobody knows, but a bunch of people jump on the "The Sage gave a real reasonable answer here" bandwagon.
How is it reasonable if it is not explainable?
How do DMs rule the same if there is no rationale given as to why this works the way he claims it does? How do you rule each divination spell against the next anti-divination spell that comes down the road if you cannot explain why he ruled this way for this one?
Similar Threads
