D&D 5E True Seeing vs Invisibility/Mind Blank

[Croesus]

As with others, I think it's a DM's call. The intent of mind blank seems to be that you can't be enchanted in any way and that people can't use scrying on the target.

True Seeing is a divination spell, but 5E is not written in gamer-ize, so I would rule that it would still work. Seeing something invisible is not an divination in the same sense.

True Seeing for a monster does not have the divination keyword, so there would be no reason it would be blocked, which also adds to the argument that the spell would also reveal the person.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

A very similar situation came up in a 3.x game we played years ago. We knew a rakshasa was running around, so I cast true seeing before going into town. We encountered the rakshasa impersonating an NPC we knew, but the GM ruled we didn't see through its magical disguise because rakshasa were immune to any spell below 8th level. I later argued that the spell wasn't cast on the rakshasa, it was cast on my character, so should have worked.

However, this opens a different can of worms. Arcane eye is not cast on someone affected by mind blank - does it see them? Clairvoyance is not cast on someone affected by mind blank - does it find them? Allowing mind blank to block all divination simplifies the GM's rulings. So on balance, I think I would go with RAW here.

 

[Oofta]

A very similar situation came up in a 3.x game we played years ago. We knew a rakshasa was running around, so I cast true seeing before going into town. We encountered the rakshasa impersonating an NPC we knew, but the GM ruled we didn't see through its magical disguise because rakshasa were immune to any spell below 8th level. I later argued that the spell wasn't cast on the rakshasa, it was cast on my character, so should have worked.

However, this opens a different can of worms. Arcane eye is not cast on someone affected by mind blank - does it see them? Clairvoyance is not cast on someone affected by mind blank - does it find them? Allowing mind blank to block all divination simplifies the GM's rulings. So on balance, I think I would go with RAW here.

Good thing I don't believe RAW means anything or adds any weight to the argument because I still disagree.

They are protected from divination, but they are not necessarily protected from all forms of detection. You could still see someone with Mind Blank if they are not invisible or hidden from you and you are in the same room for example. An Arcane Eye is just giving you your normal vision from a remote location. It's a magical drone. To stretch the analogy a bit, Mind Blank is like if everyone can be tracked by their cell phone. Mind Blank just turns the phone (and the tracking/eavesdropping) off. They could still be seen by a drone or a surveillance camera.

I'm OK with there being edge cases that may be ruled differently by different DMs as long as the logic is consistent. I'd rather have that than trying to parse game terms into black and white hard rules.

Which of course means that your ruling is also legit. Without Sage Advice update, I don't think you're going to get a better answer.

 

[Gadget]

Mind Blank (or the amulet of proof against detection and location) both block divination spells from working on you. So lets take an invisible creature with that on them vs someone with true seeing.

1) Does this mean the True Seeing spell spell would not detect the invisible creature in this case?

2) Since a monster's true seeing ability is not a spell, would it be affected?

I would argue that the amulet does not protect the individual from True Seeing, as the spell does not create a scrying sensor (unless your want to go with the target's eyes becoming a scrying sensor, but that seems a bit far to me), and does not target the beneficiary of True Seeing.

For Mind Blank, I would hesitate about allowing True Seeing to overcome it. For one thing, it is an 8th level spell, and True Seeing is a sixth level effect. For another, the spell does say the recipient is immune to divination spells, and further goes on to say "The spell even foils wish Spells and Spells or effects of similar power used to affect the target's mind or to gain information about the target". That seems to emphasize that there really is no magical way around Mind Blank. I rule it does protect the invisible recipient from True Seeing.

But you can take the logic farther. Does this mean that the recipient of Mind Blank, when in melee with someone under the effects of the Foresight spell, can nullify the benefits of Foresight due to the fact that our Mind Blanked combatant is immune to divination spells, and the opponent could not be warned of coming attacks and actions? One could make that argument. I would probably not support making this ruling, but there is a logical path for it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good thing I don't believe RAW means anything or adds any weight to the argument because I still disagree.

They are protected from divination, but they are not necessarily protected from all forms of detection. You could still see someone with Mind Blank if they are not invisible or hidden from you and you are in the same room for example. An Arcane Eye is just giving you your normal vision from a remote location. It's a magical drone. To stretch the analogy a bit, Mind Blank is like if everyone can be tracked by their cell phone. Mind Blank just turns the phone (and the tracking/eavesdropping) off. They could still be seen by a drone or a surveillance camera.

I'm OK with there being edge cases that may be ruled differently by different DMs as long as the logic is consistent. I'd rather have that than trying to parse game terms into black and white hard rules.

Which of course means that your ruling is also legit. Without Sage Advice update, I don't think you're going to get a better answer.

I go this route as well. Mind Blank prevents you from being the target of a divination spell. True seeing doesn't target you, ever, so it's not prevented from functioning. Mind Blink similarly would protect from a clairvoyance that happens to be looking at the target, but would protect from a Scry aimed at the target of the mind blank. The amulet would protect against both clairvoyance and scry, but not against True Seeing.

 

[Stalker0]

But you can take the logic farther. Does this mean that the recipient of Mind Blank, when in melee with someone under the effects of the Foresight spell, can nullify the benefits of Foresight due to the fact that our Mind Blanked combatant is immune to divination spells, and the opponent could not be warned of coming attacks and actions? One could make that argument. I would probably not support making this ruling, but there is a logical path for it.

Hmm...that is a very interesting question. I could see the case for that as well.

 

[Gadget]

I'm a little bit confused. The Mind Blank spell does not have any verbiage about protecting the recipient from being the target of a divination spell, that's what the amulet of proof against detection and location says. Mind Blank Grants outright immunity to Divination spells that even Wish cannot overcome, or "effects of similar power used to affect the target's mind or to gain information about the target." Seems to me that seeing through an invisibility spell is an effect to 'gain information about the target'.

 

[Stalker0]

Mind Blank prevents you from being the target of a divination spell.

I tried to find anything in the rules about "immunity" and its definition, but there isn't one.

Here's another scenario we could consider....Fear Auras and Fear Immunity. A fear aura doesn't target a creature, and yet I think we would all agree that fear immunity would allow you immunity against this aura.

In that same way, I'm leaning to allow mind blank to stop true seeing. Your true seeing doesn't target me, but I still have immunity against its effects.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm a little bit confused. The Mind Blank spell does not have any verbiage about protecting the recipient from being the target of a divination spell, that's what the amulet of proof against detection and location says. Mind Blank Grants outright immunity to Divination spells that even Wish cannot overcome, or "effects of similar power used to affect the target's mind or to gain information about the target." Seems to me that seeing through an invisibility spell is an effect to 'gain information about the target'.

Well, invisibility is an illusion hiding the target. Is seeing through an illusion actually gaining information about the target through divination magic, or is it piercing the veil of the illusion to see what's hidden behind it?

Let's postulate that there's an illusion of a wall between you and a Mind Blanked adversary. You cast True Sight. Can you see through the illusionary wall to see the Mind Blanked adversary? Replace the illusionary wall with an invisibility spell.

True Sight doesn't interact with the Mind Blank at all -- it alters the target to be immune to the effects of illusion and also to be able to see things otherwise not seeable (like naturally invisible things). Mink Blank has nothing to protect against because the effects of True Seeing are all on the target of True Seeing.

Likewise clairvoyance, which provides a magical window that you use your normal senses through. It doesn't interact with Mind Blank because it never touches Mind Blank.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I tried to find anything in the rules about "immunity" and its definition, but there isn't one.

Here's another scenario we could consider....Fear Auras and Fear Immunity. A fear aura doesn't target a creature, and yet I think we would all agree that fear immunity would allow you immunity against this aura.

In that same way, I'm leaning to allow mind blank to stop true seeing. Your true seeing doesn't target me, but I still have immunity against its effects.

Fear auras do target creatures -- if you're in the area of effect, you are targeted by it's effect. True Seeing doesn't do anything to anyone other than the target of True Seeing.

 

[Oofta]

I go this route as well. Mind Blank prevents you from being the target of a divination spell. True seeing doesn't target you, ever, so it's not prevented from functioning. Mind Blink similarly would protect from a clairvoyance that happens to be looking at the target, but would protect from a Scry aimed at the target of the mind blank. The amulet would protect against both clairvoyance and scry, but not against True Seeing.

I know some people are saying Mind Blank should work because it's such a high level spell, but the amulet of proof vs detection is just an uncommon wondrous item. For the divination aspect, it has the same wording.

I think you're opening a whole can of worms if every trickster rogue could be completely undetectable with an uncommon item (especially in higher magic campaigns).

I can see the sales pitch now "Need to steal something from the Inner Sanctum of Doom protected by a Lantern of Revealing and guardians with True Sight? No problem! Just come down to Amil's Amulets for a Amulet of proof against detection and location!"