How to stop True Seeing

[tonberrian]

That's what I want to know.

Would Nondetection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nondetection.htm) do it?

Would Sequester (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sequester.htm)?

[LansXero]

a high enough hide or disguise check would, I think.

[Hiro Protagonest]

One word. Cloister. Of course, that would require you to be an epic-level caster...

[Sacrieur]

full plate armor.

[Thurbane]

Obscuring Mist with the Invisible Spell metamagic.

[Kantolin]

My illusionists usually use a healthy mix of real and not-real, and some shadow conjurations. That provides enough of a buffer that they can then commence with dispelling - a dispellusionist can help, as it's rare for someone to have more than one or two true seeings (And it costs them!)

I'm curious, however, about nondetection and sequester as well.

[Jarian]

The Wizard of the Red Robes from the Dragonlance Campaign Setting has an ability that, if memory serves, forces a creature using any divination spell to make a caster level check vs DC 11+caster level of the effect it's trying to pierce to succeed.

[Blisstake]

Isn't there often a debate on whether Mind Blank blocks it or not?

Without True Seeing, though, superior invisibility can really get out of hand...

[Sacrieur]

Isn't there often a debate on whether Mind Blank blocks it or not?

Without True Seeing, though, superior invisibility can really get out of hand...

No, mind blank does not affect it, because it does not affect the mind. You can counterspell with greater dispel magic, disjunction, or AMF.

---

I wasn't joking about the full plate. Tower shield... Hell, blind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/powerWordBlind.htm) the guy using it.

[Thurbane]

Actually, now I'm getting an idea for a Liches sanctum - Permanent Stinking Cloud with Invisible Spell. The odour won't bother the lich or his undead minions, and if the party use See Invisibility or True Seeing, all they'll see if fog. :smalltongue:

[olentu]

No, mind blank does not affect it, because it does not affect the mind. You can counterspell with greater dispel magic, or disjunction.

Mind blank does not only affect things that affect the mind.

[erikun]

Most DMs I have seen would not allow Nondetection to block True Seeing. Sequester might, and I'd probably allow it. The invisible fog spell is a rather amusing way of dealing with True Seeing, and one I like is a Medusa under a disguise spell.

Beyond that, mundane skills easily trump True Seeing, because it grants no benefit to see through them. Even a relatively low Disguise or Hide check will beat most of the casters (with no ranks/cross class in Spot) who rely on True Seeing to tell them everything.

[Sacrieur]

Mind blank does not only affect things that affect the mind.


The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it. In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.
(emphasis mine)

True seeing does not detect any thoughts.

[Claudius Maximus]

I don't think Nondetection and Sequester should foil True Seeing. Nor should Mind Blank. Invisible Fog etc. should work.

The Insidious Magic feat from PGTF offers protection from True Seeing. Sometimes.

[olentu]

(emphasis mine)

True seeing does not detect any thoughts.



The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it. In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.
............

[Claudius Maximus]

I always read that as protecting against stuff like Locate Creature, rather than the likes of True Seeing.

[olentu]

I always read that as protecting against stuff like Locate Creature, rather than the likes of True Seeing.

Hence the aforementioned debate.

[Jarian]

Gathering information =/= piercing invisibility effects.

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectThoughts.htm) are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateObject.htm) some (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateCreature.htm) Divinations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scryingGreater.htm) gather information. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/discernLocation.htm)

[Talakeal]

I had a player in one of my games who argued against myself (the DM) as well as the other four players that mindblank would stop true seeing and it would also foil beneficial effects of Foresight when an enemy wizard had both spells up at once. We never did prove to him that the second sentance was limited to the text given in the first sentance rather than overwriting it or that gathering information about the character didn't mean any form of divination where the caster learns something that has anything to do with the mindblanked person.

[olentu]

Gathering information =/= piercing invisibility effects.

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectThoughts.htm) are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateObject.htm) some (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateCreature.htm) Divinations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scryingGreater.htm) gather information. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/discernLocation.htm)

Hence the aforementioned debate. And to avoid repeating myself completely it would seem that the debate springs from the fact that gathering information to some does include piercing invisibility effects.

[erikun]

You can easily say that True Seeing does not gather any information, it only prevents magic from interfering with the gathering of information. True Seeing won't let a blind man see or a human see in the dark, but it will allow them to see through magical Darkness as if it wasn't there.

However, we've had this debate dozens of times before. In an actual game, it's best to ask the DM how the spells interact.

[Jarian]

Hence the aforementioned debate. And to avoid repeating myself completely it would seem that the debate springs from the fact that gathering information to some does include piercing invisibility effects.

They are wrong. Their argument is bad and they should feel bad.

There is a point when attempting to twist wording to suit your purposes just becomes cheating.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Hence the aforementioned debate. And to avoid repeating myself completely it would seem that the debate springs from the fact that gathering information to some does include piercing invisibility effects.

"Scrying" and "piercing invisibility" aren't the same.

[olentu]

They are wrong. Their argument is bad and they should feel bad.

There is a point when attempting to twist wording to suit your purposes just becomes cheating.

I see (barring specific people of course) no reason to believe that these people are not arguing in just as good faith as anyone else and I generally try to assume the best of those I interact with. But in any case one is always free to make their own opinion about people.


"Scrying" and "piercing invisibility" aren't the same.

Well of course they are not exactly the same in every way but as I have said some people do however believe that they are similar in one way (being that they are a form of information gathering). Some even believe it to the point that any old statement by a personage on the internet is not enough to convince them to completely reverse their view on the subject.

[Sacrieur]

In the sentence after is explicitly mentioned that limited wish, wish, and miracle only protect against gathering information about a person's mind. And it is a huge stretch to say true seeing is gathering information. It doesn't gather any information, it simply allows you to see things.

D&D does not count images as information. It counts your location, your thoughts, and the location of a magic sword to be information. Or are you saying mind blank makes you immune to all divination spells because they all "gather information"?

It would be cheating to take such a leap, because doing so makes it the most broken spell in the entire game.
---

Oh, and apparently limited wish is stopped from "gathering information". If that's so, then why is there the explicit need to state that when it's using it to gain information from the person's mind.

And then there's the name of the spell.

[Claudius Maximus]

Sheesh people.


It would be cheating to take such a leap, because doing so makes it the most broken spell in the entire game.

Misinterpreting something unintentionally is not cheating. Broken readings (especially correct ones, which exist) are not cheating. Give people some credit.

In any case even if these readings are right there are much worse spells out there than Super-Mind Blank.

[olentu]

In the sentence after is explicitly mentioned that limited wish, wish, and miracle only protect against gathering information about a person's mind. And it is a huge stretch to say true seeing is gathering information. It doesn't gather any information, it simply allows you to see things.

D&D does not count images as information. It counts your location, your thoughts, and the location of a magic sword to be information. Or are you saying mind blank makes you immune to all divination spells because they all "gather information"?

It would be cheating to take such a leap, because doing so makes it the most broken spell in the entire game.
---

Oh, and apparently limited wish is stopped from "gathering information". If that's so, then why is there the explicit need to state that when it's using it to gain information from the person's mind.

And then there's the name of the spell.

I see no way in which a specific limitation on spells that are not covered under either the mind-affecting or divination tags has anything to do at all with those that are.

Would you mind explaining why it is an absolute truth that it is a huge stretch to say that true seeing is gathering information. Preferably in a way that it is impossible to disagree with regardless of one's starting points.

If you can do that then I must agree that everyone ever who disagrees with you on this point is always deliberately choosing to stretch the rules (not actually necessarily violate them mind you) purely because they are vile "cheaters" who wish to use a possibly technically correct interpretation of the rules in their game because they find it fun to do so.

Of course if you can not present an argument that proves everyone who ever has seen the mindblank spell accepts that it is a huge stretch to say it blocks true seeing then I will assume that those people who argue the opposite are arguing in good faith and do not actually see mindblank blocking true seeing as a stretch at all.

[Shade Kerrin]

Red version of the Dragonlance Wizard of High Sorcery PrC(at level 3 or higher), or FR's Insidious Magic feat, both of which have already been mentioned, force a CL check on True Seeing and the like. Assuming an equal level of optimization on both sides, this gives a 50/50 chance to work against equal level opponents( or a 35% chance to work against boss-level foes), and is really the best you are going to get.

[arguskos]

Red version of the Dragonlance Wizard of High Sorcery PrC(at level 3 or higher), or FR's Insidious Magic feat, both of which have already been mentioned, force a CL check on True Seeing and the like. Assuming an equal level of optimization on both sides, this gives a 50/50 chance to work against equal level opponents( or a 35% chance to work against boss-level foes), and is really the best you are going to get.
No it's not, the Invisible Spell Obscuring Mist mentioned above is the best you're going to get. It specifically exists to make True Seeing cry. :smalltongue:

[Douglas]

Regarding the Mind Blank debate, I take the much clearer wording of Psionic Mind Blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindBlankPsionic.htm) as a strong indicator of RAI and would rule that magic Mind Blank works the same way - anything with the [mind-affecting] or [scrying] descriptors is blocked, the generic super-flexibility spells are blocked when used in ways that would deserve those descriptors, and anything else is not blocked unless specifically stated otherwise (such as for Discern Location, which does not have either descriptor but states Mind Blank blocks it).

[JaronK]

Disguise trumps True Seeing. True Seeing is also limited to a range (stay out of that range!) and is blocked by material. Get behind something.

Another option: kill them before they see you.

JaronK

[Killer Angel]

In the sentence after is explicitly mentioned that limited wish, wish, and miracle only protect against gathering information about a person's mind. And it is a huge stretch to say true seeing is gathering information. It doesn't gather any information, it simply allows you to see things.


The real debate was "Invisibility with Mind Blank, stops True Seeing?"
The idea was: mind blank stops the "divination" spell, and at that point, the diviner has only his normal vision, which is countered by invisibility. Two spells to beat one.
Generally, even in this case, the answer is "no".

[Thurbane]

Dust of Disappearance also trumps True Seeing, by RAW:

Dust of Disappearance: This dust looks just like dust of appearance and is typically stored in the same manner. A creature or object touched by it becomes invisible (as greater invisibility). Normal vision can’t see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be detected by magical means, including see invisibility or invisibility purge. Dust of appearance, however, does reveal people and objects made invisible by dust of disappearance. Other factors, such as sound and smell, also allow possible detection.

[Shade Kerrin]

No it's not, the Invisible Spell Obscuring Mist mentioned above is the best you're going to get. It specifically exists to make True Seeing cry. :smalltongue:

Invisible Spell Obscuring Mist does indeed stop True seeing from spotting you, but what if you just want to stop some schmuck from noticing your carefully crafted illusory castle is fake just because he has access to 5/6th level spells? If you want your illusions in general to work, the aforementioned features are the best you're going to get(Don't bring up shadow crafting, that's something different altogether)

[Malevolence]

That's what I want to know.

Would Nondetection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nondetection.htm) do it?

Would Sequester (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sequester.htm)?

Mind Blank.

[Sacrieur]

Mind Blank.

Doesn't stop limited wish's duplication of true seeing.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Invisible Spell metamagic feat, from Cityscape, with the 2nd level spell Obscuring Snow in Frostburn. For an hour/level, you get a 30 ft. radius of blocks-all-sight-beyond-five-feet that follows you around, but it only blocks sight for creatures who can see invisible effects.

[Noblesse]

If you are trying to stop true seeing from seeing someone---

Two words.

Cloud Mind. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/cloudMind.htm) or it's Cloud Mind, Mass (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/cloudMindMass.htm) version.

[olentu]

Doesn't stop limited wish's duplication of true seeing.

Actually it might if limited wish duplication of the spell duplicates the descriptors of the duplicated spell since then it falls under the instance of a divination spell.

Hmm does anyone have a rules source that states just what duplication of a spell entails outside of the specific changes listed in limited wish as otherwise this is unclear due to the possible definitions of the word duplicate.

[Sacrieur]

Actually it might if limited wish duplication of the spell duplicates the descriptors of the duplicated spell since then it falls under the instance of a divination spell.

Hmm does anyone have a rules source that states just what duplication of a spell entails outside of the specific changes listed in limited wish as otherwise this is unclear due to the possible definitions of the word duplicate.

Read mind blank's description.

[olentu]

Read mind blank's description.

I did and in fact it turns out that it may in fact stop information gathering by a divination effect and it turns out that duplication of a spell may in fact make an exact copy of the spell and then apply only the specific exceptions listed in limited wish and it turns out that duplication may in fact duplicate the descriptor of the spell and it turns out that this descriptor may in fact make the effect of limited wish a divination effect which depending on what side of the debate one falls upon may mean that mind blank blocks the spell.

Now that is not to say that it does but rather that the inclusion of a specific interaction with limited wish does not preclude some specific circumstance causing the effect of limited wish to also be covered under another section of the ruling of the spell so long as there is no contradiction between the two elements of the rules. But as I said it depends on just what the mechanical definition of duplication is.

[ThirtyThr33]

I remember another humorous debate explaining that a wizard with both mind-blank and true-seeing active would have his mind-blank stop the true-seeing. It put a hole in the TO wizard's plan to have permanent mind-blank while abusing contact other plain.

[Malevolence]

Doesn't stop limited wish's duplication of true seeing.

Yes it does. It says that it duplicates the spell. With no qualifiers relevant to this. Which means it is a divination spell that gathers information, and is therefore blocked by the thing that blocks gathering information.

[Yora]

a high enough hide or disguise check would, I think.
As demonstrated in this educational video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zekiZYSVdeQ).

[Sacrieur]

Yes it does. It says that it duplicates the spell. With no qualifiers relevant to this. Which means it is a divination spell that gathers information, and is therefore blocked by the thing that blocks gathering information.

In that case, a limited wish spell operating with the same effect as true seeing, but not the true seeing spell (this operates within the bounds of limited wish).

[Cartigan]

Obscuring Mist with the Invisible Spell metamagic.

What... I don't even...

[Yora]

It's invisible to normal sight, but visible to true seeing.
The true seeing characters and creatures can still true see, but only for 5 feet.

[Psyren]

What... I don't even...

People without True Seeing see nothing there. People with True Seeing see fog.

For best results, layer Regular and Invisible OM in the same location. That way, people with True Seeing see fog and people without True Seeing also see fog.

For what it's worth I don't think Mind Blank will stop True Seeing. Nondetection and Sequester can, however.

[Yora]

No, having regular fog also makes yourself blind, if you don't have true seeing. The real charm of invisible fog is, that the enemy with true seeing is effectively blinded, but you have a perfectly free view of him. Hurl everything you have at him from 10 feet away. And taunt him while you do it. :smallbiggrin:

[gomipile]

Gathering information =/= piercing invisibility effects.

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectThoughts.htm) are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateObject.htm) some (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateCreature.htm) Divinations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scryingGreater.htm) gather information. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/discernLocation.htm)

I suppose that would be true if information was never carried by visible light.

Edit: I guess what I am saying is: what purpose is there to the spell True Seeing if not gathering information? If you didn't want to gather information that you couldn't if you didn't cast this divination, then why bother casting it?

[Jarian]

I suppose that would be true if information was never carried by visible light.

Edit: I guess what I am saying is: what purpose is there to the spell True Seeing if not gathering information? If you didn't want to gather information that you couldn't if you didn't cast this divination, then why bother casting it?

:sigh:

Again, you can twist the wording and intent as far as you want, and hey, when you do so, it works!

But it goes against the spirit and the normal reading of the spells to do so, and does so far enough that I have no qualms calling it cheating.

[Psyren]

No, having regular fog also makes yourself blind, if you don't have true seeing. The real charm of invisible fog is, that the enemy with true seeing is effectively blinded, but you have a perfectly free view of him. Hurl everything you have at him from 10 feet away. And taunt him while you do it. :smallbiggrin:

Well I was thinking more in terms of using the fog to actually hide something. Layering fogs basically says "it's hidden."

[Claudius Maximus]

For best results, layer Regular and Invisible OM in the same location. That way, people with True Seeing see fog and people without True Seeing also see fog.

Why not just cast regular fog and save a spell slot?

[Cartigan]

Why exactly would you need to dual cast Obscuring Mist anyway? I don't think True Seeing can see through concealment caused by fog. Obscuring Mist is magically created but it is physically there.

[Psyren]

Why exactly would you need to dual cast Obscuring Mist anyway? I don't think True Seeing can see through concealment caused by fog. Obscuring Mist is magically created but it is physically there.

Not exactly. If it were really "physically there" it would have a duration of Instantaneous, as Wall of Stone does. It is thus not a true creation.

[Yora]

But it's not an illussion, so something is really there. I don't think true seeing would allow you to see through summoned creatures either.

[Jarian]

True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like.


A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.

True Seeing does not inherently see through all magical effects, and non-instantaneous conjuration (creation) effects are still real, merely held together with magic (and as such, suppressed by antimagic effects and so on and so forth).

[Curmudgeon]

As I see it, Mind Blank doesn't protect against True Seeing, because True Seeing doesn't read emotions or thoughts. But Nondetection does have a chance to foil True Seeing and See Invisibility, because these are divination spells that detect, visually. (If the only way you can muster up the necessary perception to Spot something is with the divination magic of True Seeing, and a spell gives a limited exclusion to the workings of that divination magic, you're back to basic mundane vision ─ but just where that one warded creature or object is concerned.)

[Cartigan]

Not exactly. If it were really "physically there" it would have a duration of Instantaneous, as Wall of Stone does. It is thus not a true creation.
It's Conjuration (Creation). Something can be physically there and not be permanently there, see most other conjuration spells.

[peacenlove]

Gnome illusionist subtitution level from races of stone block true seeing if you have a high enough caster level.

For DM's (or cheesy players) only: Invisible creatures with gaze attacks and / or the obyrith's gaze of madness do wonders :smallbiggrin:

Cover won't work if the true seeing affected creature has a ring of x ray vision.

Hide in plain sight (not sure about the supernatural version though) also helps.

[Curmudgeon]

Hide in plain sight (not sure about the supernatural version though) also helps.
Yeah, the Supernatural version will work as long as there's no Antimagic Field operating. Hide in Plain Sight is just an enabler for the Hide skill, so it's only used on the character's turn. The other character with True Seeing only responds with their Spot skill; they're not actually interacting with Hide in Plain Sight itself ─ just mundane Hide.

[olentu]

In that case, a limited wish spell operating with the same effect as true seeing, but not the true seeing spell (this operates within the bounds of limited wish).

Well this basically comes down to DM fiat since it is not a listed effect and thus we are completely in the realm of DM opinion. I can not really say much more than that since I generally see DM opinion swinging over an extremely wide region regarding stepping outside the bounds of a wish type spell.

[druid91]

Tear out the casters eyes.


.... what?:smallconfused::smalltongue:

[Sacrieur]

Tear out the casters eyes.


.... what?:smallconfused::smalltongue:

Spoken like a true barbarian.

[ShriekingDrake]

FWIW, we play that nondetection has a chance to thwart True Seeing.

Mind Blank, as we read it on its face, does thwart True Seeing. (I'm not beckoning an argument here, just saying that some groups do read the Mind Blank spell differently than others.)

We also tend to actually consider some of the spells in the game so that their level (and the level at which a caster has access to them) actually bears on interpretation when the rules are not clear. That is, an 4th level spell with some ambiguous text is more likely to be able to overpower a relevant 3rd level spell than it will a relevant 5th level spell. This, of course, is not always the case, but we've done quite a bit of tinkering to make play work well. We also, where there's need of a tie breaker, tend to give the defensive spell a bump over the attack spell--but again, not always. There's been a lot of game play to sort out some of these infelicities.

[Malevolence]

In that case, a limited wish spell operating with the same effect as true seeing, but not the true seeing spell (this operates within the bounds of limited wish).

In which case... it is still a Divination, that attempts to gather information and is being aimed at someone immune to information gathering by Divination. Fizzle.

[Sacrieur]

In which case... it is still a Divination, that attempts to gather information and is being aimed at someone immune to information gathering by Divination. Fizzle.

It's a universal spell, not a divination spell. And the spell explicitly mentions how it acts in regards to limited wish.

---

I still think considering arcane sight or true seeing a "gathering information" spell is an incredible stretch.

[olentu]

In which case... it is still a Divination, that attempts to gather information and is being aimed at someone immune to information gathering by Divination. Fizzle.

Actually I think he is saying more to the effect of essentially using limited wish to research and cast a custom spell that duplicates all the effects of true seeing but has had the school changed.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I still think considering arcane sight or true seeing a "gathering information" spell is an incredible stretch.

Seconded. Whitetext.

[druid91]

I still think considering arcane sight or true seeing a "gathering information" spell is an incredible stretch.


Seconded.

Why?

It gathers information. It's what it does.

If it didn't do that what else would it do?

[Jarian]

Gathering information =/= piercing invisibility effects.

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectThoughts.htm) are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateObject.htm) some (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/locateCreature.htm) Divinations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scryingGreater.htm) gather information. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/discernLocation.htm)

Those spells gather information. Explicitly, even.

These (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm) spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueSeeing.htm) let you see better.

They are not the same thing.

Congratulations on being able to twist wording with pedantry.

[druid91]

Those spells gather information. Explicitly, even.

These (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm) spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueSeeing.htm) let you see better.

They are not the same thing.

Congratulations on being able to twist wording with pedantry.

Letting you see better by, gathering information.

Now I could accept they were different. If they were in the transmutation school.

As they stand they do not change you, they find and reveal others.

Therefore, it is a information gathering Divination spell.

[Malevolence]

What is something that lets you see all things as they truly are that is a Divination if not a Divination that gathers information about your true surroundings?

[Cartigan]

Why?

It gathers information. It's what it does.

If it didn't do that what else would it do?

Then can nondetection protect you from Darkvision? Lowlight vision? Tremorsense? Blindsight? Blindsense? Scent? Normal sight?


What is something that lets you see all things as they truly are that is a Divination if not a Divination that gathers information about your true surroundings?

Sophistry.

[Veyr]

I would never rule that Mind Blank protects you from True Seeing; it's too good as it is (then again, so is True Seeing; I hate absolutes). However, I'd call that a houserule; I very much agree that it's preposterous to say that True Seeing is not giving you more information. Your knowledge of your surroundings is improved through the use of True Seeing.

[druid91]

Then can nondetection protect you from Darkvision? Lowlight vision? Tremorsense? Blindsight? Blindsense? Scent? Normal sight?



The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells.

No it does not.



Sophistry.

Then what would you say it does?

[Malevolence]

I would never rule that Mind Blank protects you from True Seeing; it's too good as it is (then again, so is True Seeing; I hate absolutes). However, I'd call that a houserule; I very much agree that it's preposterous to say that True Seeing is not giving you more information. Your knowledge of your surroundings is improved through the use of True Seeing.

8th level spell > 5th level spell.

[Veyr]

8th level spell > 5th level spell.
That's utterly meaningless; Mind Blank is more than good enough to be an 8th level spell without blocking True Seeing. You're also ignoring True Seeing's not-insignificant Material cost.

[Curmudgeon]

Those spells gather information. Explicitly, even.

These (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm) spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueSeeing.htm) let you see better.

They are not the same thing.

Congratulations on being able to twist wording with pedantry.
Obviously our world doesn't have magic, but the closest parallel I can think of is night binoculars. These come in two flavors: optical and electronic. The optical versions work simply by focusing all the light that hits the large (something like 100 mm) objective lens onto your eye. In the light amplification case, while much of the job is done by electronically intensifying the existing light, they still start by grabbing all the light from an area considerably larger than your whole eye, let alone the pupil. That's gathering extra (light) information so you can see things that wouldn't otherwise be visible.

So yeah, it is the same thing, unless you've got some conceptual bias that won't let you see regard it that way.

[Cartigan]

Then what would you say it does?
It sees through illusions.

[druid91]

It sees through illusions.

How does it see through illusions?

It is not transmutation, therefore it does not change the caster in any way...

It doesn't dispel the illusion for all to see...

So... How else could it see through illusions?

[Sacrieur]

How does it see through illusions?

It is not transmutation, therefore it does not change the caster in any way...

It doesn't dispel the illusion for all to see...

So... How else could it see through illusions?

Really? Magic =P

[Jarian]

How does it see through illusions?

It is not transmutation, therefore it does not change the caster in any way...

It doesn't dispel the illusion for all to see...

So... How else could it see through illusions?


Magic.

And thus ends my participation in this week's Pedantic Thursday debate. See you next week! Or maybe for Monk Monday, who knows.

[Cartigan]

How does it see through illusions?

It is not transmutation, therefore it does not change the caster in any way...

It doesn't dispel the illusion for all to see...

So... How else could it see through illusions?

It doesn't scry on anything. It doesn't detect or locate anything. It enhances sight.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It doesn't scry on anything. It doesn't detect or locate anything. It enhances sight.

Exactly. "Gathering information" and "enhancing vision to see things you couldn't before" aren't the same. If they were, you could argue that nobody can see you as that would be "gathering information" of your location.

[Sacrieur]

Exactly. "Gathering information" and "enhancing vision to see things you couldn't before" aren't the same. If they were, you could argue that nobody can see you as that would be "gathering information" of your location.

Well, the spell only applies to divination spells that gather information.

[Psyren]

Well, the spell only applies to divination spells that gather information.

This is correct, MB is limited to blocking magical effects. After all, I can Gather Information about someone simply by talking to people that know him; Mind Blank won't stop me from doing that.

[druid91]

Really? Magic =P

Obviously, now more specifically. What form does the magic take? Divination, Divination magic detects and reveals things. It does not alter the nature of the caster.

Magic.

And thus ends my participation in this week's Pedantic Thursday debate. See you next week! Or maybe for Monk Monday, who knows.

See you.:smallwink::smallbiggrin:


It doesn't scry on anything. It doesn't detect or locate anything. It enhances sight.

It is a divination spell. Therefore it detects things. That is in fact it's only use, it does not enhance sight in any way. You don't see better in darkness, you don't see better in fog. All it does is take away magical illusions, reveal transmuted objects/creatures, and allow you to look into the astral.

If it in fact enhanced sight it would be a transmutation spell. It is a stretch to consider it anything other than a detection spell.


Exactly. "Gathering information" and "enhancing vision to see things you couldn't before" aren't the same. If they were, you could argue that nobody can see you as that would be "gathering information" of your location.

Not really, it only effects magical effects.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Not really, it only effects magical effects.

That doesn't further your argument against me.

[druid91]

That doesn't further your argument against me.

Why not?

Your argument is that "it enhances vision" as opposed to my it detects things.


However I have given quite a solid case for why it is detection.

Whereas your only evidence of yours is some vague wording in the spell.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why not?

Your argument is that "it enhances vision" as opposed to my it detects things.


However I have given quite a solid case for why it is detection.

Whereas your only evidence of yours is some vague wording in the spell.

It wouldn't stop true seeing because it is just enhancing vision. The writers meant for it to stop effects from spells that detect you when you're not within range of sight, such as Scrying and augury.

[druid91]

It wouldn't stop true seeing because it is just enhancing vision. The writers meant for it to stop effects from spells that detect you when you're not within range of sight, such as Scrying and augury.

Can you prove this intent? I very much doubt it.


Aside from that...


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

True seeing is a divination spell or effect. It gathers information. Therefore it is blocked.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Can you prove this intent? I very much doubt it.


Aside from that...



True seeing is a divination spell or effect. It gathers information. Therefore it is blocked.

True seeing is not an information gathering spell, it's a sight enhancing spell.

[Cartigan]

True seeing is a divination spell or effect. It gathers information. Therefore it is blocked.

How does it gather information?

[Claudius Maximus]

True Seeing
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
...

You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are.

True Seeing grants an ability. It affects only its target.

It's not a 120' field of detecting magic. It doesn't affect the Mind Blanked creature. Antimagic Field doesn't block it - If you look at a petrified creature in an AMF you see its true form.

In any case what are you arguing? That Mind Blank will protect all of the illusions on you from being defeated by True Seeing? How does that even make sense?

[druid91]

True seeing is not an information gathering spell, it's a sight enhancing spell.

If that were the case it would be a Transmutation spell. But it is not.


How does it gather information?

I would assume a similar method to scrying, due to the limited range of the sight. However not being an arcanist I couldn't tell you the specifics.:smallwink:


True Seeing grants an ability. It affects only its target.

It's not a 120' field of detecting magic. It doesn't affect the Mind Blanked creature. Antimagic Field doesn't block it - If you look at a petrified creature in an AMF you see its true form.

In any case what are you arguing? That Mind Blank will protect all of the illusions on you from being defeated by True Seeing? How does that even make sense?
It grants an ability that is a divination effect. Which is blocked by Mind blank.

But it does affect the creature. Otherwise it would be a worthless spell.

How does it not make sense?

[Hiro Protagonest]

How does it not make sense?

How does it make sense? You follow the rules to the letter, I follow them to the spirit. Flavorwise, it makes absolutely no sense.

[ShriekingDrake]

I don't think it's necessary to label or dismiss the propositions I've seen put forward here as pedantry, sophistry, or twisted wording. It's true the spell is poorly worded--as are many spells and concepts in the game--but both general interpretations are tenable.

Myself, I think divination is all about gathering information, including when it let's you see, hear, smell, touch what is otherwise magically occluded. To me, and to our group, Mind Blank clearly trumps True Seeing, based on how we read the text and on what makes our game play fun.

Admittedly, this thread now has me thinking about whether there are any divination spells that don't involve gathering information of one kind or another. I have been wondering about comprehend languages. Somehow this seems as if it is potentially categorically different than scrying and true seeing. Ghostharp is another example, I think. And, perhaps, Healing Lorecall.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Let's just settle this mind blank vs. true seeing by including opposed caster checks or something.

[druid91]

How does it make sense? You follow the rules to the letter, I follow them to the spirit. Flavorwise, it makes absolutely no sense.

Flavor can and should be re-written.:smallsmile:

[Forum Explorer]

I would argue that Mind Blank does not work on True seeing. My reasoning?

True Seeing is a divination spell that blocks information from getting to you. It blocks all false magical visual information. So basically illusions. Kinda like some really good sunglasses that let you see better when driving. It doesn't gather more information it blocks an excess of it.

[olentu]

I don't think it's necessary to label or dismiss the propositions I've seen put forward here as pedantry, sophistry, or twisted wording. It's true the spell is poorly worded--as are many spells and concepts in the game--but both general interpretations are tenable.

Myself, I think divination is all about gathering information, including when it let's you see, hear, smell, touch what is otherwise magically occluded. To me, and to our group, Mind Blank clearly trumps True Seeing, based on how we read the text and on what makes our game play fun.

Admittedly, this thread now has me thinking about whether there are any divination spells that don't involve gathering information of one kind or another. I have been wondering about comprehend languages. Somehow this seems as if it is potentially categorically different than scrying and true seeing. Ghostharp is another example, I think. And, perhaps, Healing Lorecall.

Off hand unluck does not seem to gather any information as I recall it working. I would have to reread the full description to be sure.

[ShriekingDrake]

I would argue that Mind Blank does not work on True seeing. My reasoning?

True Seeing is a divination spell that blocks information from getting to you. It blocks all false magical visual information. So basically illusions. Kinda like some really good sunglasses that let you see better when driving. It doesn't gather more information it blocks an excess of it.

I agree with you that the spell does that. But I also think it does more.
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. (Emphasis mine.) It seems to me that True Seeing does more than just block some information from getting to you. It enables the beneficiary to see something that has been changed, transmuted, polymorphed, etc. These are magic changes, not changes merely in appearance--or so it seems to me. It is revealing information that is magically not there, e.g. that the wolf over there is actually a transformed dire polar bear (recently transmuted by Aspect of the Wolf).

Anyway, I am wondering how this affects your thinking on the matter.

[Veyr]

I follow them to the spirit.
[Citation Needed]

Seriously, can we please stop claiming that we somehow know the minds and intents of the developers here? You can argue RAW because we have the written rules. You can post opinions about what does and doesn't make sense to you. But claiming some objective "rightness" in your opinions because you imagine that your opinions are the same as the developers' is wrong. And it's neither fair nor polite to dismiss others' opinions as "wrong" because of the same perceived alignment of RAI.

You don't know RAI. I don't know RAI. Unless someone here is the person who wrote Mind Blank, we're never going to know RAI. So stop using RAI as a basis for your arguments, please. It's just insulting.

[ShriekingDrake]

Off hand unluck does not seem to gather any information as I recall it working. I would have to reread the full description to be sure.

That is a great example. It's a specimen a divination that gathers no information. I think we could likely--at least most of us--agree that Mind Blank should not protect against Unluck.

Thanks for finding that.

Edit: I think this would apply to Alter Fortune as well.

[olentu]

That is a great example. It's a specimen a divination that gathers no information. I think we could likely--at least most of us--agree that Mind Blank should not protect against Unluck.

Thanks for finding that.

You are welcome and I am glad I could help.

[Demons_eye]

If that were the case it would be a Transmutation spell. But it is not.

Just would like to say that there are spells that are in strange schools. Having a spell in a random school is not unheard of.

[Silva Stormrage]

Just would like to say that there are spells that are in strange schools. Having a spell in a random school is not unheard of.

While it is not unheard of true seeing seems to fit pretty snugly in divination. I personally think that True Seeing should be blocked by mindblank and non detection but not sure what RAW states.
For example if it was a gather information spell like suggested than why is it dependent on sight? You would think it would be more along the lines of touch sight than anything else if it was a information gathering spell (On a side note does Psionic magic transparency cover different schools/disciplines).
On the other hand since it is divination and not transmutation it should be able to be argued that it gathers information about the target even if it enhances your eyes to be able to see them. I mean enhancing your eyes to be able to gather information... IS A INFORMATION GATHERING SPELL! Just seems like the whole, does it enhance or does it detect debate rather odd...

[Demons_eye]

While it is not unheard of true seeing seems to fit pretty snugly in divination. I personally think that True Seeing should be blocked by mindblank and non detection but not sure what RAW states.
For example if it was a gather information spell like suggested than why is it dependent on sight? You would think it would be more along the lines of touch sight than anything else if it was a information gathering spell (On a side note does Psionic magic transparency cover different schools/disciplines).
On the other hand since it is divination and not transmutation it should be able to be argued that it gathers information about the target even if it enhances your eyes to be able to see them. I mean enhancing your eyes to be able to gather information... IS A INFORMATION GATHERING SPELL! Just seems like the whole, does it enhance or does it detect debate rather odd...

For the record I think that treating true seeing as a informational gathering spell is asinine. Maybe because I have been playing to much LoL but I see it like this: Twisted Fate has the ability to see all heroes on the map, that's info gathering, elixir of the oracle lets you see invisible units, that's not. Its more of an active vs passive thing to me. Seeing things does not mean gathering information to me and trying to use questionable wording to prove either side is pointless.

[Forum Explorer]

I agree with you that the spell does that. But I also think it does more. . (Emphasis mine.) It seems to me that True Seeing does more than just block some information from getting to you. It enables the beneficiary to see something that has been changed, transmuted, polymorphed, etc. These are magic changes, not changes merely in appearance--or so it seems to me. It is revealing information that is magically not there, e.g. that the wolf over there is actually a transformed dire polar bear (recently transmuted by Aspect of the Wolf).

Anyway, I am wondering how this affects your thinking on the matter.

hmmm that is intresting. They do see both forms with the spell right?

Though I would like to note that the sentennce you bolded said "....lets you see the true form...." which raises some questions about what is true in D&D.

[Silva Stormrage]

For the record I think that treating true seeing as a informational gathering spell is asinine. Maybe because I have been playing to much LoL but I see it like this: Twisted Fate has the ability to see all heroes on the map, that's info gathering, elixir of the oracle lets you see invisible units, that's not. Its more of an active vs passive thing to me. Seeing things does not mean gathering information to me and trying to use questionable wording to prove either side is pointless.

I mainly agree. But all we have is questionable wording on both sides soooooo.

[potatocubed]

Most DMs I have seen would not allow Nondetection to block True Seeing.

I would, but RAW it doesn't work because nondetection protects the subject from divinations that target it, and true seeing has target 'self'. It doesn't actually target anything so nondetection would never fire. =/

[Curmudgeon]

RAW it doesn't work because nondetection protects the subject from divinations
Yes.

that target it
No. There's no "target" requirement in the spell.
If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check
Trying to use True Seeing to see the warded creature is attempting to use divination magic, so the check is required.

[ShriekingDrake]

hmmm that is intresting. They do see both forms with the spell right?

Though I would like to note that the sentennce you bolded said "....lets you see the true form...." which raises some questions about what is true in D&D.

Honestly, I'm not sure either what someone with imbued with True Seeing would see when she sees the Dire Polar Bear turned Wolf. I would think it would be both. And, like you, I don't know what is true in D&D. It would seem to me that seeing the true form would be that you'd be able to see that the purported Wolf (which you would be able to see) is a Dire Polar Bear.

[Malevolence]

That's utterly meaningless; Mind Blank is more than good enough to be an 8th level spell without blocking True Seeing. You're also ignoring True Seeing's not-insignificant Material cost.

And True Seeing is more than good enough even if Mind Blank does block it. Keep in mind that even if Mind Blank is affecting the caster's person, you can still automatically foil any illusions not on their person. So aside from Invisibility type spells, it's not doing a lot.

Your move.

[Douglas]

And True Seeing is more than good enough even if Mind Blank does block it. Keep in mind that even if Mind Blank is affecting the caster's person, you can still automatically foil any illusions not on their person. So aside from Invisibility type spells, it's not doing a lot.

Your move.
"Aside from Invisibility"? Um, that's the worst part of it. If you allow Mind Blank to block True Seeing, then Mind Blank + Superior Invisibility = near TOTAL undetectability. There is very nearly nothing that is more broken than completely uncounterable stealth, which is what MB+SI is if MB blocks True Seeing. There are a very few ways to counter it, but each of them requires a character rebuild to get if you don't already have it, and none of them are anywhere near standard on anything but super-optimized-for-every-conceivable-situation builds. Meanwhile, any Joe Schmoe Wizard who hits level 15 can pull off MB+SI just by adding them to his spellbook.

[Yora]

Mind Blank does not work that way:

The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it. In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.
True seeing and see invisible neither read the protected characters mind, nor are they scrying effects which are divinations of the (scrying) subschool.

The line "as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects" could be said to be open to interpretation, but the rest of the description makes it very clear how it's supposed to work. And it's called Mind blank.

[Malevolence]

"Aside from Invisibility"? Um, that's the worst part of it. If you allow Mind Blank to block True Seeing, then Mind Blank + Superior Invisibility = near TOTAL undetectability. There is very nearly nothing that is more broken than completely uncounterable stealth, which is what MB+SI is if MB blocks True Seeing. There are a very few ways to counter it, but each of them requires a character rebuild to get if you don't already have it, and none of them are anywhere near standard on anything but super-optimized-for-every-conceivable-situation builds. Meanwhile, any Joe Schmoe Wizard who hits level 15 can pull off MB+SI just by adding them to his spellbook.

Superior Invisibility has more holes in it than that. And the things that exploit its weaknesses are not as rare as you think.

[Douglas]

Superior Invisibility has more holes in it than that. And the things that exploit its weaknesses are not as rare as you think.
Really. List them. I already know of Mindsight and Touchsight.

[Kalirren]

Mind blank seems to have three separate effects:

1st) Target is immune to the detection, influence, or reading of thoughts or emotions.
2nd) Target is immune to mind-affecting abilities
3rd) Target creature is concealed from divination-based effects, which automatically fail in a prescribed matter in cases of scrying, but not in others.

In my opinion, the lack of a prescribed failure mode for non-scrying cases is the problematic part. If read broadly, it doesn't just give the absurd consequence that True Seeing against Invisibility (yes, even garden-variety Invisibility) or Disguise Self, can be blocked by Mind Blank. Under that supposition, someone affected by mind blank can't even use comprehend languages to understand things that are being said about himself in a language which he doesn't speak, because he would be trying to gather information about himself using the effect of a divination spell. This can't possibly be right. I think that the silence of the mind blank text upon how other divinations fail indicates the spell was never originally intended to cover any other use case.

On the other hand, if read narrowly, all the problems vanish.

Since we know the issue is murky as written, I propose the following erratum:

Change Mind Blank to read, "This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects, all divination (scrying) effects, as well as other attempts to use divination spells or effects to gather information about the target, such as augury, divination, or commune."

Note also that this solves everything neatly by establishing consistency between the revised effects of mind blank and obscure object, the former being for creatures and the latter for objects.

[Malevolence]

Really. List them. I already know of Mindsight and Touchsight.

Those + Lifesight, mundane perception skills, a freakin' BAG OF FLOUR... Or simply hit the area he is in. He is still there, you know.

Mindsight in particular is interesting, as it has no real cost for any arcane caster. All you need is Telepathy, which a 1 level long class gives you on a silver platter. If for some reason you banned Enchantment, Improved Familiar does the same thing for the same cost at about the same level, which is well before the level that you'd have to worry about Superior Invisibility + Mind Blank.

[Douglas]

Mindsight: Regardless of how cheap you might think the cost of obtaining this is, that is speaking from an optimizer's character building perspective. The facts remain that A) you have to specifically build for it, B) that "no real cost" option is flat-out not available for a large portion of wizards due to alignment restrictions, C) a feat and a level that might have been spent on another PrC is a significant cost, and D) you have to specifically build for it. Anything that you have to specifically build for cannot be assumed to be a common near-universal default, especially if it requires material from a relatively obscure splatbook. Paranoid high optimizers will frequently have it, yes. Pretty much anyone else will not.

Touchsight: It's psionic. Even if psionics are allowed in the campaign and a psion is in the party, he still has to dedicate one of his short list of powers known to it. Hardly something you can count on being common.

Lifesight: I assume you mean the Lifesense feat from Libris Mortis, as that's the closest I've been able to find with google. Yes, this might work. Do you really think the portion of wizards who have 13+ charisma and no constitution score is that large?

Mundane perception skills: Good luck with this one. Your spot check beat his hide check by 20? Congrats, you know he's "over there somewhere". Beat it by 40 and you know the actual square. How high did you pump that skill, again? Listen? Sorry, Superior Invisibility masks sound too so his Move Silently is an auto-win.

Flour: Right, where are you going to throw it? You have to find him first.

Hitting the area he's in: This doesn't exactly help if you don't friggin' know what area he's in in the first place, now does it?

[Cartigan]

We used Obscuring Mist to counter Invisibility in our game.

[Veyr]

And True Seeing is more than good enough even if Mind Blank does block it. Keep in mind that even if Mind Blank is affecting the caster's person, you can still automatically foil any illusions not on their person. So aside from Invisibility type spells, it's not doing a lot.

Your move.
My "move"? I wasn't arguing with you. I was stating my opinion. The whole problem with this thread is that everyone seems to be forgetting what is and is not opinion, both their own and others. No one's going to convince anyone else.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Mind Blank does not work that way:

True seeing and see invisible neither read the protected characters mind, nor are they scrying effects which are divinations of the (scrying) subschool.

The line "as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects" could be said to be open to interpretation, but the rest of the description makes it very clear how it's supposed to work. And it's called Mind blank.

Yes, thank you. It's not a Scrying spell, a mind-reading spell, or a mind-affecting spell.

[Malevolence]

Mindsight: Regardless of how cheap you might think the cost of obtaining this is, that is speaking from an optimizer's character building perspective. The facts remain that A) you have to specifically build for it, B) that "no real cost" option is flat-out not available for a large portion of wizards due to alignment restrictions, C) a feat and a level that might have been spent on another PrC is a significant cost, and D) you have to specifically build for it. Anything that you have to specifically build for cannot be assumed to be a common near-universal default, especially if it requires material from a relatively obscure splatbook. Paranoid high optimizers will frequently have it, yes. Pretty much anyone else will not.

You are level 15 or higher. You are already in a situation in which only the optimizer's perspective matters, as everyone else has stopped playing by now. Additionally, Mindsight is standard, and has no real cost, so the other points are automatically invalid. And if for some reason you don't take it yourself, you have your familiar take it.


Touchsight: It's psionic. Even if psionics are allowed in the campaign and a psion is in the party, he still has to dedicate one of his short list of powers known to it. Hardly something you can count on being common.

Touchsight is standard for all Psions. If you have a Psion, he has Touchsight. If you don't have a Psion, it is not as if it is hard to get a 3rd level power in item form.


Lifesight: I assume you mean the Lifesense feat from Libris Mortis, as that's the closest I've been able to find with google. Yes, this might work. Do you really think the portion of wizards who have 13+ charisma and no constitution score is that large?

Standard for all undead Wizards. Not all Wizards are undead, but it's one more way to do it.


Mundane perception skills: Good luck with this one. Your spot check beat his hide check by 20? Congrats, you know he's "over there somewhere". Beat it by 40 and you know the actual square. How high did you pump that skill, again? Listen? Sorry, Superior Invisibility masks sound too so his Move Silently is an auto-win.

That is not how those skills work.


Flour: Right, where are you going to throw it? You have to find him first.

Hitting the area he's in: This doesn't exactly help if you don't friggin' know what area he's in in the first place, now does it?

Also not a problem for reasons obvious to any experienced player.

You'd have reason to worry if the Wizard was the sort to STEELGUARD! everything with invulnerability tricks. But simply being hard to find? That's just standard Wizard fare.

[Douglas]

You are level 15 or higher. You are already in a situation in which only the optimizer's perspective matters, as everyone else has stopped playing by now. Additionally, Mindsight is standard, and has no real cost, so the other points are automatically invalid. And if for some reason you don't take it yourself, you have your familiar take it.
You have very odd definitions of "everyone" and "standard" which I would bet rather large amounts do not agree with those of the general D&D-playing community.


Touchsight is standard for all Psions. If you have a Psion, he has Touchsight. If you don't have a Psion, it is not as if it is hard to get a 3rd level power in item form.
"Standard" in your personal experience in either your own psion-building or within your group, maybe. Standard through the entire D&D playing community, almost certainly not.


Standard for all undead Wizards. Not all Wizards are undead, but it's one more way to do it.
Again, your definition of "standard" appears to be severely at odds with that of the community.


That is not how those skills work.
Invisibility gives +20 to hide checks, as specified in the Hide (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm) skill. Pinpointing an invisible creature's location adds 20 to the DC as specified by the Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility) special ability. Thus, determining which square an invisible wizard is in with a high spot check requires beating his pre-invisibility hide check by 40.


Also not a problem for reasons obvious to any experienced player.
And what are these reasons? When sight, hearing, and in fact every sense short of touch all fail, how does an "experienced player" narrow down the area an assailant is in to something small enough to Fireball?

[Claudius Maximus]

I agree with douglas here. I've dealt with quite a bit of high-op competitive shenaniganry and there's no way you can assume that sort of thing is "standard" even among optimized wizards.

You can be almost completely undetectable for by casting two 8th level spells, with no bells or whistles. To counter that you need to have very specific, obscure, and sometimes expensive things in your build. This is not the way things should be.

[Malevolence]

You have very odd definitions of "everyone" and "standard" which I would bet rather large amounts do not agree with those of the general D&D-playing community.

None of which has anything to do with anything I said, even if it were true, which is not.


"Standard" in your personal experience in either your own psion-building or within your group, maybe. Standard through the entire D&D playing community, almost certainly not.

Touchsight is a class feature of Psions obtained at level 5. Just as Abrupt Jaunt is a class feature of Conjurers and Wings of Cover is a class feature of Sorcerers. Your hand waving does not change this. And Lifesight? Racial feature of undead.


And what are these reasons? When sight, hearing, and in fact every sense short of touch all fail, how does an "experienced player" narrow down the area an assailant is in to something small enough to Fireball?

If you're inside it's easy. If not, readied actions work, leaving and coming back in a half hour once the Superior Invis is gone works... you don't Fireball though, you area Dispel targeting the Superior Invis, and you have your Dispelling jacked high enough to automatically succeed. That is just the most basic of ways. Again, hard to detect Wizard is merely standard fare. You have nothing to worry about until he starts the STEELGUARD! on everything you throw at him. Well, except for the fact he's a Wizard. That's kind of important.

[Demons_eye]

Touchsight is a class feature of Psions obtained at level 5. Just as Abrupt Jaunt is a class feature of Conjurers and Wings of Cover is a class feature of Sorcerers. Your hand waving does not change this. And Lifesight? Racial feature of undead.


Besides Abrupt jaunt which is an alternative class feature touch sight and wings of cover are powers/spells. Life sight is not a racial feature of undead but can be gained viva feat. I've played in a few groups with each of these classes races and never seen anyone pick them up and only once or twice in online games.

[Malevolence]

Besides Abrupt jaunt which is an alternative class feature touch sight and wings of cover are powers/spells. Life sight is not a racial feature of undead but can be gained viva feat. I've played in a few groups with each of these classes races and never seen anyone pick them up and only once or twice in online games.

Just because they did not get their rightful class feature doesn't mean it isn't their class feature.

[druid91]

Mindsight is common in the planescape game.

Though this is the same game where someone one shot a red dragon and it's githyanki rider.

And I survived hitting -30 something damage.

[ShriekingDrake]

Mind blank seems to have three separate effects:
3rd) Target creature is concealed from divination-based effects, which automatically fail in a prescribed matter in cases of scrying, but not in others.


I think this post is very thoughtful and I appreciate your perspective here, even if it is different than mine. My only quibble is that the way you've described what you label as the third effect, which I've copied above, seems to circumvent the central question. Or put another way, it presumes a reading consistent with the conclusions you've drawn--both of which (your reading and your conclusions) are tenable. My group has just chosen to read the text of Mind Blank differently than you have and, therefore, arrives at a different conclusion.

[Douglas]

None of which has anything to do with anything I said, even if it were true, which is not.



Touchsight is a class feature of Psions obtained at level 5. Just as Abrupt Jaunt is a class feature of Conjurers and Wings of Cover is a class feature of Sorcerers. Your hand waving does not change this. And Lifesight? Racial feature of undead.
These assertions are true only in highly specific paranoid high-op games, which are very far from the norm. Such games are overrepresented on these forums due to a strong optimization culture here, but even here they are far from dominant.

In typical games, most players do not scour every splatbook in existence for ways to counter possible broken combos. In typical games, wizards do acquire lots of spells from PHB and Spell Compendium and combine them in obvious ways. Thus, in a typical game, Mind Blank + Superior Invisibility with the interpretation that Mind Blank blocks True Seeing is a nearly impossible to beat combo with no practical counter. WotC writers usually have typical games in mind when they write their material, so I very much doubt they intended that combination to work that way.


If you're inside it's easy. If not, readied actions work, leaving and coming back in a half hour once the Superior Invis is gone works... you don't Fireball though, you area Dispel targeting the Superior Invis, and you have your Dispelling jacked high enough to automatically succeed. That is just the most basic of ways. Again, hard to detect Wizard is merely standard fare. You have nothing to worry about until he starts the STEELGUARD! on everything you throw at him. Well, except for the fact he's a Wizard. That's kind of important.
"Area Dispel targeting X"? That's self-contradictory and impossible. Plus, positing a jacked-up dispel check without a similarly jacked-up dispel DC is unjustifiably one-sided.

[Forum Explorer]

Honestly, I'm not sure either what someone with imbued with True Seeing would see when she sees the Dire Polar Bear turned Wolf. I would think it would be both. And, like you, I don't know what is true in D&D. It would seem to me that seeing the true form would be that you'd be able to see that the purported Wolf (which you would be able to see) is a Dire Polar Bear.

Its kinda important to know if they see both or not. Mostly so I know if my definition still works and also for amusing situations when someone with true seeing looks a druid in squirrl form on a thin branch.

[ShriekingDrake]

Its kinda important to know if they see both or not. Mostly so I know if my definition still works and also for amusing situations when someone with true seeing looks a druid in squirrl form on a thin branch.

I agree with you. But I see no way to make that determination with certainty. I would rule that you do see both, because to see the situation truly you'd expect to have some understanding. But it's also possible that you just see the Dire Polar Bear with no notion that everyone else sees a Wolf.

[Malevolence]

These assertions are true only in highly specific paranoid high-op games, which are very far from the norm. Such games are overrepresented on these forums due to a strong optimization culture here, but even here they are far from dominant.

The game features combos entirely consisting of 8th level spells. Even if that were true, the mere existence of such a combo presumes that it is exactly that sort of game.

These boards are weak on opt fu. A few people have it, most don't.


In typical games, most players do not scour every splatbook in existence for ways to counter possible broken combos. In typical games, wizards do acquire lots of spells from PHB and Spell Compendium and combine them in obvious ways. Thus, in a typical game, Mind Blank + Superior Invisibility with the interpretation that Mind Blank blocks True Seeing is a nearly impossible to beat combo with no practical counter. WotC writers usually have typical games in mind when they write their material, so I very much doubt they intended that combination to work that way.

Most people do start taking means of detecting others into consideration well before this level. And that in turn brings up the trifecta of Lifesight/Mindsight/Touchsight, among other things. Not to mention by your own logic, there's still STEELGUARD! Which you completely and repeatedly fail to address.


"Area Dispel targeting X"? That's self-contradictory and impossible. Plus, positing a jacked-up dispel check without a similarly jacked-up dispel DC is unjustifiably one-sided.

Nope. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

[Cartigan]

You are level 15 or higher. You are already in a situation in which only the optimizer's perspective matters, as everyone else has stopped playing by now. Additionally, Mindsight is standard, and has no real cost, so the other points are automatically invalid. And if for some reason you don't take it yourself, you have your familiar take it.

Lolwhat? Mindsight requires you to have an inherent telepathy ability. Which has to actively be worked towards to gain. In addition to spending the feat to get Mindsight.

Your argument is therefore invalid.

[Douglas]

The game features combos entirely consisting of 8th level spells. Even if that were true, the mere existence of such a combo presumes that it is exactly that sort of game.
"High level" does not automatically equate to "high optimization". Neither does "someone noticed a single obvious broken combo".


These boards are weak on opt fu. A few people have it, most don't.
Compared to some other boards, maybe. Compared to average D&D players, especially ones that don't read D&D discussion forums, these boards are overflowing with brilliant optimizers.


Most people do start taking means of detecting others into consideration well before this level. And that in turn brings up the trifecta of Lifesight/Mindsight/Touchsight, among other things.
Most people's "means of detecting others" consists primarily of See Invisibility, Darkvision, high but not overwhelmingly high listen/spot, maybe Blindsense/sight if they're unusually concerned about it or it's coincidentally easily available for their build, with Glitterdust or Faerie Fire thrown in as backup options and True Seeing as the costly only-when-we-really-need-it trump card. Every last one of those is defeated by Superior Invisibility except True Seeing.

If you selected a few dozen D&D players uniformly at random from the entire population, I would bet that a majority of them would either not recognize any of Lifesight/Mindsight/Touchsight or would have maybe heard of one of them once but not know anything about it. Even if you restricted it to D&D players who have played level 15+ characters, I'd bet the same.


Not to mention by your own logic, there's still STEELGUARD! Which you completely and repeatedly fail to address.
And what, exactly, is "STEELGUARD!"? If you mean just the Ironguard spell, that does nothing to block unarmed strikes, natural attacks, certain core special materials and weapons, or spells. A typical party put together by players with barely passing familiarity with the idea of optimization will have many ways to deal with Ironguard. The same party would have no clue how to begin against Superior Invis + Mind Blank.


Nope. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
The area and targeted options for Dispel Magic are inherently mutually exclusive. You either hit an area, or you hit a target. Not both. If you hit an area, you don't get to pick which spell (if any) on any given enemy gets dispelled.

[Malevolence]

Lolwhat? Mindsight requires you to have an inherent telepathy ability. Which has to actively be worked towards to gain. In addition to spending the feat to get Mindsight.

Your argument is therefore invalid.

Mindbender has no cost, only benefits, even if you ignore Mindsight. Your argument is automatically invalid.


"High level" does not automatically equate to "high optimization". Neither does "someone noticed a single obvious broken combo".

It does when everyone but the optimizers stopped at lower levels. And they did. It does when you're comboing 8th level spells, which you are.


Compared to some other boards, maybe. Compared to average D&D players, especially ones that don't read D&D discussion forums, these boards are overflowing with brilliant optimizers.

Funny how I've seen plenty of brand new players find optimization without any guidance at all.


And what, exactly, is "STEELGUARD!"? If you mean just the Ironguard spell, that does nothing to block unarmed strikes, natural attacks, certain core special materials and weapons, or spells. A typical party put together by players with barely passing familiarity with the idea of optimization will have many ways to deal with Ironguard. The same party would have no clue how to begin against Superior Invis + Mind Blank.

STEELGUARD! collectively refers to a running joke in FF13, invincibility tricks in D&D, and the Ironguard spell (which is only a small part of it). The main point, as I have said from the beginning is that merely being hard to detect is standard Wizard fare. You should only be scared when the invincibility tricks come out.

[Douglas]

Mindbender has no cost, only benefits, even if you ignore Mindsight. Your argument is automatically invalid.
Some people would consider "non-good" to be a very significant, even absolutely unacceptable, cost. And then there's the skill requirements. Not to mention the people who have some other PrC they'd really like to take at level 6. And then there's the groups where Lords of Madness isn't an allowed source for whatever reason.


It does when everyone but the optimizers stopped at lower levels. And they did. It does when you're comboing 8th level spells, which you are.
Believe it or not, there are, in fact, non-optimizers out there who do continue playing to high levels.


Funny how I've seen plenty of brand new players find optimization without any guidance at all.
Funny how I've seen plenty of brand new players, and heard or read stories of many more, who had no clue about optimization until guided, and many who even strongly resisted guidance.


STEELGUARD! collectively refers to a running joke in FF13, invincibility tricks in D&D, and the Ironguard spell (which is only a small part of it). The main point, as I have said from the beginning is that merely being hard to detect is standard Wizard fare. You should only be scared when the invincibility tricks come out.
Full-up invincibility tricks generally require a lot more comboing and pre-planned character building than a mere two 8th level spells.

[Cartigan]

Mindbender has no cost, only benefits, even if you ignore Mindsight. Your argument is automatically invalid.

Feat? Cost
Skill requirements? Cost
Spell requirements? Cost

[druid91]

Feat? Cost
Skill requirements? Cost
Spell requirements? Cost

It's not a cost if it gains you more than you spend.


Besides, the solution to this is the same solution I usually try and take.


Simply wipe the whole country off the map. With any luck the invisible foe will go with it.

[Cartigan]

It's not a cost if it gains you more than you spend.
Wrong. A cost is a cost.

One of your 7 feats and at least 12 skill points you wern't going to put there?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wrong. A cost is a cost.

Exactly. If it cost more than you gained from it, it's not worth it. People wouldn't buy anything if the cost outweighed the benefits.

[Kalirren]

I think this post is very thoughtful and I appreciate your perspective here, even if it is different than mine. My only quibble is that the way you've described what you label as the third effect, which I've copied above, seems to circumvent the central question. Or put another way, it presumes a reading consistent with the conclusions you've drawn--both of which (your reading and your conclusions) are tenable. My group has just chosen to read the text of Mind Blank differently than you have and, therefore, arrives at a different conclusion.

Reading that over I realize I had said more than I had meant. "Target creature is concealed from divination-based effects, which automatically fail in a prescribed matter in cases of scrying." is definitely true. The spell description specifies what happens when such an attempt is made. "but not in other cases" is false if not ambiguous. I agree, it's what happens in those other cases, that's the murky bit.

Do you have a rebuttal to the comprehend languages argument? I don't see how the other position (that "any divination spell which -reveals- information about a mind-blanked target auto-fails," as opposed to "any divination which actively attempts to -gain- information about it fails") can stand against it.

[druid91]

Wrong. A cost is a cost.

One of your 7 feats and at least 12 skill points you wern't going to put there?

And if you were going to take that feat and spend those points there anyway?


And even so, a fifth level Telepath can pick it up for just a feat.

[ShriekingDrake]

Reading that over I realize I had said more than I had meant. "Target creature is concealed from divination-based effects, which automatically fail in a prescribed matter in cases of scrying." is definitely true. The spell description specifies what happens when such an attempt is made. "but not in other cases" is false if not ambiguous. I agree, it's what happens in those other cases, that's the murky bit.

Do you have a rebuttal to the comprehend languages argument? I don't see how the other position (that "any divination spell which -reveals- information about a mind-blanked target auto-fails," as opposed to "any divination which actively attempts to -gain- information about it fails") can stand against it.

Not yet I don't. The problem we all face here is an ill-structured one, not only because the wording is unclear, but because the intent is unclear, and because we don't have reasonable real-world analogs to magic, invisibility, scrying, mind blank, etc. But I will think through this a bit. Again, I'm not saying that your position is wrong and mine is right. I think they are both viable. But I think you've raised a good question here and I want to give it some thought.

[Jack_Simth]

Eh, in a practical game, the precise wording on such fine-edged stuff isn't really important. There's definitely room for debate, and RAW is not fully clear.

When I'm looking at things from a gaming perspective, I would generally say that True Seeing trumps Mind Blank, but Nondetection trumps True Seeing. Why? In the case of True Seeing and Mind Blank, it's a game of chess. With Nondetection, it goes back to a game of dice, which is where I think it should be. Is it RAW? Maybe. The argument here is sufficient evidence that the rules themselves are murky in the interaction. Does it bring it back into the realm of a game of dice? Yes. If you let Mind Blank halt True Seeing, then you have a neigh-ultimate combination, due to Superior Invisibility. If you let Nondetection halt True Seeing, then you've got a roll of the dice to see who wins. Sure, you can load that dice heavily, just like you can for skill checks, but it's still a roll of the dice.

[Talakeal]

So, using the logic presented in this thread I have found a way to make myself immune to divinations cast by anyone with mind blank up (which in a high level campaign should be most people).

I wear a sign around my neck that says "You are looking at me." Therefore, any time someone looks up me with any sort of divination or scrying effect they gather information about themselves.
Therefore if they have mind blank up they are immune to their own divinations, because they are using it to gain information about themselves.

[Jack_Simth]

So, using the logic presented in this thread I have found a way to make myself immune to divinations cast by anyone with mind blank up (which in a high level campaign should be most people).

I wear a sign around my neck that says "You are looking at me." Therefore, any time someone looks up me with any sort of divination or scrying effect they gather information about themselves.
Therefore if they have mind blank up they are immune to their own divinations, because they are using it to gain information about themselves.
That would only apply to divinations that let them see you to see the sign. Things like Commune, Contact Other Plane, and Discern Location would be unaffected.

And an alternate hypothesis: They would simply be unable to see the sign - they'd see you just fine.

[Talakeal]

That would only apply to divinations that let them see you to see the sign. Things like Commune, Contact Other Plane, and Discern Location would be unaffected.

And an alternate hypothesis: They would simply be unable to see the sign - they'd see you just fine.

Well, yes, they would need to be observing me with a true seeing, or detect invisibility, or scrying or something similar. But the spell allows them to see the sign, therefore they are immune to the entire spell, and therefore can't see me at all. Flawless logic!

[olentu]

Well, yes, they would need to be observing me with a true seeing, or detect invisibility, or scrying or something similar. But the spell allows them to see the sign, therefore they are immune to the entire spell, and therefore can't see me at all. Flawless logic!

Oh come now what you really mean is that mind blank blocks all divinations everywhere that gather information since any divination attempted automatically tells the person that they are not gathering information about the person with mindblank which gives information about the person with mindblank i.e. that the divination is not gathering information about them and so all divinations fail.

Or alternatively since one is protected from information gathering by divinations and not from divinations that gather information one is only protected from the specific instance of the gathering as applied to them and not given some sort of counterspell to the divination itself which means that divinations work just fine but they merely can not gather information about the subject (presumably similar to the scrying that scans an area) but can still gather information about everything else.

Either view seems like a reasonable reading. The first when one believes that mindblank does not block true seeing and working from that view is trying to expose the silliness of the alternate reading. The second when one believes that mindblank does block true seeing and working from that view is attempting to see just what the spell does block. And of course the first for those that believe mindblank does block true seeing and from that view conclude that it also stops all divination everywhere.

So I can see the reason for both positions.

[Malevolence]

{Scrubbed}

[ShriekingDrake]

^^^ I guess the mods put mind blank into action. :smallamused:

[Douglas]

Makes me wonder what he posted to merit scrubbing when the rest of the thread remains untouched.

Anyway, on the Mind Blank vs True Seeing subject, if Mind Blank blocks True Seeing then Superior Invisibility + Mind Blank becomes a ridiculously broken perfect stealth combo that typical characters will have no practical way to counter. In the hands of NPCs, this leads to extreme player frustration. In the hands of PCs, this leads to trivializing the vast majority of possible encounters and many tasks. Meanwhile, Psionic Mind Blank gives a great big enormous clue as to probable RAI: block the [mind-affecting] and [scrying] descriptors, anything that duplicates them, and pretty much nothing else. True Seeing is neither [mind-affecting] nor [scrying], so Mind Blank should not block it.

[Sacrieur]

Makes me wonder what he posted to merit scrubbing when the rest of the thread remains untouched.

Anyway, on the Mind Blank vs True Seeing subject, if Mind Blank blocks True Seeing then Superior Invisibility + Mind Blank becomes a ridiculously broken perfect stealth combo that typical characters will have no practical way to counter. In the hands of NPCs, this leads to extreme player frustration. In the hands of PCs, this leads to trivializing the vast majority of possible encounters and many tasks. Meanwhile, Psionic Mind Blank gives a great big enormous clue as to probable RAI: block the [mind-affecting] and [scrying] descriptors, anything that duplicates them, and pretty much nothing else. True Seeing is neither [mind-affecting] nor [scrying], so Mind Blank should not block it.

We can't appeal to the consequences of a belief. This means that the result of believing something makes it right/wrong to believe that way.

--

I get what the whole debate is about, but there is also the psionic variant of true seeing. Since this is not spell, it can't be considered a divination spell.

[olentu]

We can't appeal to the consequences of a belief. This means that the result of believing something makes it right/wrong to believe that way.

--

I get what the whole debate is about, but there is also the psionic variant of true seeing. Since this is not spell, it can't be considered a divination spell.

As I recall that depends on how one reads the relevent psionic-magic transparency sections and of course if transparency is active.

[Talakeal]

Actually, I just realized if you want to really push the wording of this spell to the limit then all divination spells fails period if anyone in the world has mind blank up, because all divination spells (that I am aware off) give you information about something, and therefore you can learn that whatever you observe is or is not the subject of the mind blank spell.
And, if you want to get technical about it, every action everyone takes influences everything else in the world to a minor extent. Thus if anyone in the campaign world has ever cast mind blank then all divinations in the future automatically fail because you can see the distant effects of someone's actions and thus gather information about them, even if you don't realize you are doing it.

Obviously these interpretations are ridiculous. So is saying Mind Blank blocks true seeing. Honestly I don't know why they didn't just keep mind blank with stopping the ability to read or control a persons mind and make some other spell to stop scrying and like divinations, one which could have a more detailed write up.

And as far as ridiculous interpretations go, remember I am the guy who had a rogue in my group who claimed when a mage cast mind blank they became immune to their own beneficial divinations, so it's not like people don't try and pull them when it gives them an advantage.

[Sacrieur]

Information has a weird definition. If you allow me to let me be my philosopher self...

All right, so information is a weird concept. Is the color orange in and of itself information? I would argue no, since the color orange is just doing what it is doing. It does not give the viewer any sort of knowledge about it. Orange is orange is orange is orange. The moment we put a title to the color, it becomes information. Saying, "that is the color orange," is clearly a piece of information, but seeing that it is orange a piece of information?

In the same respect, knowing the location of something, and looking at the location of something... They're two different things are they not? I can stare at something all day and be day dreaming. My brain is receiving images, but I have not processed any of it, and while I'm receiving the location of something visually, I do not actually know the location of it per say. This makes it very difficult to separate information from non-information.

So then, by extension, is true seeing with respect to invisibility giving you information or no? Isn't it just enabling you to see something, the processing is being done by you. While you can see the location, you do not necessarily know it until your own brain processes it (which is incredibly intuitive for the lot of us).

This is all very sticky.

[olentu]

Actually, I just realized if you want to really push the wording of this spell to the limit then all divination spells fails period if anyone in the world has mind blank up, because all divination spells (that I am aware off) give you information about something, and therefore you can learn that whatever you observe is or is not the subject of the mind blank spell.
And, if you want to get technical about it, every action everyone takes influences everything else in the world to a minor extent. Thus if anyone in the campaign world has ever cast mind blank then all divinations in the future automatically fail because you can see the distant effects of someone's actions and thus gather information about them, even if you don't realize you are doing it.

Obviously these interpretations are ridiculous. So is saying Mind Blank blocks true seeing. Honestly I don't know why they didn't just keep mind blank with stopping the ability to read or control a persons mind and make some other spell to stop scrying and like divinations, one which could have a more detailed write up.

And as far as ridiculous interpretations go, remember I am the guy who had a rogue in my group who claimed when a mage cast mind blank they became immune to their own beneficial divinations, so it's not like people don't try and pull them when it gives them an advantage.

I already covered this I would say and in the end it still seems that the problem is that the wording is imprecise and so things can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways ranging from all divinations everywhere fail to mind blank only does anything to scrying and perhaps, limited wish, miracle, and wish. Er possibly epic spells as well as discern location or whatever that one was but those I remember the exact wording on less well.