Does mind blank protect against true seeing?

[molten_dragon]

Mind blank states:


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

True seeing is a divination that attempts to gather information about you (i.e. where you are, despite the use of invisibility), and it scans an area that a creature is in. Would an invisible creature using Mind Blank still be invisible to someone using True Seeing?

[ryu]

Mind blank states:



True seeing is a divination that attempts to gather information about you (i.e. where you are, despite the use of invisibility), and it scans an area that a creature is in. Would an invisible creature using Mind Blank still be invisible to someone using True Seeing?

That is how we rule it. Incidentally stuff like this is why NO ONE at our table passes up picking up multiple redundant, hard to counter sensory abilities.

[Dalebert]

That is how we rule it. Incidentally stuff like this is why NO ONE at our table passes up picking up multiple redundant, hard to counter sensory abilities.

This is why I have a pseudo-dragon with UMD with me at all times constantly rapid-firing a wand of glitterdust.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

True Seeing allows the creature it's cast on to see through illusions and see things as they actually are, not to gather information about a particular subject. True Seeing isn't cast to ask questions about you, it's cast to make the target's eyes able to see though illusions and see things as they are. The spell itself does not affect anyone but the creature it's cast on, so immunities possessed by anyone but the creature it's cast on will not have any affect on the spell's effect.

[Dalebert]

I was in agreement at first considering the example with arcane eye, but arcane eye is specifically labeled (scrying) which is what Mind Blank says it protects from. See invisibility and True Seeing are not labeled as such. They don't scan anything. They just enhance your ability to perceive directly.

[molten_dragon]

True Seeing allows the creature it's cast on to see through illusions and see things as they actually are, not to gather information about a particular subject. True Seeing isn't cast to ask questions about you, it's cast to make the target's eyes able to see though illusions and see things as they are. The spell itself does not affect anyone but the creature it's cast on, so immunities possessed by anyone but the creature it's cast on will not have any affect on the spell's effect.

Many divinations don't affect anyone but the creature they're cast on. Contact other plan for example. But Mind blank still protects against it if the caster is trying to gather information about the mind-blanked creature.

Yes, True seeing allows you to see through illusions, but that's a method of gathering information about a subject. "Where he is" is information.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Many divinations don't affect anyone but the creature they're cast on. Contact other plan for example. But Mind blank still protects against it if the caster is trying to gather information about the mind-blanked creature.

Yes, True seeing allows you to see through illusions, but that's a method of gathering information about a subject. "Where he is" is information.

Contact Other Plane allows you to ask questions about a creature, True Seeing doesn't do that. It allows the creature it's cast on to see things with his eyes, despite any illusions or similar effects. The spell is not gathering information about creatures, it's allowing his eyes to gather information despite illusions. Mind Blank doesn't protect you from someone's eyes.

[molten_dragon]

Contact Other Plane allows you to ask questions about a creature, True Seeing doesn't do that. It allows the creature it's cast on to see things with his eyes, despite any illusions or similar effects. The spell is not gathering information about creatures, it's allowing his eyes to gather information despite illusions. Mind Blank doesn't protect you from someone's eyes.

So you're saying there's a difference between a spell that gathers information, and a spell that improves your ability to gather information? That's splitting hairs pretty fine.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

So you're saying there's a difference between a spell that gathers information, and a spell that improves your ability to gather information? That's splitting hairs pretty fine.

Observing someone and gathering information/asking questions about someone are completely different things. It's not using a magical sensor such as that created by Clairaudience/Clairvoyance or Prying Eyes to view them, it's using the target's own eyes. Mind Blank does not prevent creatures from observing you, it prevents them from using information gathering divinations, not divinations that enhance their own senses.

[Chronos]

Consider a different spell, one that just gives you a bonus on your Spot checks (which, with a high enough check result, can also partially or wholly defeat Invisibility). Would that be blocked by Mind Blank, too? If no, then we have to ask whether True Seeing is more like Scrying or the Spot-boosting spell.

[Dalebert]

Here's the entire text of mindblank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm).


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.

It's an extremely broad interpretation of "information gathering by divination spells or effects". I think you just have to make the case to your DM or go ahead and treat it that way if you're the DM because there's room for interpretation. However, I think if they intended it to be interpreted that broadly, they would simply have said the recipient was personally immune to divination spells. That's effectively what your interpretation does, unless you can give me an example of a divination spell that you don't think the subject would be immune to.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I would say Mind Blank does not protect against it, but Nondetection *does*. I know pretty much everyone disagrees with me, but whatever. Mind Blank is too all-encompassing and powerful, and so is True Seeing. Nondetection is an oft-ignored spell w/ a costly component that if only written slightly better would have been the absolute perfect hard-counter to true seeing.

[ngilop]

If we are going the OPs definition of what information gathering is, then mind blank is the most powerful defensive spell in the entire game.

because EVERYTHING is information (not the scry definition of information that the spell is specifically talking about)

you are immune to any attack, as that deals with your HP information or some form of defense you have, you cannot be grappled as that deals with your grapple information.


being tripped.. hell that requires information on where you are.

of course the OPs definition of what information is actually makes mind blank no longer work on itself as soon as you cast it upon a person the spell renders you immune and negates itself after all, that's information about what can and canno effect you that mind affecting and im pretty sure that mind blank is mind afecting

but ifwe do not take the ludicrously liberal definition the OP takes on 'information' then the spell is clearly stating it affect those scry and divination/commune like spells that determine where, who, and what something/someone is

[bjoern]

This reminds me of the argument that freedom of movement prevents death because being dead "impedes movement" and thus is prevented.......

[Chronos]

Mind Blank does not protect against all information-gathering, just information gathering by divinations. So "that guy fell down after I fireballed him, he must not have very many HP" is not covered. Well, unless you got the information that he fell down by watching through scrying, in which case you wouldn't see him.

I would argue, however, that it does not protect against Contact Other Plane/Commune. In that case, the information is actually being gathered through divine senses, which aren't divination and which would get past mortal magic like Mind Blank even if they were. The mortal divination magic in that case is just to contact the deities who have the information.

[ace rooster]

Would mind blank stop true seeing from penetrating an illusionary wall that you are hiding behind? No, obviously, because mind blank affects the target, not effects that are defending the target by hiding information. Using a divination to defeat another effect that is hiding information (like invisibility) is not affected by mind blank.

[Story]

unless you can give me an example of a divination spell that you don't think the subject would be immune to.

Alter Fortune?

IMO, Mind Blank shouldn't protect against True Seeing or COP. But it's vague enough that I guess you could argue it your way.

[Jack_Simth]

I would say Mind Blank does not protect against it, but Nondetection *does*. I know pretty much everyone disagrees with me, but whatever. Mind Blank is too all-encompassing and powerful, and so is True Seeing. Nondetection is an oft-ignored spell w/ a costly component that if only written slightly better would have been the absolute perfect hard-counter to true seeing.

RAW or not, this is how I prefer to play it. Make Mind Blank a fairly narrow focus, but let Nondetection apply to any & every divination out there. Why? Because Nondetection is not a hard counter: It's a roll to succeed. In a game of dice, this strikes me as the right path.

[Emperor Tippy]

RAW this is clear cut.

Mindblank blocks information gathering by all divination's.

True Seeing is a divination that is providing information (true shape, illusions active on the individual, actual position of the individual) on the individual under Mindblank.

Ergo Mindblank blocks True Seeing.

This isn't something that requires interpretation or is rules fuzzy. This is as clear cut as RAW gets.

[georgie_leech]

If anything True Seeing gives you less information, because you no longer know if the subject is invisible or what their magical disguise looks like.

In all seriousness I can see the argument for MB countering TS, but to me TS isn't actually a spell that gathers information about the subject. It lets you ignore a bunch of other effects, but it doesn't do any information gathering in itself.

[Zanos]

If we are going the OPs definition of what information gathering is, then mind blank is the most powerful defensive spell in the entire game.

because EVERYTHING is information (not the scry definition of information that the spell is specifically talking about)

you are immune to any attack, as that deals with your HP information or some form of defense you have, you cannot be grappled as that deals with your grapple information.


being tripped.. hell that requires information on where you are.

of course the OPs definition of what information is actually makes mind blank no longer work on itself as soon as you cast it upon a person the spell renders you immune and negates itself after all, that's information about what can and canno effect you that mind affecting and im pretty sure that mind blank is mind afecting

but ifwe do not take the ludicrously liberal definition the OP takes on 'information' then the spell is clearly stating it affect those scry and divination/commune like spells that determine where, who, and what something/someone is
It only protects against information gathering by divination spells or effects.

And you don't need to know someone's game statistics in order to trip or damage them. If you cast a divination spell that told you their hitpoints or something, it would block that.

[Emperor Tippy]

If anything True Seeing gives you less information, because you no longer know if the subject is invisible or what their magical disguise looks like.

In all seriousness I can see the argument for MB countering TS, but to me TS isn't actually a spell that gathers information about the subject. It lets you ignore a bunch of other effects, but it doesn't do any information gathering in itself.

Is an individuals true form information about them? Yes.
Are you gaining that information via a Divination? Yes.

That means that Mindblank blocks the Divination spell in question.

How the rules should be is a totally different question than how the rules are, and what the rules are is clear.

[Piggy Knowles]

By RAW, Mind Blank absolutely stops True Seeing, as Tippy said. Outside of RAW, why wouldn't the 8th-level spell meant to shut down divination-based detection stop the 5th- or 6th-level divination meant to detect things?

That said, Mind Blank doesn't cover your items, so if we're going by RAW, is there any reason True Sight wouldn't be able to see your invisible clothes walking around?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Ahh... never mind I'm not jumping into this nothing will be gained, nothing will be solved and no one will change there opinion.

[AvatarVecna]

How the rules should be is a totally different question than how the rules are, and what the rules are is clear.

This. If you're playing by straight RAW, then yes, Mind Blank blocks True Seeing.

Here's a different question: does Mind Blank Block Limited Wish being used to replicate True Seeing? Limited Wish is a universal spell, rather than a divination, even if it's being used to replicate the effect of a divination spell.

EDIT: if your group doesn't tend to play by straight RAW (because your DM is tired of people being cheating optimizers), they might rule differently, as whatever it may read as, Mind Blank was almost definitely not intended to cancel True Seeing.

[Emperor Tippy]

This. If you're playing by straight RAW, then yes, Mind Blank blocks True Seeing.

Here's a different question: does Mind Blank Block Limited Wish being used to replicate True Seeing? Limited Wish is a universal spell, rather than a divination, even if it's being used to replicate the effect of a divination spell.

That one is rules iffy. The replicated True Seeing isn't a Divination spell but it might count as a divination Effect. Pretty much a question for your specific DM.

I personally rule that Mindblank blocks it most of the time, but RAW wise it's debatable.

[Douglas]

I take the much clearer wording of Psionic Mind Blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindBlankPsionic.htm) to be a strong indication of what the effect of Mind Blank was intended to be. Affect your mind (note, btw, that Detect Thoughts is tagged as [mind-affecting])? Blocked. View you at long range without depending on the caster's sight? Blocked. Anything else? Not blocked.

True Seeing has neither the mind-affecting nor scrying descriptors, and under this interpretation would therefore not be blocked.

[georgie_leech]

I take the much clearer wording of Psionic Mind Blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindBlankPsionic.htm) to be a strong indication of what the effect of Mind Blank was intended to be. Affect your mind (note, btw, that Detect Thoughts is tagged as [mind-affecting])? Blocked. View/find you at long range without depending on the caster's sight? Blocked. Anything else? Not blocked.

True Seeing has neither the mind-affecting nor scrying descriptors, and under this interpretation would therefore not be blocked.

Unfortunately, see above, Re: RAW as it should be. I'm fully willing to admit that my interpretation of True Seeing preventing the gathering of false information rather than gathering information in itself is the weaker of the two.

[AvatarVecna]

I take the much clearer wording of Psionic Mind Blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindBlankPsionic.htm) to be a strong indication of what the effect of Mind Blank was intended to be. Affect your mind (note, btw, that Detect Thoughts is tagged as [mind-affecting])? Blocked. View you at long range without depending on the caster's sight? Blocked. Anything else? Not blocked.

True Seeing has neither the mind-affecting nor scrying descriptors, and under this interpretation would therefore not be blocked.

Mind Blank is not Psionic Mind Blank; if the developers wanted gamers to use that version of Mind Blank, they would've errata'd Mind Blank when the psionic version came out.

This is about RAW. And by RAW, Mind Blank blocks True Seeing.

[Curmudgeon]

RAW this is clear cut.

Mindblank blocks information gathering by all divination's.
Where did you get that odd notion?

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.
The first sentence specifies the scope, so the spell is limited to mind-affecting spells and divinations that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. Mind Blank doesn't protect against True Seeing, because True Seeing doesn't read emotions or thoughts.

[Douglas]

Mind Blank is not Psionic Mind Blank; if the developers wanted gamers to use that version of Mind Blank, they would've errata'd Mind Blank when the psionic version came out.
You're assuming a level of organization, competence, and caring about consistency that is not really warranted with regard to WotC's D&D development team. The people in charge of writing the Expanded Psionics Handbook were most likely not the same as the people in charge of writing Player's Handbook errata, and even if the two sets communicated and agreed on the subject there's a high chance the errata team neglected to take a note or just thought it wasn't important enough to bother with (or even that the wording difference was meaningless because of course they meant that and how could anyone interpret it otherwise?:smallsigh:).


This is about RAW. And by RAW, Mind Blank blocks True Seeing.
That is a valid interpretation, yes, but not the only one. The phrase that can be read that way does not explicitly override the context of the entire rest of the spell description talking about being mind-related or scrying.

[Piggy Knowles]

Where did you get that odd notion?

The first sentence specifies the scope, so the spell is limited to mind-affecting spells and divinations that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. Mind Blank doesn't protect against True Seeing, because True Seeing doesn't read emotions or thoughts.

Except that by that logic, mind blank shouldn't block scrying attempts or arcane eye, since neither of those detect emotions or thoughts - and yet it explicitly blocks both. I believe the second sentence pretty clearly expands the scope to include any information gathering by divination spells and effects.

[Douglas]

Except that by that logic, mind blank shouldn't block scrying attempts or arcane eye, since neither of those detect emotions or thoughts - and yet it explicitly blocks both. I believe the second sentence pretty clearly expands the scope to include any information gathering by divination spells and effects.
The fourth and fifth sentences clearly expand the scope to include scrying, the second sentence is ambiguous about whether it's expanding the scope or just rephrasing/clarifying that it guards against both altering your mind and reading your mind.

[Piggy Knowles]

The fourth and fifth sentences clearly expand the scope to include scrying, the second sentence is ambiguous about whether it's expanding the scope or just rephrasing/clarifying that it guards against both altering your mind and reading your mind.

I'm not sure that follows. The fourth and fifth sentences are about clarifying how specific scrying effects (in particular those that target an area instead of a creature, in case someone argues, "Oh, hey, arcane eye doesn't actually target Alakazam McWizardpants, so it's not blocked by mind blank") interact with mind blank. The general protection against them comes from the second sentence, "...as well as information gathering by divination spells and effects."

I'd like to say it's pretty clear, but the fact that several people are reading the same spell and getting different answers means it obviously isn't. Still, I find it surprising that so many people read it any other way.

[Vogonjeltz]

I was in agreement at first considering the example with arcane eye, but arcane eye is specifically labeled (scrying) which is what Mind Blank says it protects from. See invisibility and True Seeing are not labeled as such. They don't scan anything. They just enhance your ability to perceive directly.

Mind blank stops targeted scrying and hides the subject from magical sensors. true seeing is neither of those things.

[Kraken]

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.

Frankly, mind blank is too strongly worded. Immune to any effect that gathers information? Does that include spot checks?

[Werephilosopher]

Mind blank stops targeted scrying and hides the subject from magical sensors. true seeing is neither of those things.

Mind blank also stops information gathering from divination spells, and true seeing is a one of those.


Frankly, mind blank is too strongly worded. Immune to any effect that gathers information? Does that include spot checks?

Spot checks aren't divination effects, so no.

[ace rooster]

RAW this is clear cut.

Mindblank blocks information gathering by all divination's.

True Seeing is a divination that is providing information (true shape, illusions active on the individual, actual position of the individual) on the individual under Mindblank.

Ergo Mindblank blocks True Seeing.

This isn't something that requires interpretation or is rules fuzzy. This is as clear cut as RAW gets.

Why is there a distinction for illusions that are active on the individual? It is the only sensible place to put one, but RAW no such limit exists. The character can be hidden by illusions that are not on them personally, and if true seeing can see through them then it is a divination getting information on the target. Taken one step further we can infer that seeing through any illusion with true seeing implies that any non invisible character with mind blank is not on the other side of it (which is some information on their location), hence we cannot see through it. This is before we even get to funny stuff like leaving obvious tracks that divinations cannot see, and that any books with 'information' on the target suddenly cannot be found. The existence of the mind blank spell with your interpretation of what 'information' means, directly implies that true seeing does not work at all, anywhere in the universe, and the rest of the divinations start to behave in funny ways at best.

There is no information at all in the spell description as to how mind blank interacts with other defenses, so there is no reason to assume that it suddenly makes defenses which work by hiding your position suddenly immune to divinations. It makes you immune to divinations, but you are not your invisibility glamer, and any glamers on you are not part of you. I see no reason to assume that glamers on you are protected by mind blank.

[With a box]

Mind blank also stops information gathering from divination spells, and true seeing is a one of those.



Spot checks aren't divination effects, so no.

but "divination spells or effects" can be interpreted as {(divination spells) or effects} or {divination (spells or effects)}

[Werephilosopher]

but "divination spells or effects" can be interpreted as {(divination spells) or effects} or {divination (spells or effects)}

That's kind of pushing it. We have to give WotC SOME credit, and not assume they meant "blocked by effects. Y'know... effects. Force effects, teleportation effects, any kind of effects! Also, divination spells."

[Emperor Tippy]

Where did you get that odd notion?

The first sentence specifies the scope, so the spell is limited to mind-affecting spells and divinations that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. Mind Blank doesn't protect against True Seeing, because True Seeing doesn't read emotions or thoughts.

The second sentence.

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


but "divination spells or effects" can be interpreted as {(divination spells) or effects} or {divination (spells or effects)}

And in either case True Seeing would be blocked.

[Anlashok]

The second sentence.

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


The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts.
True seeing fails to fulfill either criteria of this description: It does not detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts.

More importantly, the bolded section. The illusion you're seeing through with True Seeing isn't the subject of Mind Blank in the first place, so the interaction never even happens.

[Emperor Tippy]

True seeing fails to fulfill either criteria of this description: It does not detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts.

More importantly, the bolded section. The illusion you're seeing through with True Seeing isn't the subject of Mind Blank in the first place, so the interaction never happens.

1) Mindblank protects against multiple things.


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.

Part 1: Protection against all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts.

Then you have part 2.

Part 2: Protection against all mind-affecting spells and effects.
This is seperate from part 1 or any other future part.

Next you have part 3.

Part 3: Protection against all information gathering by divination spells or effects.
This is the part that True Seeing falls afoul of. It is a divination spell that provides the user with information about the subject.

Next you have part 4.

Part 4: Spells with the [scrying] descriptor and effect an area show the area but not the subject if the subject is inside the area.
Lack of Scrying tag on True Seeing makes this part irrelevant to the discussion.

Next you have part 5.

Part 5: Things with the [Scrying] tag that target the individual directly don't work at all.
Again not relevant to this discussion in any way.

The only refinement on a previous statement in the entire spell is the sentence "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." but that is again irrelevant as it only applies to gaining information or affecting the subjects mind.


The illusion you're seeing through with True Seeing isn't the subject of Mind Blank in the first place, so the interaction never even happens.
Depends entirely on the illusion.

Invisibility, for example, gives the target the "Invisible" descriptor which has rules effects.

True Seeing would see through Mirror Image even if the subject has Mind Blank up however. In this case True Seeing isn't providing information about the subject of Mind Blank but instead providing information about multiple illusions in the same general area as the subject (that they are illusions).

[Divide by Zero]

Part 3: Protection against all information gathering by divination spells or effects.
This is the part that True Seeing falls afoul of. It is a divination spell that provides the user with information about the subject.

True Seeing lets you ignore illusions. It gathers information in much the same way that the Pierce Magical Concealment feat does, which is to say not at all.

[Emperor Tippy]

True Seeing lets you ignore illusions. It gathers information in much the same way that the Pierce Magical Concealment feat does, which is to say not at all.

It gathers information on the subject directly. Telling the true form of a subject under Shapechange is clear cut information gathering and it is achieved via a divination spell, ergo it is blocked.

Seeing the exact location of a creature that has the special condition "Invisible" is clear cut information gathering on the subject and it is achieved via a divination spell, ergo it is blocked.

[Slithery D]

Do the people who think True Seeing can see through an illusion or invisibility on a Mind Blanked character also think it can see that they are polymorphed?

Even if you think seeing through a secondary effect isn't "gathering information on" the Mind Blanked person, seeing his true form does seem to be such a gathering of information, rather than seeing through an effect layered on but not part of the protected individual.

From a RP and storytelling perspective, I want shapechanged, Mind Blanked individuals to be able to infiltrate some extraplanar stronghold where lots of powerful Outsiders have automatic True Seeing. But from a game balance perspective I can see why you don't want to grant undefeatable invisibility.

[Anlashok]

This is the part that True Seeing falls afoul of. It is a divination spell that provides the user with information about the subject.
This is where I think you're wrong. True Seeing provides the user with information about illusions and doesn't actually interact with the subject of Mind Blank at all. Casting True Seeing gives you absolutely no information on the subject of the mind blank spell and any information you gather after piercing the illusion is by completely mundane means.

[Divide by Zero]

It gathers information on the subject directly. Telling the true form of a subject under Shapechange is clear cut information gathering and it is achieved via a divination spell, ergo it is blocked.

Seeing the exact location of a creature that has the special condition "Invisible" is clear cut information gathering on the subject and it is achieved via a divination spell, ergo it is blocked.

Except the spell isn't giving you that information. When you use Scrying, it directly gives you the information. When you use True Seeing, it lets you ignore an effect, and then your normal Spot check gives you the information.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Please show where it's stated that protections on a creature automatically extend to spells and items on that creature. Nondetection specifically states that if cast on a creature it wards that creature's gear as well, but Mind Blank makes no such allowance, nor do either of those state that they extend to spells cast on or by the warded creature.

True Seeing improves the target's vision so that he automatically sees through magic that conceals or modifies the appearance of anything. The spell does not gather information about anyone or anything, it overcomes magic effects that Mind Blank's benefit is not extended to.

[Dalebert]

This...


When you use True Seeing, it lets you ignore an effect, and then your normal Spot check gives you the information.

and this.


True Seeing improves the target's vision so that he automatically sees through magic that conceals or modifies the appearance of anything. The spell does not gather information about anyone or anything, it overcomes magic effects that Mind Blank's benefit is not extended to.

Mind Blank is not amplifying the power of your invisibility spell. Mind Blank isn't amplifying your disguise self spell. True Seeing is not divining you or your mind. It's piercing through certain spell effects such as invisibility and illusions that Mind Blank doesn't interact with at all.

It's one thing if a divination spell is allowing you to perceive something you normally can't like someone out of normal vision range. Mind Blank counters those. It's another thing if you could normally perceive the person without divination magic but they're using some spell to make themselves undetectable to NORMAL senses. True Seeing or Detect Invisibility are counteracting the effects of those spells. Mind Blank does not enhance normal sense-distorting spells.

[Segev]

True Seeing allows you to pierce illusions, including but not limited to Disguise Self and Invisibility. It also allows you to discern that a false form is, in fact, false.

Under normal circumstances, True Seeing would also reveal the truth behind these things: namely, what the subject really looks like.

If we interpret True Seeing as divining that information (rather than merely getting the obstacles out of the way so the True Seeing individual's native senses can perceive normally), then Mind Blank would, in fact, prevent the information about the truth of the being under observation from being discerned.

However, nothing in Mind Blank prevents the True Seeing spell's function of piercing the illusion nor discerning that the magical form is false. That is information about what is seen, rather than about the true being concealed by Mind Blank. Therefore, if a Marilith with True Seeing looks upon an Invisible rogue, the Marilith can tell there is something invisible there, and even where it is, because the Invisibility spell is penetrated. The Marilith, however, cannot tell who or what it is, because that is information about the rogue. This would be a distinctly disturbing sensation, I imagine. Similarly, looking upon a Polymorphed, Mind Blanked creature would discern that the form is false, but reveal nothing of the true form.



Personally, I would house rule Mind Blank to render the subject as if he were a mindless creature or object with Int, Wis, and Cha --, as far as any detection abilities were concerned. Untargetable by mind-affecting effects, a blank slate as far as detection abilities go, etc. True Seeing reveals their true form, but nothing else. Arcane Eyes can see them, but can't divine anything of their minds.

Yes, this weakens Mind Blank; it is explicitly a house rule. But it's supposed to be a "your mind is blank as far as any magics are concerned" effect. That's really it. I think the extensions to protection against scrying are out of flavor for it.

[DeAnno]

Personally, I would errata it blocks Mind-Affecting and Scrying. As written, I'd though it pretty much blocked all Divinations, though Curmudgeon's argument is an intriguing legal attack (albeit one that probably shifts the balance point too far in the other direction.) It's funny because the commonly excepted Tippy RAW is debate-ably but probably not RAI, and Curmudgeon's argument is almost certainly not RAI, but Curmudgeon is sort of reproaching RAI from the other way around by throwing the full force of the law at Mind Blank.

This has always been a very important topic in any case for high level play (Foresight is in a similar boat as True Sight, perhaps a very slightly worse one), and I'm quite interested in the discussion so far.

[ace rooster]

True Seeing allows you to pierce illusions, including but not limited to Disguise Self and Invisibility. It also allows you to discern that a false form is, in fact, false.

Under normal circumstances, True Seeing would also reveal the truth behind these things: namely, what the subject really looks like.


The way I fluff it is that true seeing allows the user to see and understand the transmutation magic around the target, and interpolate back to what the target was originally. The interaction between true seeing and transmutations on a target is not affected by a mind blank effect on the target, in a similar way to illusions. It has the side benefit of meaning that a fine creature shapechanged into a huge creature still affects line of sight as a huge creature, even to true seeing.

To give a definitive answer we would need more information about how true seeing functions, which we do not have.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If Mind Blank protected against True Seeing, would it not also negate an enemies bonus from spells like Foresight? And make you immune to your own Foresight, Augury or Divination concerning events in your future and similar effects?

If a player argues for complete immunity to any divination effect that applies to beneficial effects as well, imo. If you turn it into an all encompassing protection the downsides of such a thing should be explored as well. As it is the immunity to mind-affecting can already be a problem if you have a bard in the party.
You can't have it both ways.

[ryu]

If Mind Blank protected against True Seeing, would it not also negate an enemies bonus from spells like Foresight? And make you immune to your own Foresight, Augury or Divination concerning events in your future and similar effects?

If a player argues for complete immunity to any divination effect that applies to beneficial effects as well, imo. If you turn it into an all encompassing protection the downsides of such a thing should be explored as well. As it is the immunity to mind-affecting can already be a problem if you have a bard in the party.
You can't have it both ways.

The general divinations clause specifically applies to divinations that gather information about you, and even then in a prevention of detection sense rather than not allowing the spell to function at all. Funny how specific wording works isn't it?

[Story]

If Mind Blank protected against True Seeing, would it not also negate an enemies bonus from spells like Foresight?

Foresight applies to yourself, not any enemies who might hypothetically attack you. You are never surprised or flatfooted period, even if attacked by a Mind Blanked or Vecna Blooded enemy. You could argue that they are immune to the clause


the spell gives you a general idea of what action you might take to best protect yourself

but that part's just fluff. The actual mechanical effects are not conditional.

Interestingly, if you use the variant of Foresight cast on another target and that target is Mind Blanked, it might not work.



As it is the immunity to mind-affecting can already be a problem if you have a bard in the party.
You can't have it both ways.

Good thing you can voluntarily drop immunities.

[jedipotter]

EDIT: if your group doesn't tend to play by straight RAW (because your DM is tired of people being cheating optimizers), they might rule differently, as whatever it may read as, Mind Blank was almost definitely not intended to cancel True Seeing.

Cheating optimizers! Yea I know a thing or two about them....

Both spells, True Seeing and Mind Blank are legacy spells. They go back to 1E. And they have been copied almost word for word for decades. Now back in 1E the vague wording was fine, there where only a couple spells anyway and the DM could just say ''rocks fall'', ''Ice melts'' or ''dog and cats live together'' and everyone in the game would just nod and keep playing. Then as the years pass the game gets more complex with more rules, effects and spells. And that leads right to the vague spell in 3x with a powerless DM.

I recommend: Fixing the spells. And the basic fix you want is: No absolutes. Then it is easy:


Add:Against all such targeted effects, the subject gains a will save even if the effect would not normally allow a save, as well as a +15 enhancement bonus on the save. The subject does not automatically fail the save on a natural 1. This bonus doubles against area effects.



Add:This ability is automatic against mundane effects(i.e. regular darkness), but magical effects require a successful Will save to pierce through the deception, at a +10 enhancement bonus. This save does not automatically fail on a 1. However, True Seeing also makes the subject more vulnerable to vision based attacks, they gain a -4 penalty to saves against gaze attacks, Symbol spells and other effects that depend on sight to trigger, except for illusions.

[molten_dragon]

Here's the entire text of mindblank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm).



It's an extremely broad interpretation of "information gathering by divination spells or effects". I think you just have to make the case to your DM or go ahead and treat it that way if you're the DM because there's room for interpretation. However, I think if they intended it to be interpreted that broadly, they would simply have said the recipient was personally immune to divination spells. That's effectively what your interpretation does, unless you can give me an example of a divination spell that you don't think the subject would be immune to.

Unluck. It's a divination, but it makes no attempt to gather information about the target.


That one is rules iffy. The replicated True Seeing isn't a Divination spell but it might count as a divination Effect. Pretty much a question for your specific DM.

What's iffy about it? Mind blank specifically says it protects against limited wish, wish, and miracle when they're used to gather information in that way.

[molten_dragon]

This turned into a more interesting debate than I thought it would be. Let me ask a second question then.

If you don't think mind blank counters true seeing (or you think that it does by RAW and shouldn't), what is, or should be, a hard counter to true seeing? Because it seems like there should be something that can counter a 6th level spell that renders 95% of the illusion school useless.

The backstory for this, for anyone who cares, is that one of my friends is playing an illusionist in a high-level game, and is starting to get really frustrated by the fact that so many things have true seeing now. I was looking at Mind Blank for some reason, and saw the wording, and was going to show him so he could maybe use it to protect him a bit from all the true seeing going around.

[Erik Vale]

Please show where it's stated that protections on a creature automatically extend to spells and items on that creature. Nondetection specifically states that if cast on a creature it wards that creature's gear as well, but Mind Blank makes no such allowance, nor do either of those state that they extend to spells cast on or by the warded creature.

True Seeing improves the target's vision so that he automatically sees through magic that conceals or modifies the appearance of anything. The spell does not gather information about anyone or anything, it overcomes magic effects that Mind Blank's benefit is not extended to.

Spells automatically cover a creatures gear [Barring offensive damaging spells, which are stated only to damage gear on a natural 1], unless you also houserule invisibility not to affect a characters gear [making characters strip] your argument doesn't work, and it's again a house rule.



In any case, throwing my hat in as well for RAW yes, RAI probably not, RACSD probably not, RAIPAYT[Rules as is played at your table] ask your DM, not the playground you fool [unless you are the DM, in which case tough luck, as you can see people fall in two rather strict camps, but it seems many agree that RAI no].

[Pan151]

Mind Blank pretty obviously does nothing against True Seeing.


True Seeing does not gather any information at all - it only removes illusions from the caster's line of sight. The caster is using nothing but his own eyes to gather information.
Mind blank does not protect you from mundane sight, and even more importantly, whatever protection it provides it provides it only to you - not to your spell effects.

[Dalebert]

Spells automatically cover a creatures gear...

But not spell effects. You're right that he went too far by saying "gear", but it doesn't matter. His point was about spells. If you cast fire shield while invisible, people can still see the flames. Mind Blank doesn't extend to your spell effects any more than any other spell does without explicitly saying so. It doesn't make your spell effects immune to things that are specifically for dealing with those spell effects, e.g. detect invisibility and true seeing. I can, however, see an exception that someone made when true seeing is letting you see someone as they are when they're shape-shifted. That's a kind of divination that's extending your senses beyond what they could normally perceive beyond just penetrating an illusion and actually requires somehow divining the information of their actual form. Shape-shifting is not an illusion.


If you don't think mind blank counters true seeing (or you think that it does by RAW and shouldn't), what is, or should be, a hard counter to true seeing? Because it seems like there should be something that can counter a 6th level spell that renders 95% of the illusion school useless.

I sympathize and I think that's actually a bigger problem. I feel like illusions in general don't scale well into higher levels. I think it may just take modifying or adding higher level illusion spells. One could house-rule that shadowmagic, by virtue of being partially real, has a chance of fooling even True Seeing, perhaps depending on the % of realness. But even if they do see through it-- "Hey, that hellhound isn't real. Ouch! That illusion of a hell hound bit my ass!"

[sleepyphoenixx]

I sympathize and I think that's actually a bigger problem. I feel like illusions in general don't scale well into higher levels. I think it may just take modifying or adding higher level illusion spells. One could house-rule that shadowmagic, by virtue of being partially real, has a chance of fooling even True Seeing, perhaps depending on the % of realness. But even if they do see through it-- "Hey, that hellhound isn't real. Ouch! That illusion of a hell hound bit my ass!"

I don't think that's really a problem. Not everything needs to be vulnerable to every tactic. If you overspecialize you're going to get into situations where you don't have an appropiate tool on hand.
Uncounterable illusions would be an instant win, every time. A cleverly used illusion doesn't even provide a saving throw, so there would be no defense at all.

As a spell True Seeing has a 1min/level duration and a non-trivial material component. Ideally it should be something you cast when you strongly suspect illusions, not something you cast "just in case" because it costs you money. Certainly not something you get all day, every day for free. The overabundance of creatures with innate True Seeing and free persist are what makes illusions weak at higher levels, not True Seeing itself.
The same applies to Mind Blank which is a far bigger problem in this regard because it has no component and lasts 24 hours by default, in addition to entire creature types being immune to mind-affecting by default.

That kind of protection should be available, but it should cost something and be relatively short duration. A counter, not a blanket immunity that everyone of a certain level is going to have up all the time.
As it is such immunity is far to widespread.

[Segev]

Using nothing but the RAW that already exist, your friend's best bet is to build into (or rebuild into) Shadowcraft Mage with every trick possible to make his Shadow spells a greater percent real. I don't know the build off-hand, but you should be able to google search "Shadowcraft Mage" to find it; there is a way to get your Shadow spells to be 120% or so real, which means they do 20% extra damage to somebody who makes their will save to disbelieve. Since True Seeing makes them automatically disbelieve, this turns their advantage to a disadvantage.

For homebrew solutions, I would have him talk to his DM about researching higher-level spells or metamagic feats which allow him to make his Illusions not pierced except by detection effects of higher spell (or caster) level. Maybe an illusion spell which allows him to make a sleight of hand check or something in order to cause anybody who disbelieves his illusion to be flat-footed against something real of his choosing because the disbeliever also thinks the other thing is an illusion. Specify that this works against True Seeing and other effects of lower level, and make it a higher level effect than True Seeing (maybe a 7th or 8th level spell). The goal is to make its deception non-magical even if it is magically-enabled, so that immunity to mind-affecting or illusions doesn't apply against it.

"Oh, you think you can see through my illusions, do you? Now I'll make you start questioning whether EVERYTHING is an illusion or not!"

[Chronos]

This won't help your illusionist friend, but the hard counter to True Seeing is nonmagical deception. True Seeing won't do a thing against nonmagical disguises or hiding.

[Jack_Simth]

This turned into a more interesting debate than I thought it would be. Let me ask a second question then.

If you don't think mind blank counters true seeing (or you think that it does by RAW and shouldn't), what is, or should be, a hard counter to true seeing? Because it seems like there should be something that can counter a 6th level spell that renders 95% of the illusion school useless.

The backstory for this, for anyone who cares, is that one of my friends is playing an illusionist in a high-level game, and is starting to get really frustrated by the fact that so many things have true seeing now. I was looking at Mind Blank for some reason, and saw the wording, and was going to show him so he could maybe use it to protect him a bit from all the true seeing going around.
I'm fond of letting Nondetection do it, from a game standpoint, as then it's a roll of the dice to see which 'wins'.

And, of course, True Seeing doesn't help against a mundane disguise or normal hiding (although if you're counting on shadows to give you a place to hide, that doesn't work due to True Seeing granting darkvision-120...).

[Duke of Urrel]

I have enjoyed this thread very much. I have some opinions to offer, just for everybody's consideration.

Originally, I believed there was a distinction to be made between Divination spells that "gather information" and those that don't. After all, the second sentence of the Mind Blank spell's description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm) is worded like this:


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

If all Divination spells gathered information, I reasoned, then this passage could be worded more briefly and clearly, like this:


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

I even had a working distinction. A spell like True Seeing wouldn't be blocked by the Mind Blank spell, because it provides only sensory data, whereas information has to be something that you can express in words, such as "Yes," "No," "Maybe," or "50 feet north of you and on a level 10 feet below you." Neat, huh?

Of course, this distinction is explicitly violated by the description of the Mind Blank spell itself, because it completely blocks all Scrying spells, which according to my neat little distinction don't "gather information" at all, but provide exclusively sensory data. But is there another way to draw a distinction between information-gathering and non-information-gathering Divination spells?


So you're saying there's a difference between a spell that gathers information, and a spell that improves your ability to gather information? That's splitting hairs pretty fine.

Actually, the more I think about it now, the more I feel convinced that Molten_Dragon has a very good point.

Consequently, I now have a lot of respect for both Emperor Tippy's interpretation and Curmudgeon's interpretation, even though they are greatly at odds with each other. Here's what they both have in common: They both avoid complicated hair-splitting on the question of which Divination spells "gather information."

Now, shall I go with Emperor Tippy or Curmudgeon?

(A) Should I declare, with Emperor Tippy, that the Mind Blank spell blocks all spells of the Divination school that "gather information," a set which, in the absence of any new and clever distinction (and good luck finding one), is likely to include the entire school?

(B) Or should I declare, with Curmudgeon, that the Mind Blank spell blocks only a relatively small subset of Divinations, including (1) those that gather information about a creature's mind (i.e., thoughts, feelings, alignment, et cetera), (2) those that belong to the Scrying subschool, and (3) the Discern Location spell (because this spell's own description says so)?


I would say Mind Blank does not protect against it, but Nondetection *does*. I know pretty much everyone disagrees with me, but whatever. Mind Blank is too all-encompassing and powerful, and so is True Seeing. Nondetection is an oft-ignored spell w/ a costly component that if only written slightly better would have been the absolute perfect hard-counter to true seeing.

I like StreamOfTheSky's solution. Let Mind Blank be primarily a spell that blocks Mind-Affecting magic, in addition to Scrying spells and the Discern Location spell. But let the humble Nondetection spell work against all Divinations (with the possible exception of only two spells, the Commune spell and the Contact Other Plane spell, because deities can arguably bypass mortal Nondetection), provided that the diviner's caster-level check fails. I would add that the Sequester spell should always block the True Seeing spell, as I decided as the result of a discussion on another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?295988-Sequester-versus-True-Seeing-3-5&p=15750379#post15750379).

Others may prefer to side with Emperor Tippy. To you, I have only this to say: Empowering the Mind Blank spell to block nearly all Divinations has numerous consequences beyond merely nerfing the True Seeing spell. Consider this before you choose this option. That's all!

[Divide by Zero]

This turned into a more interesting debate than I thought it would be. Let me ask a second question then.

If you don't think mind blank counters true seeing (or you think that it does by RAW and shouldn't), what is, or should be, a hard counter to true seeing? Because it seems like there should be something that can counter a 6th level spell that renders 95% of the illusion school useless.

The backstory for this, for anyone who cares, is that one of my friends is playing an illusionist in a high-level game, and is starting to get really frustrated by the fact that so many things have true seeing now. I was looking at Mind Blank for some reason, and saw the wording, and was going to show him so he could maybe use it to protect him a bit from all the true seeing going around.

Doesn't seem to be much by RAW, but I don't know if countering it with another spell that already renders 95% of the Enchantment school and a good chunk of Divination useless is the way to do it.

[ace rooster]

Invisibility, nondetection, enlarge person, and flesh to stone explicitly state that they cover your gear, so there is the implication that most spells don't (There are probably many more, these are just the ones I found quickly). Mind blank has no such RAW provision (whether RAI or not). On the bright side, unless your underwear are sentient, they cannot be scryed on as they are not creatures.

[jedipotter]

I'd like to say it's pretty clear, but the fact that several people are reading the same spell and getting different answers means it obviously isn't. Still, I find it surprising that so many people read it any other way.

It's amazing how people like to argue about something put in a book over a decade ago. It's ood that everyone acts like ''the rules must be perfect'' and ''it's just up to the players to figure out how they are perfect.'' As if the person who put the spells in the book was THE D&D expert, not just a normal person.

Oh, but it gets worse. Both spells were written over 30 years ago (30 years!) and the text has not changed much:



True Seeing (Divination) Reversible
Level: 5 Components: V,S,M Range: Touch Casting Time: 8 segments Duration: 1 round/level Saving Throw: None Area of Effect: 12" sight range
Explanation/Description: When the cleric employs this spell, all things within the area of the True Seeing effect appear as they actually are. Secret doors become plain. The exact location of displaced things is obvious. Invisible things and those which are astral or ethereal become quite visible. Illusions and apparitions are seen through. Polymorphed, changed, or magicked things are apparent. Even the aura projected by creatures becomes visible, so that the cleric is able to know whether they are good or evil or between. The spell requires an ointment for the eyes. The ointment is made from very rare mushroom powder, saffron, and fat. The ointment must be aged for 1-6 months.




Mind Blank (Abjuration)
Level: 8 Components: V, S Range: 3" Casting Time: 1 segment Duration: 1 day Saving Throw: None Area of Effect: One creature
Explanation/Description: When the very powerful Mind Blank spell is cast, the recipient is totally protected from all devices and/or spells which detect, influence, or read emotions and/or thoughts. Protection includes Augury, Charm, Command, Confusion, Divination, empathy (all forms), ESP, Fear, Feeblemind, Mass Ssuggestion, Phantasmal Killer, possession, rulership, soul trapping, Suggestion, and telepathy. Cloaking protection also extends to prevention of discovery or information gathering by crystal balls or other scrying devices, Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, communing, contacting other planes. or Wsh-related methods (Wishing, Limited Wish, Alter Reality). Of course, exceedingly powerful deities would be able to penetrate the spell's powers. Note that this spell also protects from psionic-related detection and/or influence such as Domination (or Mass Domination), Hypnosis, Invisibility (the psionic sort is mind related), and Precognition, plus those powers which are already covered as spells.



That is what they said back in 1E. Notice how most of the same text has been copied for 30 years?

Questions:

1.Does anyone think having absolutes is a good idea? Both spells have this problem, they are absolute.

2.Does anyone thing the spell level should matter? Should a higher level spell, always be more powerful then a lower level spell?

3.Should there be a spell that makes you immune to True Seeing? Several spells?

[AmberVael]

1.Does anyone think having absolutes is a good idea? Both spells have this problem, they are absolute.
Yes. Maybe true seeing shouldn't be though.


2.Does anyone thing the spell level should matter? Should a higher level spell, always be more powerful then a lower level spell?
Yes. Spell levels would be pretty pointless otherwise. (Not to say that a higher level spell will always negate the effects of a lower level spell though, if that's what you mean- just that yes, a higher level spell should in general have more powerful effects).


3.Should there be a spell that makes you immune to True Seeing? Several spells?
Probably not. (I think there is at least one though).

[sleepyphoenixx]

Questions:

1.Does anyone think having absolutes is a good idea? Both spells have this problem, they are absolute.

2.Does anyone thing the spell level should matter? Should a higher level spell, always be more powerful then a lower level spell?

3.Should there be a spell that makes you immune to True Seeing? Several spells?

I've written about that a few posts up already, but i'll try to summarize.
I don't have a problem with an absolute defense, as long as it has other limits (like cost and/or duration). The overabundance of things that are immune to mind-affecting or have innate True Seeing is what really makes Enchantment and Illusion weak at higher levels, not the fact that there are defenses available.

If it comes down to it the defensive side should have the upper hand. An unbeatable defense can be worked around, an unbeatable offense can not.
If an illusion is immune to True Seeing and you can use the illusion in a way that the victim is unlikely to get a saving throw (there are many), you have an i-win button. If an illusionist runs into someone with True Seeing he can still use another angle of attack to win.

If Mind Blank had the same cost and duration as True Seeing (1min/level and 250gp) and there weren't whole types of enemies who are either immune to mind-affecting or have innate True Seeing Enchantment and Illusion would work a lot better. If people had to decide to spend money, spell slots and in-combat actions on that kind of defense it would be a lot less of a problem, imo.

[molten_dragon]

1.Does anyone think having absolutes is a good idea? Both spells have this problem, they are absolute.

In some cases yes, in some no. There should probably be drawbacks or limitations associated with absolute defenses though (high cost, short duration, etc.). This might be true of the spell true seeing, but when you start getting into monsters that have it continually, and high-level characters that can afford continuous items of it, then there's not much limitation.


2.Does anyone thing the spell level should matter? Should a higher level spell, always be more powerful then a lower level spell?

There's not much point in having spell levels if high-level spells aren't more powerful. In some specific cases maybe a low-level spell that does something very specific could beat a high-level spell that does something general, but for the most part a higher-level spell should be better than a lower-level one.


3.Should there be a spell that makes you immune to True Seeing? Several spells?

By my way of thinking, yes. Or there should be higher-level illusion spells which can't be penetrated by true seeing.

[bekeleven]

If all Divination spells gathered information, I reasoned, then this passage could be worded more briefly and clearly, like this:

ALTER FORTUNE
Divination
Level: Bard 3, Cleric 3, Druid 3, Sorcerer/Wizard 3
Components: V, X
Casting Time: 1 immediate action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
With a single utterance, you create a momentary distortion that engulfs and confounds your foe. You change the flow of chance, causing the subject to immediately reroll any die roll it just made. It must abide by the second roll.
Not all, just most.

[Vogonjeltz]

Mind blank also stops information gathering from divination spells, and true seeing is a one of those.

Spot checks aren't divination effects, so no.

True Seeing is a Divination spell, but it's not a spell which gathers information, instead it filters information. Mind Blank does not do anything at all regarding spells that filter already incoming information.

[Emperor Tippy]

True Seeing is a Divination spell, but it's not a spell which gathers information, instead it filters information. Mind Blank does not do anything at all regarding spells that filter already incoming information.

True Seeing certainly gathers information. Without it most creatures can't see invisible things, see magic, see the true form of transmuted creatures, etc.

That is all information gathered about an individual through the Divination spell True Seeing. Otherwise known as something that is explicitly blocked by Mind Blank.

[Anlashok]

True Seeing certainly gathers information. Without it most creatures can't see invisible things, see magic, see the true form of transmuted creatures, etc.

That is all information gathered about an individual through the Divination spell True Seeing. Otherwise known as something that is explicitly blocked by Mind Blank.

Correct, but the only thing True Seeing gathers information about is illusions, invisibility and polymorph effects.

None of which are valid targets for mind blank. So even though you're theoretically right, the fact that you can never buff your illusion with mind blank makes the point moot.

[Emperor Tippy]

Correct, but the only thing True Seeing gathers information about is illusions, invisibility and polymorph effects.

None of which are valid targets for mind blank. So even though you're theoretically right, the fact that you can never buff your illusion with mind blank makes the point moot.

And the creatures true location, the magical effects active on the creature, etc. are all information about the creature that are revelaed to the user of True Seeing via the spell (a divination) and thus it is blocked.

No Divination spell can gather or provide information about an individual under the effects of Mind Blank, period. They don't see them, they don't interact with them, they don't infer them, etc.

The only reason that Foresight can be used with Mindblank is because of the specific rule that your own spells can always bypass your own defenses.

Even Contact Other Planes is technically, by the RAW, blocked by Mindblank.

---
True Seeing can not provide any information about a Mindblanked individual. All you can see with it up is whatever your non Divination effect senses would let you see.

[Divide by Zero]

True Seeing certainly gathers information. Without it most creatures can't see invisible things, see magic, see the true form of transmuted creatures, etc.

That is all information gathered about an individual through the Divination spell True Seeing. Otherwise known as something that is explicitly blocked by Mind Blank.

I still think that this is an overly liberal interpretation of the word "gather." True Seeing itself is not providing you with any information. It is allowing you to ignore an effect. If an invisible creature is hiding, you still have to roll Spot to see it, it just doesn't get the +40 bonus.

[Pan151]

True Seeing certainly gathers information.

No, it doesn't. True Seeing itself reveals no information whatsoever - it only filters out illusions from one's eyesight. It's your eyes (and ears and other basic senses) that gather the information and nothing else.

[Chronos]

Quoth Emperor Tippy:

Even Contact Other Planes is technically, by the RAW, blocked by Mindblank.
Suppose your party is all under the effects of a Telepathic Bond spell. Your party's rogue is scouting ahead, and is currently watching (through entirely nonmagical means) the villain, who's under a Mind Blank spell. Can he tell the party through the Telepathic Bond what he's seeing? This seems to me to be analogous to how Contact Other Planes works.

[Emperor Tippy]

Suppose your party is all under the effects of a Telepathic Bond spell. Your party's rogue is scouting ahead, and is currently watching (through entirely nonmagical means) the villain, who's under a Mind Blank spell. Can he tell the party through the Telepathic Bond what he's seeing? This seems to me to be analogous to how Contact Other Planes works.

Yes, because Mindblank does nothing to prevent information transmission. It simply blocks information gathering in the first place.

CoP is fluffed as bothering an external entity for answers to your questions but it is still a spell that is directly providing information about the subject and thus blocked.

Personally, I house rule CoP/Mindblank interactions to have a percentage failure chance based on what you are contacting and what type of question you are asking (about the creatures actions when they didn't have Mindblank up, about the creatures actions when they did have Mindblank up, and about the creatures actions in the future when they currently have Mindblank up) but RAW it is a divination spell that gathers information and if used to gather information about a protected individual it fails.


No, it doesn't. True Seeing itself reveals no information whatsoever - it only filters out illusions from one's eyesight. It's your eyes (and ears and other basic senses) that gather the information and nothing else.

And your eyes can tell that under that physically human body is a dragon, how exactly?

Can you tell the location of a creature without True Seeing? No? Well then True Seeing would be gathering information about that creature and giving it to you.

[Divide by Zero]

And your eyes can tell that under that physically human body is a dragon, how exactly?

Can you tell the location of a creature without True Seeing? No? Well then True Seeing would be gathering information about that creature and giving it to you.

If you're blindfolded, do you see it? If the invisible creature is hiding and beats your Spot check, do you see it? If the polymorphed creature also has a mundane disguise and beats your Spot check, do you know what it really is? What information is True Seeing gathering here? It lets you bypass an effect (or part of an effect). Nothing more.

[ericgrau]

I think there was a decent thread about this before with arguments on both sides. You could google it. Add site:giantitp.com to the search terms.

Personally I don't think mind blank works against true seeing, but read the thread and decide for yourself.

[Pan151]

Can you tell the location of a creature without True Seeing? No? Well then True Seeing would be gathering information about that creature and giving it to you.

Does True Sight provide any information if you have no eyes? No, it doesn't, because the spell itself gathers no information - your eyes provide all of it.

Does Scry provide any information if you have no eyes? Yes, it does, because it's the spell itself that gathers all the information - your eyes provide none of it.


True Sight does not gather information - it filters information.

[bekeleven]

Does True Sight provide any information if you have no eyes? No, it doesn't, because the spell itself gathers no information - your eyes provide all of it.

Does Scry provide any information if you have no eyes? Yes, it does, because it's the spell itself that gathers all the information - your eyes provide none of it.
That's like saying commune doesn't give any information if you speak no language.

[Shalist]

True Seeing certainly gathers information. Without it most creatures can't see invisible things, see magic, see the true form of transmuted creatures, etc.


Hmm…How is this:

1) True seeing is a divination spell that improves your vision so that it penetrates illusions.
2) Mind blank protects someone from divination spells that gather information about them.
3) Therefore mind blank prevents someone’s personal illusions from being bypassed by true seeing enhanced vision.

different from this:

1) Touch of adamantine is a spell requiring spell resistance, which improves your weapon so that it penetrates /adamantine damage resistance.
2) An iron golem’s magic immunity protects it from spells that require spell resistance.
3) Therefore an iron golem’s magic immunity prevents its damage resistance from being bypassed by touch of adamantine enhanced weapons.

?

edit: minor spillyng/word choice.

[Pan151]

That's like saying commune doesn't give any information if you speak no language.

Technically, you don't need to speak a language to get information through commune.

[Vogonjeltz]

True Seeing certainly gathers information. Without it most creatures can't see invisible things, see magic, see the true form of transmuted creatures, etc.

That is all information gathered about an individual through the Divination spell True Seeing. Otherwise known as something that is explicitly blocked by Mind Blank.

No I don't see that anywhere in the spell. I see this: You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are.

Mind Blank doesn't protect against such things, it requires that the effect be "The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts."

Not a spell that detects thoughts, so no protection is conferred. You may be getting confused by the second sentence of mind blank which is dependent on the first.

[Emperor Tippy]

You may be getting confused by the second sentence of mind blank which is dependent on the first.
No, it is not.

Those are two discreet sentences that talk about two discreet things that Mindblank does.

A Divination spell can not directly provide anyone with *any* information about a creature under the effects of Mind Blank.

True Seeing directly provides information to the user on every creature viewed during the spells duration; ergo True Seeing is blocked by Mind Blank.

[Anlashok]

All you can see with it up is whatever your non Divination effect senses would let you see.

Exactly. Which is the real person. Because you've pierced the illusion.

Mind Blank doesn't interfere because what you're seeing is with mundane senses see. True Seeing isn't stopped because the spell provides no information on the target whatsoever.

[Divide by Zero]

No, it is not.

Those are two discreet sentences that talk about two discreet things that Mindblank does.

A Divination spell can not directly provide anyone with *any* information about a creature under the effects of Mind Blank.

True Seeing directly provides information to the user on every creature viewed during the spells duration; ergo True Seeing is blocked by Mind Blank.


If you're blindfolded, do you see it? If the invisible creature is hiding and beats your Spot check, do you see it? If the polymorphed creature also has a mundane disguise and beats your Spot check, do you know what it really is? What information is True Seeing gathering here? It lets you bypass an effect (or part of an effect). Nothing more.


Does True Sight provide any information if you have no eyes? No, it doesn't, because the spell itself gathers no information - your eyes provide all of it.

Does Scry provide any information if you have no eyes? Yes, it does, because it's the spell itself that gathers all the information - your eyes provide none of it.


True Sight does not gather information - it filters information.

You still haven't really addressed this point.

[Shalist]

Different question:


No Divination spell can gather or provide information about an individual under the effects of Mind Blank, period. They don't see them, they don't interact with them, they don't infer them, etc.

1) So, BBEG (who is under a permanent mind blank) writes an autobiography chop full of information about themselves and leaves it laying around. PC finds it and tries to read said autobiography with the divination spell, scholar's touch (or some other scrying / divination spell). Does mind blank cause the entire book to appear blank to their divination, thus preventing it from obtaining information about the BBEG?

2) Say you fill a book with statements about a mindblank'd BBEG you're hunting to the affect of, "BBEG is hiding at coordinates X 223, Y -105,' 'BBEG is hiding at coordinates X 224, Y -105,' and so on. Now, obviously mind blank prevents you from gathering information, meaning any statement that is actually true would be conspicuously absent when viewed with a divination, but I see no reason why it would conceal all the untrue statements...

[Segev]

(A) Should I declare, with Emperor Tippy, that the Mind Blank spell blocks all spells of the Divination school that "gather information," a set which, in the absence of any new and clever distinction (and good luck finding one), is likely to include the entire school?

(B) Or should I declare, with Curmudgeon, that the Mind Blank spell blocks only a relatively small subset of Divinations, including (1) those that gather information about a creature's mind (i.e., thoughts, feelings, alignment, et cetera), (2) those that belong to the Scrying subschool, and (3) the Discern Location spell (because this spell's own description says so)?


First off, as another noted, you're missing that there are Diviniation spells which don't gather information by their wording (but imply some amount of information granted in their fluff). Technically, by a strict RAW reading, things like Foresight and True Strike would still work against a subject of Mind Blank and his actions. True Strike, for example, grants a bonus to hit and lets you ignore miss chances; it doesn't by the RAW state that it's "gathering information," even if you read fluff in between the lines about how it's giving you this accuracy.

Secondly, I still think you can have True Seeing penetrate illusions and the like about the subject of a Mind Blank and not have Mind Blank's prohibition against gathering information on the subject be violated. Just because you can True See that the "dragon" there is actually polymorphed from some other form doesn't mean that you can tell what the true form is. Normally, True Seeing would let you do both, but Mind Blank forbids the second. The first is identifying a spell in effect by recognizing the spell's falsehood; the second would be divining information about the subject of the Mind Blank spell.

[Pan151]

the second would be divining information about the subject of the Mind Blank spell.

No, it would simply be looking at it with your eyes. No divining of any sort involved.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

A Divination spell can not directly provide anyone with *any* information about a creature under the effects of Mind Blank.

True Seeing directly provides information to the user on every creature viewed during the spells duration; ergo True Seeing is blocked by Mind Blank.

True Seeing does not cause you to gain information about anything, it prevents you from gaining false information. When you filter out the false information, your mundane eyes gain information that would have otherwise been hidden by the magical effects that do not benefit from Mind Blank's protection.

[Dalebert]

True Seeing does not cause you to gain information about anything, it prevents you from gaining false information. When you filter out the false information, your mundane eyes gain information that would have otherwise been hidden by the magical effects that do not benefit from Mind Blank's protection.

Yeah, it's been said 18 different ways now. Ergo, people are set in their conclusions one way or the other and are going to treat it differently in their respective games. I agree, fwiw.

[Segev]

No, it would simply be looking at it with your eyes. No divining of any sort involved.

A valid argument, but no more supported by the rules than "letting you see past the illusion is divination."

In other words, I would say neither a DM who ruled your way, Pan151, nor a DM who ruled that True Seeing was only "partially" effective as I've described was engaging in house rules. Both are valid interpretations of the RAW.

From a balance perspective intended to keep a 6th level spell from trumping spells half again its level to the point of invalidating entire chaster archetypes, I'd push for the DM to go with the latter, but that's not a RAW debate so much as a balance debate.

[Duke of Urrel]

First off, as another noted, you're missing that there are Diviniation spells which don't gather information by their wording (but imply some amount of information granted in their fluff). Technically, by a strict RAW reading, things like Foresight and True Strike would still work against a subject of Mind Blank and his actions. True Strike, for example, grants a bonus to hit and lets you ignore miss chances; it doesn't by the RAW state that it's "gathering information," even if you read fluff in between the lines about how it's giving you this accuracy.

Since writing my last comment about distinctions of the kind you are trying to draw ("Good luck with that"), I have come to regret my snarkiness a little. Several people, including both you and Pan151, have since proposed some very clever distinctions. Moreover, I sympathize with your aim, which is to prevent the Mind Blank spell from becoming too powerful.

However, as the length of this thread demonstrates, nobody's concept of what is or is not "gathering information" is acceptable to everybody. In recognition of your reasonableness, I should admit that Curmudgeon's interpretation of the text of the Mind Blank spell, according to which this abjuration blocks only Divinations that gather information about a creature's mind, may even be less defensible than your distinction between Divinations that gather information and those that don't. However, the advantage of your view with respect to defensibility, given the stubbornness of other people's opinions as they are, is likely to be only marginal.

As an example of this stubbornness, I could point to myself. I prefer Curmudgeon's interpretation. I may not have made that completely clear in my lengthy previous posting. The reason I approvingly quoted StreamOfTheSky's interpretation of the Nondetection spell was only to reassure myself and others that I don't want the True Seeing spell to be overpowered, either.

And why did I declare myself in favor of Curmudgeon's view? It wasn't because I consider other people's interpretations, such as yours, to be less defensible. It was because I consider Curmudgeon's interpretation to be the simplest next to Emperor Tippy's, which I reject because I believe it overpowers the Mind Blank spell.* No interpretation will satisfy everybody, after all. In view of this, I sometimes just prefer to go with an interpretation that I find easy to implement, rather than one that is perfectly nuanced or even better balanced. That is what I've done here.

If I find myself in a group of players who cannot accept Curmudgeon's solution, because they've often played with a more powerful version of the Mind Blank spell before and don't want it to be nerfed by their dungeon master in the name of simplicity; or, alternatively, if I find myself in a group of players who cannot accept either Curmudgeon's or Emperor Tippy's solution, because they prefer a more nuanced or balanced interpretation of the Mind Blank spell in place of a simpler one, then of course an interpretation more like yours will become necessary. Under these circumstances, I would happily declare myself one of your supporters (or one of Pan151's, as the case may be).
_______________________
*I also find Curmudgeon's argument, that the first sentence of the Mind Blank spell's description restricts the second one, to be very reasonable. It rarely happens in the rule books that one sentence implicitly restricts the one that follows, but I believe it does happen occasionally, and here is one place where I believe it does. Another place where it happens, I believe, is in the definition of "Natural Abilities," a point that I have tried to make in another thread, in two places (on page one here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369536-Shapechange-Spells-and-Spell-like-Abilities), and on page two here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369536-Shapechange-Spells-and-Spell-like-Abilities/page2)).

[Segev]

Imminently reasonable. I would not fault anybody for using Emperor Tippy's or Curmudgeon's interpretations as house rules. Ultimately, when the DM has to make a value judgment of the RAW, house rulings are mandatory. My goal was less to state the most balanced possible option and more to give the best interpretation I could within the RAW to maximize balance while not requiring the house ruling to be an explicit override of the RAW.

...though I have to backtrack a little; I agree that Emperor Tippy's interpretation is a bit too powerful, so I would argue with a DM who wishes to use it on the grounds that it's probably better to use a more restricted ruling on what Mind Blank prevents. So as long as we're house ruling with little regard for avoiding contradiction with the RAW, I'd suggest something that did not make Mind Blank invalidate True Seeing entirely.

By the same token, however, True Seeing is only a 6th level spell; there SHOULD be ways for dedicated illusionists to overcome or circumvent it. (Similarly, dedicated diviners should be able to overcome or circumvent those higher-level illusionist tricks. Arms racing should not stop with level 6 spells!)

[Zanos]

True Seeing does not cause you to gain information about anything, it prevents you from gaining false information. When you filter out the false information, your mundane eyes gain information that would have otherwise been hidden by the magical effects that do not benefit from Mind Blank's protection.
Seeing someone who has been transmuted into a dragon as a dragon is not gaining false information. They look like a dragon because they are physically a dragon.

[Sith_Happens]

Let me ask everyone in this thread the following: Does Mind Blank block Detect Evil?

Once you've answered that question, open the spoiler:


You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

Detect Evil and True Seeing both operate in the same way, in that they provide the affected creature with the ability to perceive certain information, as opposed to providing that information directly.

Therefore, Mind Blank blocks True Seeing if and only if it blocks Detect Evil.

[Segev]

Let me ask everyone in this thread the following: Does Mind Blank block Detect Evil?

Once you've answered that question, open the spoiler:



Detect Evil and True Seeing both operate in the same way, in that they provide the affected creature with the ability to perceive certain information, as opposed to providing that information directly.

Therefore, Mind Blank blocks True Seeing if and only if it blocks Detect Evil.

Let me start by saying that I do think Detect Evil is blocked by Mind Blank.

I disagree that True Seeing is analogous. Detect Evil provides extra information via magical divination about the nature of the beings before you. True Seeing can be argued to do nothing of the sort: it strips away illusions and pierces false guises, leaving your normal senses to perceive. Alternatively, it can be said to both reveal the falsehood AND give divined information about the truth, in which case you would know you were seeing something false but be unable to tell what the obscured truth is.

In either case, it is not shut down completely, while Detect Evil absolutely is.

[Chronos]

Important distinction between True Seeing and Detect Evil: If True Seeing works, then you see the exact same thing you would see if there were no magic at all. Detect Evil, however, tells you more than you would learn with no magic at all.

[Sith_Happens]

Important distinction between True Seeing and Detect Evil: If True Seeing works, then you see the exact same thing you would see if there were no magic at all. Detect Evil, however, tells you more than you would learn with no magic at all.

That is only indirectly relevant to most of the arguments in this thread. The main argument in True Seeing's favor is that it enhances your own faculties rather than actually telling you anything. The way Detect Evil is worded it does the same.

[Telok]

Just a thought...

Both Foresight and Moment of Prescience say "This spell grants you a powerful sixth sense in relation to yourself..." and both are divination spells. Therefore a person under the effects of Mind Blank cannot benefit from those spells under Emperor Tippy's definition because the divination spells give you information about someone protected by Mind Blank. There are no exceptions written in any of the three spells that allow either the self divinations to penetrate Mind Blank, or for a Mind Blanked person to accept divinations.

Likewise it would seem that a person under Mind Blank cannot benefit from True Strike or Know Location. Tougues and Comprehend Languages may also be affected.

[bekeleven]

I agree with foresight and MoP, but I don't see how mind blank stops true strike.

It also stops morale bonuses, by the way, as long as they come from spells. It's hardly an unmitigated positive.

[ngilop]

True Seeing directly provides information to the user on every creature viewed during the spells duration; ergo True Seeing is blocked by Mind Blank.
I like this definition. as the one guy said earlier about freedom of movement prevent death I can say it like thus

freedom of movement directly provides a boon to the user in that during the spells duration, all things that would halt or impede movement are nullified; ergo death is prevented by freedom of movement.


YAAAY!!!!

[bekeleven]

Death prevents actions. If you can act while dead, you can escape grapples just fine. Freedom of movement still works!

[Shalist]

Detect Evil and True Seeing both operate in the same way, in that they provide the affected creature with the ability to perceive certain information, as opposed to providing that information directly.

Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched

Range: 60 ft.
Area: Cone-shaped emanationThey're similar in the way that frost weapon (which adds 1d6 cold damage to your weapon) and cone of cold are similar.

[Segev]

A lack of desire to act prevents actions. Therefore, Freedom of Movement frees you from the compulsion imposed by your own will not to move. You are FORCED to take actions every round at every opportunity!

Heck, it not being your turn prevents actions, so Freedom of Movement enables you to act on every turn with every kind of action an infinite number of times, and requires you to do so because your desire not to act would prevent actions and is thus negated by Freedom of Movement!

[ngilop]

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell.

that's what freedom of movement says and since we are going ont his hugely open and completely liberaly definition of what insituute information in this game then im retty sure thatdeath prevents you form moving or attacking normally, so just cast F o M on a dude an for 10min/level he is effectly invulnerable and immortal.

[Vogonjeltz]

A lack of desire to act prevents actions. Therefore, Freedom of Movement frees you from the compulsion imposed by your own will not to move. You are FORCED to take actions every round at every opportunity!

Heck, it not being your turn prevents actions, so Freedom of Movement enables you to act on every turn with every kind of action an infinite number of times, and requires you to do so because your desire not to act would prevent actions and is thus negated by Freedom of Movement!


This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally

Wait wut? That sounds like abnormal movement

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder, MB explicitly blocks See Invisibility, so by extension it blocks True Seeing as well.

[bekeleven]

A lack of desire to act prevents actions. Therefore, Freedom of Movement frees you from the compulsion imposed by your own will not to move. You are FORCED to take actions every round at every opportunity!

Heck, it not being your turn prevents actions, so Freedom of Movement enables you to act on every turn with every kind of action an infinite number of times, and requires you to do so because your desire not to act would prevent actions and is thus negated by Freedom of Movement!That is the opposite of sense. Anything that prevents actions is not changed by freedom of movement. Anything that affects movement is.

Thus, if you can take actions while dead, you can swim and escape grapples normally.

Look at it this way: Hold Person, yes. Sleep, yes. Entangle, no. Black tentacles, no.

[Segev]

Now I know how Schroedinger felt when people thought his allegory of the cat was intended to be instructive of how Quantum Superposition worked, rather than illustrative of the nonsense behind assuming something to be two contrary things at once just because you don't know.