does mind blank stop evidence of the person

[you randomly]

as the title does mind blank prevent evidence of someone being there like footprints and such from being seen?

[Venger]

as the title does mind blank prevent evidence of someone being there like footprints and such from being seen?

absolutely not. what gave you that impression?

[Geddy2112]

"The subject is protected from all devices and spells that gather information about the target through divination magic"

It says nothing about mundane means, so no. It simply makes you immune to divinations and very resistant to mind affecting magic.

[legomaster00156]

Might I suggest flying?

[Zombulian]

https://preview.ibb.co/fEP1DF/IMG_1428.jpg

Wait... what?

[Rainshine]

As mentioned, no.

However, there is Pass Without Trace (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/passWithoutTrace.htm), which prevents footprint/scent tracking.

[haplot]

Although you might want to get your own wings or form of flying, otherwise they could use divination on your mount :D

[lbuttitta]

as the title does mind blank prevent evidence of someone being there like footprints and such from being seen?
No, but the spell pass without trace stops you from being tracked via footprints, scent, etc.

[you randomly]

Well the point was that mind blank does truly stop you from being devined only from people see who you are you still need to prevent the mundane means of tracking by sight so that people can't work out how many of you there are.
The reason I asked was because of a previous post someone made where they were having issues with scrying

[Psyren]

Mind Blank stops you from being detected but it won't stop the things you do from being detected. If you're mind blanked in a room and someone is scrying on that room, they won't see you. But if you knock a vase off the shelf and cause it to shatter into a million pieces on the floor, the person scrying will see that happen. Similarly, they'll see if you're leaving tracks in the mud, but not who is making said tracks. (Basically it will look like someone invisible is in that area.)

[Zanos]

as the title does mind blank prevent evidence of someone being there like footprints and such from being seen?
Only if the footprints are being viewed with divination magic.


Well the point was that mind blank does truly stop you from being devined only from people see who you are you still need to prevent the mundane means of tracking by sight so that people can't work out how many of you there are.
The reason I asked was because of a previous post someone made where they were having issues with scrying
Mundane tracking works fine. If it's being augmented by divination then you have problems.

The check is pretty simple. If a divination gets you more information about a creature and they have mind blank up, it doesn't.


Mind Blank stops you from being detected but it won't stop the things you do from being detected. If you're mind blanked in a room and someone is scrying on that room, they won't see you. But if you knock a vase off the shelf and cause it to shatter into a million pieces on the floor, the person scrying will see that happen. Similarly, they'll see if you're leaving tracks in the mud, but not who is making said tracks. (Basically it will look like someone invisible is in that area.)
Any divination spell being used in any way to gain more information about is blocked by mind blank.

[Psyren]

Any divination spell being used in any way to gain more information about is blocked by mind blank.

"This spell lets me see the tracks you're leaving on the floor" is not actually providing information about you. I might, through wholly mundane deduction, learn some things about you by analyzing those tracks (e.g. that you wear plate boots or have a limp) but the magic itself is not giving me that information. Therefore it works.

[DeTess]

Any divination spell being used in any way to gain more information about is blocked by mind blank.

So, in the previous example, the vase would be unshattered? And if so, when would the real state of the vase be revealed to scrying? Would there be an unshattered vase there for all eternity when people look at the coalition with scrying? Your ruling makes sense from a pure RAW point of view, but it kinda causes some logic to break down if taken to extremes.

[Shalist]

Your ruling makes sense from a pure RAW point of view, but it kinda causes some logic to break down if taken to extremes.Sums it up in a nutshell; literal RAW in this instance is internally inconsistent. In this case, it is far better to keep it simple, i.e. "the spell protects the individual, but not literally everything about them."

Literal RAW, mindblank would even prevent reading about them with divinations (i.e. scholar's touch or scrying), meaning if you wrote a bunch of true/false statements about them and viewed them with such divinations, the true statements would be rendered invisible.

Though even with literal RAW, augmented senses (i.e. true seeing, see invisibility, as opposed to 60' detection cones, scrying, and such) would be unaffected, as they augment the person they're cast on, rather than affecting the protected individual or providing information about them directly.

[Necroticplague]

Literal RAW, mindblank would even prevent reading about them with divinations (i.e. scholar's touch or scrying), meaning if you wrote a bunch of true/false statements about them and viewed them with such divinations, the true statements would be rendered invisible.

Under that logic, wouldn't the false questions also be invisible? After all, knowing something about them is false is giving you information about them.

[Zanos]

So, in the previous example, the vase would be unshattered? And if so, when would the real state of the vase be revealed to scrying? Would there be an unshattered vase there for all eternity when people look at the coalition with scrying? Your ruling makes sense from a pure RAW point of view, but it kinda causes some logic to break down if taken to extremes.
That's for the DM to determine. RAW is just that you don't get any more information about the subject of a mindblank through divinations under any circumstances.


"This spell lets me see the tracks you're leaving on the floor" is not actually providing information about you. I might, through wholly mundane deduction, learn some things about you by analyzing those tracks (e.g. that you wear plate boots or have a limp) but the magic itself is not giving me that information. Therefore it works.
You can make the same argument about anything. "Me scrying this room doesn't actually tell me anything about you it just lets me use entirely mundane deduction to tell me where you are!"

[Shalist]

Under that logic, wouldn't the false questions also be invisible? After all, knowing something about them is false is giving you information about them.Nah, mindblank protects from divinations and such, not from perfectly natural and mundane logical deductions (however informative they may be), thus there is no reason for it to hide statements that lack any information about the individual.

This is just another of those quirky unintended consequences that overly strict adherence to the RAW gives us.:smallcool:

[Psyren]

You can make the same argument about anything. "Me scrying this room doesn't actually tell me anything about you it just lets me use entirely mundane deduction to tell me where you are!"

You say that like it's somehow a rebuttal but that's exactly right. If you're in a banquet hall scarfing down all the food, the fact that the food keeps getting bite marks in it before eventually vanishing is going to clue me in that someone is in there. The spell itself didn't give me that information, my magnificent brain did.

Going back to the vase example, what do YOU think happens if a mind blanked person breaks that vase?

[Necroticplague]

Nah, mindblank protects from divinations and such, not from perfectly natural and mundane logical deductions (however informative they may be), thus there is no reason for it to hide statements that lack any information about the individual.

Except that a false statement is still information. After all, knowing that someone isn't an orc is at least one piece of information. Thus, the spell directly gave me more information (information about what they aren't). Thus, Mind Blank should protect against it.

[Zanos]

You say that like it's somehow a rebuttal but that's exactly right. If you're in a banquet hall scarfing down all the food, the fact that the food keeps getting bite marks in it before eventually vanishing is going to clue me in that someone is in there. The spell itself didn't give me that information, my magnificent brain did.
Only through information you gained through a divination effect. That seems pretty clear cut to me.

Going back to the vase example, what do YOU think happens if a mind blanked person breaks that vase?[/QUOTE]
Any interpretation that results in the user of the divination spell not having more information is valid. Personally I would just have them not see the vase break.


Except that a false statement is still information. After all, knowing that someone isn't an orc is at least one piece of information. Thus, the spell directly gave me more information (information about what they aren't). Thus, Mind Blank should protect against it.
I agree.

[Psyren]

Only through information you gained through a divination effect. That seems pretty clear cut to me.

It does not stop all information. Only information specifically about the subject.



Any interpretation that results in the user of the divination spell not having more information is valid. Personally I would just have them not see the vase break.

So would the vase vanish? Or would the mind blank invent an illusory vase for the sensor? Would that persist for eternity, for anyone who scried the room during the event or after?

Seeing a vase fall and break does not give you any information about the person that broke it, if indeed a person was the cause (could have been a tectonic shift or a sudden breeze.) You are inventing your own RAW for the spell.

[Shalist]

Except that a false statement is still information. After all, knowing that someone isn't an orc is at least one piece of information. Thus, the spell directly gave me more information (information about what they aren't). Thus, Mind Blank should protect against it.I agree that a false statement is information; just, by definition, not information that pertains to the protected individual. That conclusion/information comes not from the divination, but from your logic and reason, neither of which is impaired by mindblank.

Take the following scenario. You have one normal eye, the other has been replaced by a fancy scrying sensor. You view a room full of people, one of whom is mindblank'd...

1) Would the individual appear missing to your scry-eye, and normal to your normal eye?
2) Would everyone in the room appear to be missing to your scry-eye, so that the protected individual does not stand out?
3) Would the protected individual appear normally to both eyes?

With 1 (only true statements are hidden), it would be obvious which one was the protected individual, though I'd argue this information was obtained via logic rather than the scrying itself.

With 2 (both true and false statements are hidden) it's still obvious that the room contains a minblank'd individual (i.e. even if all statements are hidden, it would still inform you, remotely and in real-time, that someone was currently mindblank'd).

And 3 (neither true nor false statements hidden) contradicts the text of the spell by allowing you to gather information about them via scrying.

How do you believe the spells would interact in this situation? If the mindblank'd individual also had a scry trap, would the diviner be aware of their sudden splitting headache and/or exploded head?

[Psyren]

How do you believe the spells would interact in this situation? If the mindblank'd individual also had a scry trap, would the diviner be aware of their sudden splitting headache and/or exploded head?

Of course not, as that would convey information. Their head must explode in such a way that they receive no knowledge that it occurred.

And people ask why I switched to Pathfinder. It's because we get very clear RAI from the designers, like this passage from Ultimate Intrigue:


The PCs are likely starting to cast mind blank as much as possible at [high levels] as well, so the villains should put in at least as much effort. Obviously, the villain won’t be able to keep all his allies and staff under mind blank, which provides plenty of opportunities for clever PCs to exploit. For instance, though scrying on a nearby ally of the villain still doesn’t reveal the villain protected by mind blank, PCs might be able to notice a one-sided conversation that indicates that someone with mind blank is present.

[you randomly]

so if you say that mind blank protects from all information about you lets set up a scenario.

you are crying a room with a group of 5 people 1 is mind blanked and another is an informant the spell you are using to scry lets you hear as well as see, your informant tells you that 4 people are infornt of him right now, but you can only see 3+the informant so you know know of the last person and that they have mind blank. but how could the mind blank have stopped this from happening

this is the same as 1 person walking passed the same sensor and leaving a footprint, eating food, knocking something over etc... but in this case, your informant is the environment and they are showing you informan they have gathered rather than telling you.

[Psyren]

so if you say that mind blank protects from all information about you lets set up a scenario.

you are crying a room with a group of 5 people 1 is mind blanked and another is an informant the spell you are using to scry lets you hear as well as see, your informant tells you that 4 people are infornt of him right now, but you can only see 3+the informant so you know know of the last person and that they have mind blank. but how could the mind blank have stopped this from happening

this is the same as 1 person walking passed the same sensor and leaving a footprint, eating food, knocking something over etc... but in this case, your informant is the environment and they are showing you informan they have gathered rather than telling you.

Clearly the power of mind blank lashes out and strikes your informant mute. Also it must do so permanently so that you can never ask him how many people were in the room at a later date either. He also loses all ability to write and gesture.

[Gildedragon]

I agree that a false statement is information; just, by definition, not information that pertains to the protected individual. That conclusion/information comes not from the divination, but from your logic and reason, neither of which is impaired by mindblank.

Take the following scenario. You have one normal eye, the other has been replaced by a fancy scrying sensor. You view a room full of people, one of whom is mindblank'd...

1) Would the individual appear missing to your scry-eye, and normal to your normal eye?
2) Would everyone in the room appear to be missing to your scry-eye, so that the protected individual does not stand out?
3) Would the protected individual appear normally to both eyes?

With 1 (only true statements are hidden), it would be obvious which one was the protected individual, though I'd argue this information was obtained via logic rather than the scrying itself.

With 2 (both true and false statements are hidden) it's still obvious that the room contains a minblank'd individual (i.e. even if all statements are hidden, it would still inform you, remotely and in real-time, that someone was currently mindblank'd).

And 3 (neither true nor false statements hidden) contradicts the text of the spell by allowing you to gather information about them via scrying.

How do you believe the spells would interact in this situation? If the mindblank'd individual also had a scry trap, would the diviner be aware of their sudden splitting headache and/or exploded head?

Hmmm I'd say 3.
Information about the person was already had by means of the normal eye: hence the divining eye would not remove them (otherwise they'd gain information about them)

But because Scrying is explicitly called out to not detect the person... My guess would be an effect not unlike Nondescript. The eyes just slip past the warded person