mind blank vs Synatic Static

[Lance Tankmen]

Does it completely protect from all the effects of synaptic static or just the damage caused by the spell?

[Dork_Forge]

"The spell even foils wish spells and spells or effects of similar power used to affect the target’s mind or to gain information about the target."

I'd say that part of the spell would cover the 1d6 effect, synaptic static is a mental effect causing "muddled thoughts" so there's no reason why Mind Blank wouldn't protect from all of it.

[Bobthewizard]

I would have it protect against all of it. Rules lawyers might argue otherwise, but in my view, it makes sense that it would.

Also, someone is using an 8th level spell that only protects one target against a few specific things. Synaptic static is only a 5th level spell and would still affect other targets. It's more fun to let the Mindblank be useful here.

[Galithar]

I would agree that Mindblank should work. The final sentence quoted above about foiling wish says "used to affect the targets mind" and 'muddled thoughts' is certainly an effect to your mind.

[Dalebert]

By strict RAW I disagree that it would stop that part. Just before the part quoted, it says specifically what it stops.

"Until the spell ends one willing creature you touch is immune to psychic damage any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts divination spells and the charmed condition."

So when it goes on to talk about foiling really powerful spells "affecting a target's mind" it means in those ways.

[Galithar]

By strict RAW I disagree that it would stop that part. Just before the part quoted, it says specifically what it stops.

"Until the spell ends one willing creature you touch is immune to psychic damage any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts divination spells and the charmed condition."

So when it goes on to talk about foiling really powerful spells "affecting a target's mind" it means in those ways.

I don't agree. The rule that is written is that it stops even the most powerful spells that affect the targets mind. Not that it stops even the most powerful spells that do the things already listed.

Now that said I do completely understand where you're coming from with that. I just don't believe that when parsing the rules as written that you should ever infer or assume the meaning beyond the words that are written. It specifically says it stops even a wish or powerful spell from "affecting the target's mind", and that there should be no inference that it means the already listed effects. Now RAI, or even RAF depending on the situation, I could totally see it going with your interpretation of that second sentence. But RAW has to follow the letter of what is written.

It also seems strange to me, narratively, that an effect like Mind Blank could stop the psychic damage, but not the muddled thoughts. If Mind Blank didn't stop the charmed condition and only did mind reading type effects I would definitely agree with you, even with the exact same wording, except for the charmed condition part of course.