Does mind blank protect against true seeing?

[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.

Spoiler: Backstory

Show

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 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.

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.

Spoiler: Backstory

Show

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.