Does mind blank protect against true seeing?

[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, and on page two here).

[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:

Spoiler

Show

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:

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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 emanation

They'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.