forsight vs mindblank

[Lightlawbliss]

This thread (first relivant post: 52) briefly mentions that foresight may or may not be stopped by mindblank. That mentioning has resulted in some heated debates among the people I play with, so I was wondering what the playground thinks.

[Darkweave31]

I'd rule no. Mindblank protects you from outside influence. Foresight does not target you, it targets the caster. Therefore there is no effect targeting you for you to be immune against. I view attempting to stretch the wording of mindblank to include things like foresight as simply making up the rules you want to see. It simply doesn't say that and I have yet to see a compelling argument that it does.

[Psyren]

The big problem with mind blank is that it stops "information gathering," which is literally the point of the entire divination school. So without some kind of clarification that one spell can turn off just about everything the enemy tries to do.They probably intended it to just be scrying and location spells but it's really poorly worded.

[jiriku]

Viewed narrowly, mind blank is brain armor. When someone tries to poke around inside your head, the spell stops them. Foresight looks into the future to view your actions; it doesn't inquire about your thoughts or motivations or alignment. Thus mind blank doesn't protect against it.

Viewed more broadly, mind blank claims that when someone scries the area you're in, they won't see you. Foresight clearly is looking at the area around the caster in order to determine what threatening actions occur. Thus mind blank protects against it and the foreseeing person gets no benefit against you.

Unfortunately, either interpretation is valid. The former one is probably the stronger case, but I'm reluctant to completely dismiss the latter. At my table, it's rare for PCs to be throwing around level 8+ spells, so the interaction has never come up. If I had to rule, I'd probably rule in favor of foresight overriding mind blank just because mind blank is extremely good for its level while foresight is fairly average, but that's a pragmatic decision based on spell balance, not a ruling based on the wording of the effects.

[jedipotter]

I have Mindblank be of no help vs Foresight.

My Mindblank uses this: . 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)

You will note Foresight is not on the list.

[Bronk]

I would also say that Mind Blank would not help against Foresight.

Foresight is a divination spell cast on a character, and most of its effects are buffs that wouldn't be affected by outside influences in the first place. Beyond that, the aspect that gives you a warning is a divination only about the target. The target is about to be stabbed, so watch out, the target is about to be enveloped in poison gas, so watch out, and so on.

Mind Blank on a target character would block the Foresight spell from being cast on that character though. (Edit: evidently it would not be blocked!)

[Darkweave31]

Viewed more broadly, mind blank claims that when someone scries the area you're in, they won't see you. Foresight clearly is looking at the area around the caster in order to determine what threatening actions occur. Thus mind blank protects against it and the foreseeing person gets no benefit against you.

Do you have a rules quote to back that up? Because foresight clearly states: "This spell grants you a powerful sixth sense in relation to yourself or another" (another in this case referring to when you cast the spell on an ally), and not: "you scry the area to warn of impending danger." If it were the case you have essentially just made it an unlimited AoE spell... so locate city bomb, only better

Foresight does not target the hypothetical mindblanked rogue, nor does it create an area of effect in which the mind blanked rogue could be in. It targets the caster (or friend) and gives the caster information in relation to themself (or friend), not the hypothetical rogue. Therefore the hypothetical mindblanked rogue cannot be immune to that which never targets them.

[Bakkan]

I would rule that foresight works even when being attacked by someone with mind blank up because it tells you about your future, not about any other specific person's actions. Similarly, if a cleric cast augury before entering a room filled with a hundred hostile assassins with mind blank up, I would have it give a "woe" answer, since the spell is looking at the (potential) future of the caster, not of anyone else, and it doesn't really give any information about the assassins specifically.

[Lightlawbliss]

I wasn't talking about the attacker having mindblank on, I was talking about the target of foresight having mindblank on.

edit: I'm fairly sure everyone agrees the attacker having mindblank up does nothing, but foresight does say (among many similar lines)

you receive instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell.

which, along with the before mentioned other lines, can lead to strong evidence for foresight not working through mindblank (at least by RAW)

[Psyren]

I wasn't talking about the attacker having mindblank on, I was talking about the target of foresight having mindblank on.

edit: I'm fairly sure everyone agrees the attacker having mindblank up does nothing, but foresight does say (among many similar lines)

which, along with the before mentioned other lines, can lead to strong evidence for foresight not working through mindblank (at least by RAW)

As I said in my response to you, that reasoning can be applied to the entire divination school. Which means you've got one spell that shuts down two entire schools of magic. 3.5 is silly enough as it is.

[Lightlawbliss]

As I said in my response to you, that reasoning can be applied to the entire divination school. Which means you've got one spell that shuts down two entire schools of magic. 3.5 is silly enough as it is.

I thank you for the fact you answered the question I gave and insure you that my statement was not directed at you but at those who were responding as If the question was about if the attacker had mindblank.

[Duke of Urrel]

The Foresight spell either works or does not work to protect an ally who is also warded by the Mind Blank spell, depending on whether you believe that the second sentence of the Mind Blank spell's description is limited by the first sentence or not.

As you may recall from the thread you quoted, most commenters agree with the general claim of Emperor Tippy that the second sentence of the Mind Blank spell, as an independent clause, should be interpreted independently of the first. Therefore, the Mind Blank spell blocks all Divinations that "gather information" of any kind about the warded subject.* If you accept this interpretation, then you must accept this as a possible consequence: Since the Foresight spell works by gathering information about the creature you have touched, it must fail if the creature is already warded by the Mind Blank spell.**

Perhaps only a minority of commenters accept the view offered by Curmudgeon, which is that the first sentence of the Mind Blank spell limits the second sentence, so that this spell, in general, blocks only those Divinations that gather information about the subject's mind. (It also blocks Divinations of the Scrying subschool, even though these spells do not probe any creature's mind, because the Mind Blank spell's own description says so; and it blocks the Discern Location spell, even though this spell does not probe any creature's mind, because this spell's description says so.) However, I am one of the commenters who agree with Curmudgeon. I also believe the Foresight spell (at least as a Touch spell) works without having to gather any information from the mind of the creature that it wards.

As Bakkan suggested, the Foresight spell works by warning you of threats in your ally's immediate future. When you bestow the Foresight spell upon an ally, I believe you are not trying to find out anything about your ally's mind, because you probably already have a good idea of your ally's intentions. Rather, you are trying to detect dangers that threaten from outside your ally's mind and body. If the Mind Blank spell, as I choose to believe, prevents only gathering information from your subject's mind, then it shouldn't stop the Foresight spell from gathering information about dangers in your subject's surroundings.

EDIT: I'm not sure whether you can benefit fully from the Foresight spell if you yourself are the subject of the Mind Blank spell and you use Foresight as a Personal spell. One may argue that in order to bestow the insight bonus of +2 upon your Armor Class and Reflex saves, the Foresight spell must have some insight into your own intentions. The Mind Blank spell may prevent this by blocking access to your own mind. You may still gain the other benefit of the Foresight spell, namely warnings of impending danger or harm, only not the insight bonus. EDIT EDIT: On second thought, scratch this idea. The Mind Blank spell shouldn't block your access to your own intentions. As long as you know what you want to do, the Foresight spell should help you do it by bestowing an insight bonus.
______________________
*There was, of course, much disagreement about whether a given Divination spell – for example, the True Seeing spell – does or does not work by "gathering information." This disagreement kept the thread going for several pages.

**EDIT: I say that you must accept this as a possible consequence. Darkweave31 would argue, I think, that this consequence can be avoided. However, not everybody will agree with Darkweave31.

[Vogonjeltz]

This thread (first relivant post: 52) briefly mentions that foresight may or may not be stopped by mindblank. That mentioning has resulted in some heated debates among the people I play with, so I was wondering what the playground thinks.

Foresight doesn't do this:

The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts.

And it doesn't do this:

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

And it doesn't do anything here:

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.

So long as the target for Mind Blank isn't also the target for Foresight, there's no interference.

However, Mind Blank would stop this part of Foresight (if Foresight was cast on the same target as Mind Blank)

Once foresight is cast, you receive instantaneous warnings of impending danger or harm to the subject of the spell.

So to summarize:
Both spells cast on the same target: Mind Blank stops someone from gaining the perks of Foresight if they cast both on themselves, or it will stop the caster of Foresight from being warned if the target of Mindblank+Foresight is in danger.

Mind Blank cast on one character, Foresight on another: No interference as no information is gathered about anyone else.

[Slithery D]

I'd rule no. Mindblank protects you from outside influence. Foresight does not target you, it targets the caster. Therefore there is no effect targeting you for you to be immune against. I view attempting to stretch the wording of mindblank to include things like foresight as simply making up the rules you want to see. It simply doesn't say that and I have yet to see a compelling argument that it does.

[Emphasis added by me.]

Pathfinder has an infernal duke who counters this view of Foresight. Lorthact has an ability, Temporal Anomoly, that prevents spells that predict the future, including Foresight, from perceiving him or granting any information about him. If Foresight saw the effected creature's future, rather than those who interact with him, this wouldn't work.

This also lends weight to the Tippy position, at least in Pathfinder, that Mind Blank prevents Foresight from telling what an attacker with MB up is going to do.

[Duke of Urrel]

I have a small objection to what Slithery D wrote.

The Foresight spell's statistics block identifies it as a Target spell with a range of either Personal or Touch. The description of the Foresight spell indicates that its subject may be either you or an ally, namely the creature that you touch. Generally speaking, the subject of a Target spell is that spell's target. In other words, when you cast the Foresight spell upon yourself, that is, as a Personal spell, the spell targets you. When you bestow it upon an ally, that is, as a Touch spell, the spell targets your ally.

Of course, when you use Foresight to protect an ally, you are the one who gets the advance warning of harms and dangers, not your ally. So there are really two creatures affected by magic when you use the Foresight spell as a Touch spell: you and your ally. I do not object to the view that when you use the Foresight spell to protect an ally, it has two "targets," namely your ally and you, even though you go unmentioned in the spell's statistics block.

There are several spells with a range of Touch that affect both the spellcaster and another creature, the one that the spellcaster touches. The spellcaster often goes unmentioned, even though he or she is the first one to be affected by the spell's magic. In these cases, I consider it okay to say that the spellcaster, too, is a "target" of the spell, despite not being mentioned in the spell's statistics block.

Consider the several spells that are bestowed by mêlée touch attack. These generally allow you, the spellcaster, to hold the charge until you get the opportunity to touch an enemy. The statistics block of the Shocking Grasp spell, for example, identifies its target only as the "creature or object touched." Even so, until you, the spellcaster, actually touch some target, you are the one who carries the magic, not your target. You are therefore the first creature to be affected by the Shocking Grasp spell, and I don't think it's wrong to call you the spell's "primary target" – even though you go unmentioned in the spell's statistics block – and I don't think it's wrong to call the creature that you touch the "secondary target." Other spells that work this way, but that fail to mention the spellcaster as a target, include Chill Touch, Death Knell, Dispel Chaos, Dispel Evil, Dispel Good, Dispel Law, and Vampiric Touch.

The Sending spell mentions as its target only the creature to which you send a message. However, you may also receive a response from the targeted creature. Therefore, I do not object to the notion that the creature's response "targets" you just as your message targeted the creature. So once again, we have a spell that explicitly targets a creature mentioned in the spell's statistics block, but implicitly also targets the spellcaster. The same can be said for the Demand spell.

Similarly, the statistics block of the Magic Jar spell mentions "one creature" as the spell's target, but clearly, this spell also has a radical magical effect on you, the spellcaster. I do not object to calling you the "primary target" of the Magic Jar spell, even though the spell's statistics block mentions only the secondary target of the spell, the creature whose body you possess, as the spell's target.

The Refuge spell may also be interpreted as having two targets, one of which goes unmentioned in the spell's statistics block. However, in this case, the statistics block mentions the spell's primary target, namely the object that you transform into an activatable teleportation device, but neglects to mention its secondary target, the creature that uses this device by breaking it. This creature is mentioned only in the spell's description.

So in conclusion, I can understand where your reasoning comes from, but it does not work for the Foresight spell, because this spell does not necessarily target only the creature that it informs, namely the spellcaster. When you use this spell to protect an ally, it targets that ally – as well as you – as the "subject of the spell."

Postscript: You may wonder why I care about these details, or how I happened to have this list of spells ready at hand. It's because I once asked myself whether the Detect Magic spell detects magic only in a spell's target, or perhaps elsewhere as well. I concluded that magic is usually detectable only in a spell's target, but that sometimes, a spell has a second target that goes unmentioned in the spell's statistics block, maybe because the rule writers thought that this target was too obvious to need mentioning. If you're holding the charge of the Shocking Grasp spell, or if you're receiving a message from the Sending spell, I believe you radiate detectable magic in the form of a magic aura. It doesn't make sense to me that only the explicit target of the Shocking Grasp spell radiates detectable magic, whereas the spellcaster with the weaponized hand (which probably gives off visible sparks) does not; and it doesn't make sense to me that only the explicit target of the Sending spell radiates detectable magic upon receiving a telepathic message, but not the spellcaster who sent it.