Got a player telling me he can probe thoughts through walls and with out line of site. I told him he can't do that because he needs line of site. I also told him that if you probe someone they always know who did it. What is your guys thoughts on this?
1) The spell has V and S components, so it's generally visually and auditorally obvious a spell has been cast.
2) As explicitly stated in the spell, while concentrating, you can focus on a creature you can see to read surface thoughts. By definition, this requires line of sight.
3) You can probe deeper while focusing, but the los restriction is not lifted.
4) The spell itself targets yourself, so this works through transparent cover, such as a wall of force, regardless of local GM rulings on how spells generally work with transparent cover.
5) You can use the detect presence aspect of the spell without line of sight or effect, as explicitly spelled out in the spell. Once you've done so, then and only then you can detect surface thoughts and probe without los or loe.
6) Reading surface thoughts and detecting presences reveal nothing to the victims. Probing deeper *does*, but what the victim knows is *someone* is probing deeper - the caster isn't highlighted in their vision or anything. GM fiat dictates whether a given caster has a distinctive "feel" to their probe, so they know if the same person probes them later.
Got a player telling me he can probe thoughts through walls and with out line of site. I told him he can't do that because he needs line of site.
You are wrong.
You can also use this spell to detect the presence of thinking creatures you can't see. When you cast the spell or as your action during the duration, you can search for thoughts within 30 feet of you. The spell can penetrate barriers, but 2 feet of rock, 2 inches of any metal other than lead, or a thin sheet of lead blocks you. You can't detect a creature with an Intelligence of 3 or lower or one that doesn't speak any language.
Once you detect the presence of a creature in this way, you can read its thoughts for the rest of the duration as described above, even if you can't see it, but it must still be within range.
I also told him that if you probe someone they always know who did it.
You are correct.
If you probe deeper, the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. If it fails, you gain insight into its reasoning (if any), its emotional state, and something that looms large in its mind (such as something it worries over, loves, or hates). If it succeeds, the spell ends. Either way, the target knows that you are probing into its mind, and unless you shift your attention to another creature's thoughts, the creature can use its action on its turn to make an Intelligence check contested by your Intelligence check; if it succeeds, the spell ends.
My thoughts are both you and the player need to pay more attention when reading spell text.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I don't think Cyber is correct that the spell miraculously informs targets who may have never heard of you nor seen you in their entire lives who you are. "Knows that you are probing" does not necessarily imply any knowledge beyond that someone is probing, and they may recognize the feel of the probe. Otherwise you'll need to invent from whole cloth what the spell tells a target who can't see or hear you.
I don't think Cyber is correct that the spell miraculously informs targets who may have never heard of you nor seen you in their entire lives who you are. "Knows that you are probing" does not necessarily imply any knowledge beyond that someone is probing, and they may recognize the feel of the probe. Otherwise you'll need to invent from whole cloth what the spell tells a target who can't see or hear you.
Spells do what they say. It says "knows you are probing" not "knows somebody is probing". They don't learn your entire history or identity, they may only get a mental image of you, perhaps, but we're sliding into DM territory there.
It specifically says "you".
See also spells like Friends and Charm Person which also state it knows "you" used the spell to affect them.
Spells specifically refer to the caster whenever they say "you". There is no ambiguity here. If you probe the mind, the target learns that you, specifically, are the one doing it - meaning they are going to recognise you if they ever meet you face-to-face. It's the risk you face when you decide to probe the mind.
This is intentional design to limit the spell as a trade for the low-cost. It's so you can't probe with free abandon and learn all their secrets just because you're using Disguise Self or are doing it from out of sight or whatever. It is designed to have repercussions for the use. This is why it has such a powerful effect for a 2nd level spell.
You may rule otherwise in your games, of course. But this forum is for discussing RAW and the RAW says, very specifically, "you" not "somebody".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I just wanted to clarify that the spell caster could probe the mind of a target out of line of sight. My only question is why would they even mention line of sight in the first part of the spell if you could do that? I feel like reading thoughts is just another way to say reading surface thoughts. I reads to me like the spell is written into two separate parts.
I just wanted to clarify that the spell caster could probe the mind of a target out of line of sight. My only question is why would they even mention line of sight in the first part of the spell if you could do that? I feel like reading thoughts is just another way to say reading surface thoughts. I reads to me like the spell is written into two separate parts.
I think it's because the option to use it without line of sight comes with the inherent ability to become aware of anyone around you. You could pick up on thoughts from an invisible enemy, for instance. Line of sight is easier and direct, but without line of sight you have to 'search' for them first : so it would take 2 actions instead of 1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Detect thoughts has this as the second sentence of the spell effect:
When you cast the spell and as your action on each turn until the spell ends, you can focus your mind on any one creature that you can see within 30 feet of you.
And later it has an effect that can detect presences through walls followed by this paragraph:
Once you detect the presence of a creature in this way, you can read its thoughts for the rest of the duration as described above, even if you can't see it, but it must still be within range.
So the answer is a completely serious: "yes, but actually no."
You can use this spell secretly by casting before you enter a room, then entering and scanning each person in the room before the duration expires, or scanning one person during a conversation to get extra info. You can probe deeper, but the target will feel it and know immediately you are doing it - which will probably not be taken kindly.
The spell could also be used from outside the room entirely, but you would not actually know whose thoughts you are detecting. You could get a vague idea of what people in a room are thinking, but when you walked in you could not be sure which person had been thinking which thing you detected earlier. I would rule that probing deeper successfully will reveal to you the identity of the person you are probing, but they will learn your identity at the same time - and if they recognize the spell then they will know you are very nearby at that exact moment.
I have a question. Im in a round with someone who wants to read my mind. So player wants to read players mind, is this even possible and if can i block it with something? Or what are the counters to this?
I have a question. Im in a round with someone who wants to read my mind. So player wants to read players mind, is this even possible and if can i block it with something? Or what are the counters to this?
If your DM allows player versus player interactions, then yes it is perfectly possible for a player or NPC to use Detect Thoughts and read your character's mind.
If you have not taken precautions against it then anyone using Detect Thoughts can read your character's surface thoughts without your character knowing it. If your character is able to see them casting the spell then your character could cast Counterspell or Dispel Magic if they have access to these. If not, then nothing else you can do. You would need to consider what surface thoughts your character would have in the moment and relay this to the player/DM.
If the user of Detect Thoughts decides to probe further to access more information like memories or deeper emotions then you make a Wisdom saving throw against the user's spellcasting DC. If you succeed then you block their attempts and their Detect Thoughts spell ends. Success or fail you become aware that they are reading your thoughts. Even if you failed the saving throw, you still become aware and if they are still reading your thoughts on you turn, you can make an attempt to end the spell by using an action : you both make intelligence checks, if your check equals or exceeds theirs, the Detect Thoughts spell ends. Even if you fail that check, you can repeat this every action/turn if they are still reading your character's mind.
There are spells that can help you defend against Detect Thoughts from working on you.:
Intellect Fortress provides advantage against Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma saving throws. This can help protect you if they try to probe deeper. Similarly, there's Resistance and Bless which both provide 1d4 bonuses to saving throws and Guidance will provide 1d4 bonus to the Intelligence check.
Note these only help with the spell Detect Thoughts. There can be features and abilities that are able to read your character's mind without the use of the spell. What defences you have, like saving throws, etc, will be specific to each feature/ability.
Mind Blank is a spell that can completely protect your mind and thoughts from basically everything - making you entirely immune to all such things.
There's also items that can help from providing bonuses to the checks or saving throws while some, like Ring of Mind Shielding will completely block all magical attempts to read your thoughts.
There are some races that can help you against Detect Thoughts by providing advantage on the Wisdom save, such as Gnomes, Satyrs, and Yuan-ti.
Hope this helps?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The bit about the spell being unable to penetrate certain types of barriers makes me think that it might be possible to wear some sort of helmet like Magneto from the X-Men comic books. This would require DM approval of course.
Also -- just throwing it out there -- there is a possible interpretation where pretty much all of the above suggested ways to counter Detect Thoughts would fail. This is because Detect Thoughts is a spell that targets "self" and imbues that target with a new special ability -- to read someone's thoughts. While using that ability to read someone's thoughts there is no magical effect reaching or in any way affecting that someone. The reader is simply using an ability. This is likely to be a very unpopular interpretation but it's quite valid.
The bit about the spell being unable to penetrate certain types of barriers makes me think that it might be possible to wear some sort of helmet like Magneto from the X-Men comic books. This would require DM approval of course.
Also -- just throwing it out there -- there is a possible interpretation where pretty much all of the above suggested ways to counter Detect Thoughts would fail. This is because Detect Thoughts is a spell that targets "self" and imbues that target with a new special ability -- to read someone's thoughts. While using that ability to read someone's thoughts there is no magical effect reaching or in any way affecting that someone. The reader is simply using an ability. This is likely to be a very unpopular interpretation but it's quite valid.
So that is going to need some explaining.
Intellect Fortress, Resistance, and Bless all just give bonuses to saving throws and ability checks that are relevant to to resisting Detect Thoughts. So I just don't see how any possible interpretation of Detect Thoughts, its effects, or what constitutes a target would be relevant here.
Mind Blank makes the target immune to effects that would sense its emotion or read its thoughts. Again I don't see how any possible interpretation of Detect Thoughts, its effects, or what constitutes a target would be relevant here. The actions granted by Detect Thoughts are clearly effects that sense emotions and/or read thoughts.
Globe of invulnerability states that creatures inside cannot be affected by spells of 5th level or lower cast outside. Maybe you could argue that the actions granted by Detect Thoughts are not an effect of a spell. But considering your ability to take the actions granted by Detect Thoughts is wholely dependent on the spells duration I doubt you would get much buy in for such an argument.
Nondetection only prevents its target from being targeted by divination magic. So this depends on how you define what constitutes a target of a spell. Of all of the possible arguments this seems like it has the best chance of acceptance, but like you said this is likely an unpopular opinion. What constitutes a spells target isn't explicitly defined in the rules, but there is this answer in the Sage Advice Compendium that sheds some light on what the writers mean when they say 'target': https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA244. This has also been discussed in Dragon Talks by Jeremy Crawford but I can't get a citation for that right now.
Finally I would be remiss of I didn't point out that Detect Thoughts has a range of self which in no way informs us what its target(s) are.
Finally I would be remiss of I didn't point out that Detect Thoughts has a range of self which in no way informs us what its target(s) are.
What?? That's what a range of self means. If you google the spell and end up opening the roll20 entry for it, they actually say Range: self, Target: self, which is probably where I got it from although I agree that the PHB doesn't explicitly include the Target: self entry. But that's basically what a range of self means. From Chapter 10 -> Range we have:
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
I suppose you could argue between a meaning where you target self and a meaning where it's an AOE that includes only self, but that's kind of whatever.
As for the listed countermeasures -- I wasn't really commenting on the spells that simply provide bonuses to saving throws or ability checks. I agree that these would work as intended.
So first:
Mind Blank: "is immune to psychic damage, any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts, divination spells, and the charmed condition. The spell even foils wishspells and spells or effects of similar power used to affect the target's mind or to gain information about the target.
vs
Detect Thoughts: Range: self -- "For the duration, you can read the thoughts of certain creatures"
With this interpretation, the spell caster of Detect Thoughts is affected by a magical effect. This effect enables that spellcaster to gain the ability to read minds. At that point the mind reader can just do it -- there is no magical effect leaving the mind reader's body to accomplish this any more than it requires magic to read a book. It's just an ability that the spellcaster has for the duration of the spell that affects the spellcaster. If this is the case, there is nothing within Mind Blank that would prevent this since Mind Blank specifically creates immunity to psychic damage, magical effects, spells, the charmed condition, more spells and even more spells and magical effects -- of which the mind reading ability is none of those.
I am aware that this is a pedantic argument and not RAI, but these are the words that are written in these two spell descriptions.
Similarly:
Globe of Invulnerability: "Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can't affect creatures or objects within it"
Again, with this interpretation no spell is attempting to affect the creature whose mind is being read.
Next:
Nondetection: "The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Again, neither of these would apply.
Lastly:
Ring of Mind Shielding: "you are immune to magic that allows other creatures to read your thoughts"
Nope, we're not dealing with magic either under this interpretation.
So yeah, this is the problem with the wording for pretty much every spell in the game that has a range of self that grants the spellcaster some sort of superpower. When that spellcaster then goes on to use that superpower against an enemy, that enemy isn't really being affected by the spell or its magical effect. The spell and magical effect affects the spellcaster.
Yes, I understand that no one is going to play this way. But it's one valid interpretation based on the words that are written in these (Range: Self) spell descriptions.
Finally I would be remiss of I didn't point out that Detect Thoughts has a range of self which in no way informs us what its target(s) are.
What?? That's what a range of self means. If you google the spell and end up opening the roll20 entry for it, they actually say Range: self, Target: self, which is probably where I got it from although I agree that the PHB doesn't explicitly include the Target: self entry. But that's basically what a range of self means. From Chapter 10 -> Range we have:
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
I suppose you could argue between a meaning where you target self and a meaning where it's an AOE that includes only self, but that's kind of whatever.
No, I am not arguing that Detect Thoughts is somehow an Area of Effect. The part of the Range rules you are overlooking is the very last sentence which says this:
This tells us that the effects of spells like Detect Thoughts or Crown of Stars can go beyond their Range of Self. Which is good because if this weren't true then these spells would be useless or worse than useless.
Also, I would suggest sticking with the original sources because what third parties have published have no bearing on RAW or RAI.
Mind Blank: "is immune to psychic damage, any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts, divination spells, and the charmed condition. The spell even foils wishspells and spells or effects of similar power used to affect the target's mind or to gain information about the target.
vs
Detect Thoughts: Range: self -- "For the duration, you can read the thoughts of certain creatures"
Please explain how the actions granted by Detect Thoughts do not fit the category "any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts" you helpfully quoted from Mind Blank. I honestly don't see how that is possible.
With this interpretation, the spell caster of Detect Thoughts is affected by a magical effect. This effect enables that spellcaster to gain the ability to read minds. At that point the mind reader can just do it -- there is no magical effect leaving the mind reader's body to accomplish this any more than it requires magic to read a book. It's just an ability that the spellcaster has for the duration of the spell that affects the spellcaster. If this is the case, there is nothing within Mind Blank that would prevent this since Mind Blank specifically creates immunity to psychic damage, magical effects, spells, the charmed condition, more spells and even more spells and magical effects -- of which the mind reading ability is none of those.
I am aware that this is a pedantic argument and not RAI, but these are the words that are written in these two spell descriptions.
Similarly:
Globe of Invulnerability: "Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can't affect creatures or objects within it"
Again, with this interpretation no spell is attempting to affect the creature whose mind is being read.
But here is something I didn't actually expect to find in the rules:
"Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#CastingaSpell
An explicit definition of what a spell's effect is! I assumed this would have been left to an understanding of idiomatic English like so much is. So unfortunately your argument here is contradicting the written rules. Everything after the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration in Detect Thoughts is an effect of Detect Thoughts.
Nondetection: "The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Again, neither of these would apply.
The spell Nondetection is debatable but not for the reasons you mention. What constitutes a spell's target is not explicitly defined by the rules in a general sense. The closest we get is the second sentence of the Target rules which essentially just says the spell description will tell you what its targets are. - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Targets
This is particularly problematic for spells like See Invisibility or True Seeing as their descriptions never use the word target. Only the creature the spell is cast on is a target and even that is only by implication. If an Invisible creature has Nondetection cast on them I would probably argue that a creature benefiting from See Invisibility or True Seeing would be able to see them RAW but I wouldn't argue one way or another about if it is RAI.
Detect Thoughts thankfully isn't quite this problematic. From the sentences "If you probe deeper, the target must make a Wisdom saving throw." and "Questions verbally directed at the target creature naturally shape the course of its thoughts, so this spell is particularly effective as part of an interrogation." both explicitly refer to the create you are trying to read the thoughts of as a target. It is a bit unclear if this applies to both reading surface thoughts or only probing deeper. But a creature you try to read the deep thoughts of is unambiguously a target of Detect Thoughts RAW. As for what the writers intended when they refer to a spell's target Jeremy Crawford addressed it in the January 17th 2017 Dragon Talks podcast here: https://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3. He discusses what he means by 'target' starting at 10:20 to about 13:00.
I know this was long and rambly but I hope it was helpful.
No, I am not arguing that Detect Thoughts is somehow an Area of Effect. The part of the Range rules you are overlooking is the very last sentence which says this:
This tells us that the effects of spells like Detect Thoughts or Crown of Stars can go beyond their Range of Self. Which is good because if this weren't true then these spells would be useless or worse than useless.
A couple of things here. First, that text is generally referring to AOE spells and these are listed differently in the spell description. For example, the Antimagic Field spell does not just say Range: Self. It says Range: Self (10-foot-radius sphere). So, the Range and the Area are both listed in that case. The text is clarifying that the Area can extend beyond the Range. For example, when you cast Fireball, the point of origin must be within the Range, but once cast the effect of the Fireball spell extends outwards within a spherical Area which can extend beyond the Range (beyond the listed distance from the spellcaster).
Secondly, as written the effects of Detect Thoughts and Crown of Stars do NOT go beyond their Range of Self, but that does not at all make them useless. The effect is on the spellcaster and it may very well be a positive effect even if it only affects the spellcaster.
Please explain how the actions granted by Detect Thoughts do not fit the category "any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts" you helpfully quoted from Mind Blank. I honestly don't see how that is possible.
Under the interpretation that I am proposing, there is no "effect" which affects the creature who is protected by Mind Blank. If Mind Blank had been written in a way such as "This creature's mind cannot be read" then boom, it cannot be read. But instead they use the wording "immune from any effect that would read its thoughts" and this opens the door. Now the protection is vs effects, not vs mind reading specifically.
So, even before I scrolled to the bottom of your last post I was already planning to use truesight and invisibility as my next example when getting to this paragraph -- it seems that you may have beaten me to it in some ways. But yes, consider Creature1 with truesight and Creature2 with the Invisible condition. When Creature1 "sees" Creature2 are we assuming that some sort of magical (or otherwise) effect is affecting Creature2 specifically? I would argue that, no, a creature that is using a nonmagical ability such as truesight does not cause the creature that it sees to be affected by any sort of magical (or otherwise) effect. Now, one more step. Suppose that Creature1 currently has truesight as a result of a spell which created an ongoing magical effect on Creature1 which imbues him with the truesight ability for the duration (such as the True Seeing spell). NOW, when Creature1 "sees" Creature2 are we assuming that some sort of magical (or otherwise) effect is affecting Creature2 specifically? I would still argue no.
So, if we consider mind reading to be a nonmagical ability as mundane as reading a book and we cast a spell ON the spellcaster which imbues that spellcaster with this mind reading ability -- why are we assuming that there is any effect at all which affects the creature whose mind is being read? The interpretation that I'm describing is that there is no such effect. There is a magical effect at work on the spellcaster and that's it.
I had come up with another example where I turn on the power to my house which allows my cell phone to function when it is plugged into my walls. Now I call your cell phone and a phone call is initiated -- is the electricity in my house affecting your cell phone? Anyway, you get the idea.
"Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#CastingaSpell
An explicit definition of what a spell's effect is! . . . So unfortunately your argument here is contradicting the written rules. Everything after the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration in Detect Thoughts is an effect of Detect Thoughts.
Not quite. That text is not defining what a spell's effect is. It is defining what "the rest of a spell entry" is. It explains that that part of a spell description "describes the spell's effect", not that everything in that section IS an effect.
So, it's important to read that description to determine what the spell effect actually is. In the case of Detect Thoughts, the magical spell effect is that "For the duration, you can read the thoughts of certain creatures." The spell and its magical effect affects YOU the spellcaster. The rest of the spell description then goes on to describe how you can use this new ability mechanically since that ability is not defined elsewhere.
When you actually use this ability, it is not the spell doing that. You are doing that. The spell just continues to grant you this ability. You are not shooting magical psychic beams into a creature's brain -- if so, the description would say so. Also, the spell would be structured totally differently. It would be an instantaneous duration spell where you would get one beam to target one creature -- probably a lower level spell that would have to be cast over and over again. But instead it's an ongoing concentration spell that is affecting the spellcaster.
What constitutes a spell's target is not explicitly defined by the rules in a general sense. The closest we get is the second sentence of the Target rules which essentially just says the spell description will tell you what its targets are. - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Targets
This part really is not ambiguous. We can read the description for Detect Thoughts to see quite clearly that the target is the spellcaster.
. . . This is particularly problematic for spells like See Invisibility or True Seeing as their descriptions never use the word target. Only the creature the spell is cast on is a target and even that is only by implication. If an Invisible creature has Nondetection cast on them I would probably argue that a creature benefiting from See Invisibility or True Seeing would be able to see them RAW but I wouldn't argue one way or another about if it is RAI.
This doesn't seem problematic to me. The spell description will tell you what its targets are -- that doesn't necessarily mean that the word "target" must be used. In the case of See Invisibility, YOU (the spellcaster) are the target. For True Seeing, it is actually a willing creature that you touch.
I've already argued this point about Nondetection in another thread so I won't go much into it here but the "problem" is similar to the discussion that we are having about Detect Thoughts and it has to do with the interaction between the concept of a magical effect and a spell with a Range of Self. Because of how these things work, an Invisible creature with Nondetection cast upon it is NOT protected from being seen by another creature who casts See Invisibility or True Seeing since those spells target the spellcaster, not the Invisible creature. It's a quirk. It's certainly not the RAI, but it is indeed the RAW.
Detect Thoughts thankfully isn't quite this problematic. From the sentences "If you probe deeper, the target must make a Wisdom saving throw." and "Questions verbally directed at the target creature naturally shape the course of its thoughts, so this spell is particularly effective as part of an interrogation." both explicitly refer to the create you are trying to read the thoughts of as a target. It is a bit unclear if this applies to both reading surface thoughts or only probing deeper. But a creature you try to read the deep thoughts of is unambiguously a target of Detect Thoughts RAW.
This actually is not true either. This creature is not a target of Detect Thoughts. It is a "target" of your mind reading ability. The target of Detect Thoughts is the spellcaster. This would be similar to referring to the Invisible creature as the "target" of my truesight ability after I have cast True Seeing on myself. Yes, the creature is technically being targeted, but not by a magical or nonmagical effect.
No, I am not arguing that Detect Thoughts is somehow an Area of Effect. The part of the Range rules you are overlooking is the very last sentence which says this:
This tells us that the effects of spells like Detect Thoughts or Crown of Stars can go beyond their Range of Self. Which is good because if this weren't true then these spells would be useless or worse than useless.
A couple of things here. First, that text is generally referring to AOE spells and these are listed differently in the spell description. For example, the Antimagic Field spell does not just say Range: Self. It says Range: Self (10-foot-radius sphere). So, the Range and the Area are both listed in that case. The text is clarifying that the Area can extend beyond the Range. For example, when you cast Fireball, the point of origin must be within the Range, but once cast the effect of the Fireball spell extends outwards within a spherical Area which can extend beyond the Range (beyond the listed distance from the spellcaster).
Secondly, as written the effects of Detect Thoughts and Crown of Stars do NOT go beyond their Range of Self, but that does not at all make them useless. The effect is on the spellcaster and it may very well be a positive effect even if it only affects the spellcaster.
I find your argument that the rule I quoted, which makes no reference to Areas of Effects and exists in its own separate paragraph, must only apply to Areas of Effects unconvincing.
Please explain how the actions granted by Detect Thoughts do not fit the category "any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts" you helpfully quoted from Mind Blank. I honestly don't see how that is possible.
Under the interpretation that I am proposing, there is no "effect" which affects the creature who is protected by Mind Blank. If Mind Blank had been written in a way such as "This creature's mind cannot be read" then boom, it cannot be read. But instead they use the wording "immune from any effect that would read its thoughts" and this opens the door. Now the protection is vs effects, not vs mind reading specifically.
The word effect is not given any special definition by the game and so we must use the definition it is given in the English language. In order to prove your point you would need to prove that no applicable definition of the word 'effect' exists for the actions granted by Detect Thoughts. Proving that something doesn't exist is extremely difficult but thankfully the list of different definitions of 'effect' is finite and known, so at least it is theoretically possible. Unfortunately, here are a handful of counter examples that show that an applicable definition does in fact exist:
"Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#CastingaSpell
An explicit definition of what a spell's effect is! . . . So unfortunately your argument here is contradicting the written rules. Everything after the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration in Detect Thoughts is an effect of Detect Thoughts.
Not quite. That text is not defining what a spell's effect is. It is defining what "the rest of a spell entry" is. It explains that that part of a spell description "describes the spell's effect", not that everything in that section IS an effect.
For simplicities sake lets refer to everything in a spell entry that is not the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, or duration as the "Spell Description".
You are attempting to argue that the rule "The [Spell Description] describes the spell's effect." means that the Spell Description is a superset of the Spell's Effect, rather than Spell Description is equal to the Spell's Effect. To prove that you need to prove that there exists an element in the Spell Description that is not an element of the Spell's Effect using evidence from the source material. Without supporting evidence you are simply stating your opinions and without a common basis of fact any further argument is futile.
The only other possible argument you could be making is that equality is not symmetric and that is just a error in logic.
If you continue to debate in this fashion of making claims and providing no supporting evidence from a common basis of fact then I must conclude that you are not arguing in good faith.
I find your argument that the rule I quoted, which makes no reference to Areas of Effects and exists in its own separate paragraph, must only apply to Areas of Effects unconvincing.
Ok, what do you think this statement refers to then? For reference, we're talking about "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
This is from Chapter 10, Spellcasting which provides rules and mechanics for casting spells in the game. Throughout the chapter there are various mentions of a spell's "effect". There is also some important mechanical information under the heading Targets:
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
This describes the various ways that a spell effect comes into existence. Either we are targeting one or more creatures or objects or we are picking a point of origin for an AOE. If we target creatures or objects then those creatures or objects must be within range and the spell effect only affects those creatures and objects. There is no "area" for the spell effect in those cases -- the effect just directly affects the creatures and objects. OR, we pick a point of origin for an AOE. That point of origin must be within range. But, the statement above that we are talking about here clarifies that the area itself can extend beyond the range.
How else do you think a spell's effect can extend beyond the range? I can't think of any other way.
The word effect is not given any special definition by the game
Ok, I will concede this point. This term is not tightly defined within the game and is used in a few different contexts so when it becomes important it will require some DM adjudication to determine whether or not there is an effect involved. This allows for some better arguments in favor of Mind Blank (which obviously should work since it's such a high level spell).
My own interpretation would still be that there is no effect which can trigger the immunity clause from Mind Blank but I can understand some DMs ruling that differently. To me, it is very similar to if we use truesight "to see" an invisible creature. Is there an "effect" that is affecting that invisible creature? In my opinion, no there is not. So the same is true for the ability to read a creature's mind. I read your mind like I might read your tattoo or your embroidered clothing. What effect has affected you during that process? None.
You are attempting to argue that the rule "The [Spell Description] describes the spell's effect." means that the Spell Description is a superset of the Spell's Effect, rather than Spell Description is equal to the Spell's Effect.
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with this so I'll just restate. When the text says "The spell description describes the spell's effect" we are learning the purpose of the spell description portion of the spell entry. It doesn't mean that everything in that section IS the effect. The effect is described there and then sometimes there is some additional information presented that relates to mechanics or other rules or whatever. It would be silly to assume that some totally unrelated text somehow IS the spell effect.
For example, if I said something like "the spell provides fluorescent light in a 10 foot radius", and then I wrote a couple of extra sentences explaining or defining what the word "fluorescent" means in case a reader is unfamiliar ("the visible or invisible radiation emitted by certain substances as a result of incident radiation of a shorter wavelength BLAH BLAH BLAH") then it would be silly to say that this technical clarification of a vocabulary word IS the spell effect. No, the spell effect is that it "provides fluorescent light in a 10 foot radius".
In the case of Detect Thoughts, the spell effect IS "For the duration, you can read the thoughts of certain creatures". The rest is some technical description of how you might go about doing that. But this is important -- the reading of the mind is not the spell. The spell is providing YOU with an ability to read minds. It's a subtle but very important difference.
I'll ignore the nonsense about bad faith since that is utterly ridiculous.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Got a player telling me he can probe thoughts through walls and with out line of site. I told him he can't do that because he needs line of site. I also told him that if you probe someone they always know who did it. What is your guys thoughts on this?
Detect Thoughts says how it works, but ok:
1) The spell has V and S components, so it's generally visually and auditorally obvious a spell has been cast.
2) As explicitly stated in the spell, while concentrating, you can focus on a creature you can see to read surface thoughts. By definition, this requires line of sight.
3) You can probe deeper while focusing, but the los restriction is not lifted.
4) The spell itself targets yourself, so this works through transparent cover, such as a wall of force, regardless of local GM rulings on how spells generally work with transparent cover.
5) You can use the detect presence aspect of the spell without line of sight or effect, as explicitly spelled out in the spell. Once you've done so, then and only then you can detect surface thoughts and probe without los or loe.
6) Reading surface thoughts and detecting presences reveal nothing to the victims. Probing deeper *does*, but what the victim knows is *someone* is probing deeper - the caster isn't highlighted in their vision or anything. GM fiat dictates whether a given caster has a distinctive "feel" to their probe, so they know if the same person probes them later.
You are wrong.
You can also use this spell to detect the presence of thinking creatures you can't see. When you cast the spell or as your action during the duration, you can search for thoughts within 30 feet of you. The spell can penetrate barriers, but 2 feet of rock, 2 inches of any metal other than lead, or a thin sheet of lead blocks you. You can't detect a creature with an Intelligence of 3 or lower or one that doesn't speak any language.
Once you detect the presence of a creature in this way, you can read its thoughts for the rest of the duration as described above, even if you can't see it, but it must still be within range.
You are correct.
If you probe deeper, the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. If it fails, you gain insight into its reasoning (if any), its emotional state, and something that looms large in its mind (such as something it worries over, loves, or hates). If it succeeds, the spell ends. Either way, the target knows that you are probing into its mind, and unless you shift your attention to another creature's thoughts, the creature can use its action on its turn to make an Intelligence check contested by your Intelligence check; if it succeeds, the spell ends.
My thoughts are both you and the player need to pay more attention when reading spell text.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I don't think Cyber is correct that the spell miraculously informs targets who may have never heard of you nor seen you in their entire lives who you are. "Knows that you are probing" does not necessarily imply any knowledge beyond that someone is probing, and they may recognize the feel of the probe. Otherwise you'll need to invent from whole cloth what the spell tells a target who can't see or hear you.
Spells do what they say. It says "knows you are probing" not "knows somebody is probing". They don't learn your entire history or identity, they may only get a mental image of you, perhaps, but we're sliding into DM territory there.
It specifically says "you".
See also spells like Friends and Charm Person which also state it knows "you" used the spell to affect them.
Spells specifically refer to the caster whenever they say "you". There is no ambiguity here. If you probe the mind, the target learns that you, specifically, are the one doing it - meaning they are going to recognise you if they ever meet you face-to-face. It's the risk you face when you decide to probe the mind.
This is intentional design to limit the spell as a trade for the low-cost. It's so you can't probe with free abandon and learn all their secrets just because you're using Disguise Self or are doing it from out of sight or whatever. It is designed to have repercussions for the use. This is why it has such a powerful effect for a 2nd level spell.
You may rule otherwise in your games, of course. But this forum is for discussing RAW and the RAW says, very specifically, "you" not "somebody".
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Thanks Cyber
I just wanted to clarify that the spell caster could probe the mind of a target out of line of sight. My only question is why would they even mention line of sight in the first part of the spell if you could do that? I feel like reading thoughts is just another way to say reading surface thoughts. I reads to me like the spell is written into two separate parts.
I think it's because the option to use it without line of sight comes with the inherent ability to become aware of anyone around you. You could pick up on thoughts from an invisible enemy, for instance. Line of sight is easier and direct, but without line of sight you have to 'search' for them first : so it would take 2 actions instead of 1.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Detect thoughts has this as the second sentence of the spell effect:
And later it has an effect that can detect presences through walls followed by this paragraph:
So the answer is a completely serious: "yes, but actually no."
You can use this spell secretly by casting before you enter a room, then entering and scanning each person in the room before the duration expires, or scanning one person during a conversation to get extra info. You can probe deeper, but the target will feel it and know immediately you are doing it - which will probably not be taken kindly.
The spell could also be used from outside the room entirely, but you would not actually know whose thoughts you are detecting. You could get a vague idea of what people in a room are thinking, but when you walked in you could not be sure which person had been thinking which thing you detected earlier. I would rule that probing deeper successfully will reveal to you the identity of the person you are probing, but they will learn your identity at the same time - and if they recognize the spell then they will know you are very nearby at that exact moment.
I have a question. Im in a round with someone who wants to read my mind. So player wants to read players mind, is this even possible and if can i block it with something? Or what are the counters to this?
If your DM allows player versus player interactions, then yes it is perfectly possible for a player or NPC to use Detect Thoughts and read your character's mind.
If you have not taken precautions against it then anyone using Detect Thoughts can read your character's surface thoughts without your character knowing it. If your character is able to see them casting the spell then your character could cast Counterspell or Dispel Magic if they have access to these. If not, then nothing else you can do. You would need to consider what surface thoughts your character would have in the moment and relay this to the player/DM.
If the user of Detect Thoughts decides to probe further to access more information like memories or deeper emotions then you make a Wisdom saving throw against the user's spellcasting DC. If you succeed then you block their attempts and their Detect Thoughts spell ends. Success or fail you become aware that they are reading your thoughts. Even if you failed the saving throw, you still become aware and if they are still reading your thoughts on you turn, you can make an attempt to end the spell by using an action : you both make intelligence checks, if your check equals or exceeds theirs, the Detect Thoughts spell ends. Even if you fail that check, you can repeat this every action/turn if they are still reading your character's mind.
There are spells that can help you defend against Detect Thoughts from working on you.:
Intellect Fortress provides advantage against Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma saving throws. This can help protect you if they try to probe deeper. Similarly, there's Resistance and Bless which both provide 1d4 bonuses to saving throws and Guidance will provide 1d4 bonus to the Intelligence check.
Globe of Invulnerability and Nondetection can prevent anyone targeting you with Detect Thoughts.
Note these only help with the spell Detect Thoughts. There can be features and abilities that are able to read your character's mind without the use of the spell. What defences you have, like saving throws, etc, will be specific to each feature/ability.
Mind Blank is a spell that can completely protect your mind and thoughts from basically everything - making you entirely immune to all such things.
There's also items that can help from providing bonuses to the checks or saving throws while some, like Ring of Mind Shielding will completely block all magical attempts to read your thoughts.
There are some races that can help you against Detect Thoughts by providing advantage on the Wisdom save, such as Gnomes, Satyrs, and Yuan-ti.
Hope this helps?
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The bit about the spell being unable to penetrate certain types of barriers makes me think that it might be possible to wear some sort of helmet like Magneto from the X-Men comic books. This would require DM approval of course.
Also -- just throwing it out there -- there is a possible interpretation where pretty much all of the above suggested ways to counter Detect Thoughts would fail. This is because Detect Thoughts is a spell that targets "self" and imbues that target with a new special ability -- to read someone's thoughts. While using that ability to read someone's thoughts there is no magical effect reaching or in any way affecting that someone. The reader is simply using an ability. This is likely to be a very unpopular interpretation but it's quite valid.
So that is going to need some explaining.
Intellect Fortress, Resistance, and Bless all just give bonuses to saving throws and ability checks that are relevant to to resisting Detect Thoughts. So I just don't see how any possible interpretation of Detect Thoughts, its effects, or what constitutes a target would be relevant here.
Mind Blank makes the target immune to effects that would sense its emotion or read its thoughts. Again I don't see how any possible interpretation of Detect Thoughts, its effects, or what constitutes a target would be relevant here. The actions granted by Detect Thoughts are clearly effects that sense emotions and/or read thoughts.
Globe of invulnerability states that creatures inside cannot be affected by spells of 5th level or lower cast outside. Maybe you could argue that the actions granted by Detect Thoughts are not an effect of a spell. But considering your ability to take the actions granted by Detect Thoughts is wholely dependent on the spells duration I doubt you would get much buy in for such an argument.
Nondetection only prevents its target from being targeted by divination magic. So this depends on how you define what constitutes a target of a spell. Of all of the possible arguments this seems like it has the best chance of acceptance, but like you said this is likely an unpopular opinion. What constitutes a spells target isn't explicitly defined in the rules, but there is this answer in the Sage Advice Compendium that sheds some light on what the writers mean when they say 'target': https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA244. This has also been discussed in Dragon Talks by Jeremy Crawford but I can't get a citation for that right now.
Finally I would be remiss of I didn't point out that Detect Thoughts has a range of self which in no way informs us what its target(s) are.
What?? That's what a range of self means. If you google the spell and end up opening the roll20 entry for it, they actually say Range: self, Target: self, which is probably where I got it from although I agree that the PHB doesn't explicitly include the Target: self entry. But that's basically what a range of self means. From Chapter 10 -> Range we have:
I suppose you could argue between a meaning where you target self and a meaning where it's an AOE that includes only self, but that's kind of whatever.
As for the listed countermeasures -- I wasn't really commenting on the spells that simply provide bonuses to saving throws or ability checks. I agree that these would work as intended.
So first:
Mind Blank: "is immune to psychic damage, any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts, divination spells, and the charmed condition. 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.
vs
Detect Thoughts: Range: self -- "For the duration, you can read the thoughts of certain creatures"
With this interpretation, the spell caster of Detect Thoughts is affected by a magical effect. This effect enables that spellcaster to gain the ability to read minds. At that point the mind reader can just do it -- there is no magical effect leaving the mind reader's body to accomplish this any more than it requires magic to read a book. It's just an ability that the spellcaster has for the duration of the spell that affects the spellcaster. If this is the case, there is nothing within Mind Blank that would prevent this since Mind Blank specifically creates immunity to psychic damage, magical effects, spells, the charmed condition, more spells and even more spells and magical effects -- of which the mind reading ability is none of those.
I am aware that this is a pedantic argument and not RAI, but these are the words that are written in these two spell descriptions.
Similarly:
Globe of Invulnerability: "Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can't affect creatures or objects within it"
Again, with this interpretation no spell is attempting to affect the creature whose mind is being read.
Next:
Nondetection: "The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
Again, neither of these would apply.
Lastly:
Ring of Mind Shielding: "you are immune to magic that allows other creatures to read your thoughts"
Nope, we're not dealing with magic either under this interpretation.
So yeah, this is the problem with the wording for pretty much every spell in the game that has a range of self that grants the spellcaster some sort of superpower. When that spellcaster then goes on to use that superpower against an enemy, that enemy isn't really being affected by the spell or its magical effect. The spell and magical effect affects the spellcaster.
Yes, I understand that no one is going to play this way. But it's one valid interpretation based on the words that are written in these (Range: Self) spell descriptions.
No, I am not arguing that Detect Thoughts is somehow an Area of Effect. The part of the Range rules you are overlooking is the very last sentence which says this:
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Range
This tells us that the effects of spells like Detect Thoughts or Crown of Stars can go beyond their Range of Self. Which is good because if this weren't true then these spells would be useless or worse than useless.
Also, I would suggest sticking with the original sources because what third parties have published have no bearing on RAW or RAI.
Please explain how the actions granted by Detect Thoughts do not fit the category "any effect that would sense its emotions or read its thoughts" you helpfully quoted from Mind Blank. I honestly don't see how that is possible.
This is the argument I expected you to make against Globe of Invulnerability and was surprised you made it against Mind Blank too. As I pointed out Mind Blank is not limited to only the effects of spells the way Globe of Invulnerability is.
But here is something I didn't actually expect to find in the rules:
"Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#CastingaSpell
An explicit definition of what a spell's effect is! I assumed this would have been left to an understanding of idiomatic English like so much is. So unfortunately your argument here is contradicting the written rules. Everything after the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration in Detect Thoughts is an effect of Detect Thoughts.
The spell Nondetection is debatable but not for the reasons you mention. What constitutes a spell's target is not explicitly defined by the rules in a general sense. The closest we get is the second sentence of the Target rules which essentially just says the spell description will tell you what its targets are. - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Targets
This is particularly problematic for spells like See Invisibility or True Seeing as their descriptions never use the word target. Only the creature the spell is cast on is a target and even that is only by implication. If an Invisible creature has Nondetection cast on them I would probably argue that a creature benefiting from See Invisibility or True Seeing would be able to see them RAW but I wouldn't argue one way or another about if it is RAI.
Detect Thoughts thankfully isn't quite this problematic. From the sentences "If you probe deeper, the target must make a Wisdom saving throw." and "Questions verbally directed at the target creature naturally shape the course of its thoughts, so this spell is particularly effective as part of an interrogation." both explicitly refer to the create you are trying to read the thoughts of as a target. It is a bit unclear if this applies to both reading surface thoughts or only probing deeper. But a creature you try to read the deep thoughts of is unambiguously a target of Detect Thoughts RAW. As for what the writers intended when they refer to a spell's target Jeremy Crawford addressed it in the January 17th 2017 Dragon Talks podcast here: https://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3. He discusses what he means by 'target' starting at 10:20 to about 13:00.
I know this was long and rambly but I hope it was helpful.
A couple of things here. First, that text is generally referring to AOE spells and these are listed differently in the spell description. For example, the Antimagic Field spell does not just say Range: Self. It says Range: Self (10-foot-radius sphere). So, the Range and the Area are both listed in that case. The text is clarifying that the Area can extend beyond the Range. For example, when you cast Fireball, the point of origin must be within the Range, but once cast the effect of the Fireball spell extends outwards within a spherical Area which can extend beyond the Range (beyond the listed distance from the spellcaster).
Secondly, as written the effects of Detect Thoughts and Crown of Stars do NOT go beyond their Range of Self, but that does not at all make them useless. The effect is on the spellcaster and it may very well be a positive effect even if it only affects the spellcaster.
Under the interpretation that I am proposing, there is no "effect" which affects the creature who is protected by Mind Blank. If Mind Blank had been written in a way such as "This creature's mind cannot be read" then boom, it cannot be read. But instead they use the wording "immune from any effect that would read its thoughts" and this opens the door. Now the protection is vs effects, not vs mind reading specifically.
So, even before I scrolled to the bottom of your last post I was already planning to use truesight and invisibility as my next example when getting to this paragraph -- it seems that you may have beaten me to it in some ways. But yes, consider Creature1 with truesight and Creature2 with the Invisible condition. When Creature1 "sees" Creature2 are we assuming that some sort of magical (or otherwise) effect is affecting Creature2 specifically? I would argue that, no, a creature that is using a nonmagical ability such as truesight does not cause the creature that it sees to be affected by any sort of magical (or otherwise) effect. Now, one more step. Suppose that Creature1 currently has truesight as a result of a spell which created an ongoing magical effect on Creature1 which imbues him with the truesight ability for the duration (such as the True Seeing spell). NOW, when Creature1 "sees" Creature2 are we assuming that some sort of magical (or otherwise) effect is affecting Creature2 specifically? I would still argue no.
So, if we consider mind reading to be a nonmagical ability as mundane as reading a book and we cast a spell ON the spellcaster which imbues that spellcaster with this mind reading ability -- why are we assuming that there is any effect at all which affects the creature whose mind is being read? The interpretation that I'm describing is that there is no such effect. There is a magical effect at work on the spellcaster and that's it.
I had come up with another example where I turn on the power to my house which allows my cell phone to function when it is plugged into my walls. Now I call your cell phone and a phone call is initiated -- is the electricity in my house affecting your cell phone? Anyway, you get the idea.
Not quite. That text is not defining what a spell's effect is. It is defining what "the rest of a spell entry" is. It explains that that part of a spell description "describes the spell's effect", not that everything in that section IS an effect.
So, it's important to read that description to determine what the spell effect actually is. In the case of Detect Thoughts, the magical spell effect is that "For the duration, you can read the thoughts of certain creatures." The spell and its magical effect affects YOU the spellcaster. The rest of the spell description then goes on to describe how you can use this new ability mechanically since that ability is not defined elsewhere.
When you actually use this ability, it is not the spell doing that. You are doing that. The spell just continues to grant you this ability. You are not shooting magical psychic beams into a creature's brain -- if so, the description would say so. Also, the spell would be structured totally differently. It would be an instantaneous duration spell where you would get one beam to target one creature -- probably a lower level spell that would have to be cast over and over again. But instead it's an ongoing concentration spell that is affecting the spellcaster.
This part really is not ambiguous. We can read the description for Detect Thoughts to see quite clearly that the target is the spellcaster.
This doesn't seem problematic to me. The spell description will tell you what its targets are -- that doesn't necessarily mean that the word "target" must be used. In the case of See Invisibility, YOU (the spellcaster) are the target. For True Seeing, it is actually a willing creature that you touch.
I've already argued this point about Nondetection in another thread so I won't go much into it here but the "problem" is similar to the discussion that we are having about Detect Thoughts and it has to do with the interaction between the concept of a magical effect and a spell with a Range of Self. Because of how these things work, an Invisible creature with Nondetection cast upon it is NOT protected from being seen by another creature who casts See Invisibility or True Seeing since those spells target the spellcaster, not the Invisible creature. It's a quirk. It's certainly not the RAI, but it is indeed the RAW.
This actually is not true either. This creature is not a target of Detect Thoughts. It is a "target" of your mind reading ability. The target of Detect Thoughts is the spellcaster. This would be similar to referring to the Invisible creature as the "target" of my truesight ability after I have cast True Seeing on myself. Yes, the creature is technically being targeted, but not by a magical or nonmagical effect.
I find your argument that the rule I quoted, which makes no reference to Areas of Effects and exists in its own separate paragraph, must only apply to Areas of Effects unconvincing.
The word effect is not given any special definition by the game and so we must use the definition it is given in the English language. In order to prove your point you would need to prove that no applicable definition of the word 'effect' exists for the actions granted by Detect Thoughts. Proving that something doesn't exist is extremely difficult but thankfully the list of different definitions of 'effect' is finite and known, so at least it is theoretically possible. Unfortunately, here are a handful of counter examples that show that an applicable definition does in fact exist:
This argument is simply flawed.
For simplicities sake lets refer to everything in a spell entry that is not the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, or duration as the "Spell Description".
You are attempting to argue that the rule "The [Spell Description] describes the spell's effect." means that the Spell Description is a superset of the Spell's Effect, rather than Spell Description is equal to the Spell's Effect. To prove that you need to prove that there exists an element in the Spell Description that is not an element of the Spell's Effect using evidence from the source material. Without supporting evidence you are simply stating your opinions and without a common basis of fact any further argument is futile.
The only other possible argument you could be making is that equality is not symmetric and that is just a error in logic.
If you continue to debate in this fashion of making claims and providing no supporting evidence from a common basis of fact then I must conclude that you are not arguing in good faith.
Ok, what do you think this statement refers to then? For reference, we're talking about "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
This is from Chapter 10, Spellcasting which provides rules and mechanics for casting spells in the game. Throughout the chapter there are various mentions of a spell's "effect". There is also some important mechanical information under the heading Targets:
This describes the various ways that a spell effect comes into existence. Either we are targeting one or more creatures or objects or we are picking a point of origin for an AOE. If we target creatures or objects then those creatures or objects must be within range and the spell effect only affects those creatures and objects. There is no "area" for the spell effect in those cases -- the effect just directly affects the creatures and objects. OR, we pick a point of origin for an AOE. That point of origin must be within range. But, the statement above that we are talking about here clarifies that the area itself can extend beyond the range.
How else do you think a spell's effect can extend beyond the range? I can't think of any other way.
Ok, I will concede this point. This term is not tightly defined within the game and is used in a few different contexts so when it becomes important it will require some DM adjudication to determine whether or not there is an effect involved. This allows for some better arguments in favor of Mind Blank (which obviously should work since it's such a high level spell).
My own interpretation would still be that there is no effect which can trigger the immunity clause from Mind Blank but I can understand some DMs ruling that differently. To me, it is very similar to if we use truesight "to see" an invisible creature. Is there an "effect" that is affecting that invisible creature? In my opinion, no there is not. So the same is true for the ability to read a creature's mind. I read your mind like I might read your tattoo or your embroidered clothing. What effect has affected you during that process? None.
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with this so I'll just restate. When the text says "The spell description describes the spell's effect" we are learning the purpose of the spell description portion of the spell entry. It doesn't mean that everything in that section IS the effect. The effect is described there and then sometimes there is some additional information presented that relates to mechanics or other rules or whatever. It would be silly to assume that some totally unrelated text somehow IS the spell effect.
For example, if I said something like "the spell provides fluorescent light in a 10 foot radius", and then I wrote a couple of extra sentences explaining or defining what the word "fluorescent" means in case a reader is unfamiliar ("the visible or invisible radiation emitted by certain substances as a result of incident radiation of a shorter wavelength BLAH BLAH BLAH") then it would be silly to say that this technical clarification of a vocabulary word IS the spell effect. No, the spell effect is that it "provides fluorescent light in a 10 foot radius".
In the case of Detect Thoughts, the spell effect IS "For the duration, you can read the thoughts of certain creatures". The rest is some technical description of how you might go about doing that. But this is important -- the reading of the mind is not the spell. The spell is providing YOU with an ability to read minds. It's a subtle but very important difference.
I'll ignore the nonsense about bad faith since that is utterly ridiculous.