Immune can mean not effected but it can also mean protected from. Using the protected from definition, Mind Blank wouldn’t cancel or suspend the effect of Foresight for the protected caster but it would prevent Foresight from being used against the protected caster.
On that basis then - if a character was immune to diseases (e.g. Paladin) - but was attacked by a creature that applied a purely beneficial disease - would you say they can get the disease? Even though they are immune - just because it's not harmful? That feels highly suspect.
I mean, yes? There are no beneficial diseases or poisons that exist in the game, because any such thing would not be called a disease or a poison. But even so, if someone were immune to things generally but wanted to be affected by the buff of a purely beneficial version of those things then I would allow it.
In fact, this is the very first example of any situation where the word immunity has been used in these rules when referring to something that could possibly be beneficial. It is just not used in that context in these rules. I take that to mean that RAI is that this is a purely protective immunity - and does not mean "cannot be affected by", but rather "cannot be harmed by or affected by against your will".
Not true, the Rakshasa (see link in prior post #20) does specifically allow its limited magical immunity to be by choice, if the creature wants to be affected, it can be. But that is specifically stated in that effect. no such statement exists here, so there is no RAW or arguably RAI that this immunity is conditional or "by choice"
I'm definitely on the side of "immunity means it doesn't effect you, beneficial or not."
As for "beneficial" diseases, one actually comes to mind: the aboleth's mucus cloud lets creatures breath underwater (granted it takes away the ability to breath air).
Not true, the Rakshasa (see link in prior post #20) does specifically allow its limited magical immunity to be by choice, if the creature wants to be affected, it can be. But that is specifically stated in that effect. no such statement exists here, so there is no RAW or arguably RAI that this immunity is conditional or "by choice"
But that supports my point. The title of that section includes the word immunity, but the section itself says "can't be affected or detected unless it wants to be". It doesn't say "is immune unless it wants to be". The language assumes that immunity is protection, not a complete inability to receive benefits.
Not true, the Rakshasa (see link in prior post #20) does specifically allow its limited magical immunity to be by choice, if the creature wants to be affected, it can be. But that is specifically stated in that effect. no such statement exists here, so there is no RAW or arguably RAI that this immunity is conditional or "by choice"
But that supports my point. The title of that section includes the word immunity, but the section itself says "can't be affected or detected unless it wants to be". It doesn't say "is immune unless it wants to be". The language assumes that immunity is protection, not a complete inability to receive benefits.
You are completely missing my point. You are trying to apply a specific instance of a rule as a general rule. That is the opposite of Specific beats general and not the way the rules are written or interpreted. The rakshasa example is a specific example the overrides the general rule because it has that language, it is not meant to be applied to other things that aren’t rakshasa limited magic immunity. The reason I listed it as an example is because when they want immunity to act conditionally, they include specific language allowing it. Mind Blank does not include that specific language, so the immunity granted follows the general rule and is absolute, not conditional
You are completely missing my point. You are trying to apply a specific instance of a rule as a general rule. That is the opposite of Specific beats general and not the way the rules are written or interpreted. The rakshasa example is a specific example the overrides the general rule because it has that language, it is not meant to be applied to other things that aren’t rakshasa limited magic immunity. The reason I listed it as an example is because when they want immunity to act conditionally, they include specific language allowing it. Mind Blank does not include that specific language, so the immunity granted follows the general rule and is absolute, not conditional
I'm not really trying to apply a specific or a general anything. I'm not debating the RAW at all. "Immune" means what it means, so you probably can't get the effects from the spell in question, RAW.
I'm talking about the likely intention of the writers. In all of the other rules, the word immunity is never used in a manner that excludes a beneficial effect. The Rakshasa is a great example of that, where immune to spells means "cannot be harmed by, but can still choose to benefit from". Immunity to poisons or diseases never excludes beneficial effects because no beneficial poisons or diseases exist.
I strongly believe that Mind Blank was in fact lazily written, and that the designer had no intention to prevent the user from benefiting from divination buffs. The use of the word "immune" in the rest of the rules is the reason I believe this. As such, I will be personally ruling that the two spells can be combined just fine, and I would encourage other DMs to do the same - also because it is more fun than the alternative.
I'm talking about the likely intention of the writers. In all of the other rules, the word immunity is never used in a manner that excludes a beneficial effect. (1) The Rakshasa is a great example of that, where immune to spells means "cannot be harmed by, but can still choose to benefit from". (2) Immunity to poisons or diseases never excludes beneficial effects because no beneficial poisons or diseases exist.
The Rakshasa is not a great example of that because it is specifically "Limited" Magic Immunity. Not full immunity.
I like the idea of Foresight being the same thing as Spiderman's Spidersense. It gives you just enough information about the near future to give you an advantage. For 8 hours, you know stuff about the future. I imagine Mind Blank as an absolute and inviolable protection from attempts to read your mind, not even with a Wish, the most powerful spell in the game. I don't see any interaction between the two at all. Foresight doesn't try to read your mind.
Spells generally don't do anything they do not specifically say they do. Where in Mind Blank does it say you can't foretell the future?
I like the idea of Foresight being the same thing as Spiderman's Spidersense. It gives you just enough information about the near future to give you an advantage. For 8 hours, you know stuff about the future. I imagine Mind Blank as an absolute and inviolable protection from attempts to read your mind, not even with a Wish, the most powerful spell in the game. I don't see any interaction between the two at all. Foresight doesn't try to read your mind.
Spells generally don't do anything they do not specifically say they do. Where in Mind Blank does it say you can't foretell the future?
It's been mentioned before. Mind Blank specifically makes you immune to (among other things) "divination spells" - and Foresight is a divination spell. Therefore Mind Blank makes you immune to Foresight.
I'm definitely on the side of "immunity means it doesn't effect you, beneficial or not."
As for "beneficial" diseases, one actually comes to mind: the aboleth's mucus cloud lets creatures breath underwater (granted it takes away the ability to breath air).
Yes, agreed. One of the most popular d&d memes, with good reason, is how poison immunity makes you immune to beneficial poisons - alcohol is the one primarily memed about, but it also applies to other intoxicants, like marijuana/pipeweed/halfling lettuce or what have you. Immunity doesn't let things through or not based on those things being judged good or bad.
I'm talking about the likely intention of the writers. In all of the other rules, the word immunity is never used in a manner that excludes a beneficial effect. (1) The Rakshasa is a great example of that, where immune to spells means "cannot be harmed by, but can still choose to benefit from". (2) Immunity to poisons or diseases never excludes beneficial effects because no beneficial poisons or diseases exist.
The Rakshasa is not a great example of that because it is specifically "Limited" Magic Immunity. Not full immunity.
DxJxC already mentioned one above.
The "limited" nature of that immunity clearly relates to the fact that it has a limit of 6th level spells, and beyond that limit the Rakshasa is not immune to the spells at all. Below that limit they are immune to any spell they choose, but can choose to be affected if they want. And DxJxC mentioned a disease that is at best situationally neutral. However, if the "immune to disease" creature were allied to the Aboleth and specifically desired to acquire its disease then I would go ahead and allow that.
It's been mentioned before. Mind Blank specifically makes you immune to (among other things) "divination spells" - and Foresight is a divination spell. Therefore Mind Blank makes you immune to Foresight.
I agree that nobody else can cast Foresight on you. What does that have to do with casting it on yourself?
Allowing it or not isn't the issue. If you want to allow it in your games then that is absolutely fine - but remember this is the rules forum - what the actual rules are. In this case I can't see a single rule for immunity meaning anything other than being "completely unaffected by in all circumstances".
The Rakshasa doesn't change my mind on that because it's feature isn't an immunity at all (in the sense that the rules describe immunities). Firstly - it's limited for two reasons:
It only makes them unaffected by lower level spells -
and they can choose to be affected if they wish.
But the biggest reason is that you'll notice how in the Rakshasa's ability the only time it is referred to as immunity is in it's name. Within the feature itself (the actual mechanics of the feature) it never once says it's "immune to" anything. It just says "can't be affected" - which means it actually isn't an immunity in the same way that every other immunity is listed.
It's been mentioned before. Mind Blank specifically makes you immune to (among other things) "divination spells" - and Foresight is a divination spell. Therefore Mind Blank makes you immune to Foresight.
I agree that nobody else can cast Foresight on you. What does that have to do with casting it on yourself?
If you're immune to a spell - it doesn't matter who casts it - you're immune to it.
Allowing it or not isn't the issue. If you want to allow it in your games then that is absolutely fine - but remember this is the rules forum - what the actual rules are. In this case I can't see a single rule for immunity meaning anything other than being "completely unaffected by in all circumstances".
I've said twice before that I agree with your interpretation of the RAW. I have been presenting evidence that the intention of the designers does not align with the RAW in this case, because they have very lazily written the description for Mind Blank, using the word immunity in a manner they never have before or since. My thesis is that in RAI, "immunity" is always purely protective. The Rakshasa is one thing that supports that thesis.
Allowing it or not isn't the issue. If you want to allow it in your games then that is absolutely fine - but remember this is the rules forum - what the actual rules are. In this case I can't see a single rule for immunity meaning anything other than being "completely unaffected by in all circumstances".
I've said twice before that I agree with your interpretation of the RAW. I have been presenting evidence that the intention of the designers does not align with the RAW in this case, because they have very lazily written the description for Mind Blank, using the word immunity in a manner they never have before or since. My thesis is that in RAI, "immunity" is always purely protective. The Rakshasa is one thing that supports that thesis.
That's pretty funny actually because I believe the intent is that immunity is always "can't be affect by" no matter what - and that the Rakshasa's feature is the poorly worded (or rather: named) outlier. *shrug*
The effect of limited magic immunity doesn't matter because it is the name of a trait, not the definition of a word. There is no full magic immunity, so we'll never know (I mean we could look at turn immunity or spell immunity which never have the option to be effected, but even though they completely defeat the argument, they are equally irrelevant).
"Immunity/immune" means protected or exempt from the effects of something; or not affected or influenced by something. It doesn't mean choice.
The effect of limited magic immunity doesn't matter because it is the name of a trait, not the definition of a word. There is no full magic immunity, so we'll never know (I mean we could look at turn immunity or spell immunity which never have the option to be effected, but even though they completely defeat the argument, they are equally irrelevant).
"Immunity/immune" means protected or exempt from the effects of something; or not affected or influenced by something. It doesn't mean choice.
Again. I know what immunity means. I agree with you. The RAW is you can't be affected.
But, you have presented no examples from the text other than this spell where the word "immunity" is used and includes being unaffected by beneficial effects.
The word is used to describe immunity/protection from a range of always-negative effects: damage types, conditions, disease, turning undead, death from vorpal beheading, etc.
Then the word is sometimes mentioned regarding magic or spells, but always allows beneficial magics: the Rakshasa who can choose to be affected, the Helmed Horror who is immune to 3 chosen spells (all harmful ones obviously), and the Canopic Golem who automatically passes saves against harmful spells. Various magic items make you immune to magic that reads your mind, but allows telepathy if you choose.
The only example I can find are the traits that make you immune from magical sleep combining with the newer spell Catnap, which has been debated elsewhere as probably being intended to be useful even to elves.
So, since the word immunity has never elsewhere been used to to exclude positive magic, I deduce that it doing so here was an error of careless writing and make my ruling of RAI accordingly.
I'm a million years too late to participate in this debate in a timely fashion, but I read the comments hoping to get clarity on my own understanding, and I think a point in favour of "the designers meant for Mind Blank to stop beneficial effects" (albeit "spells used... to affect the target's mind" rather than Divination spells specifically) is the encounter with the Mad Mage of Mount Baratok, in Curse of Strahd: -
"Under normal circumstances, a greater restoration spell cast on the Mad Mage would restore his wits and ends the madness, allowing him to remember that he is none other than Mordenkainen, an archmage of Oerth and the leader of a powerful group of adventurers called the Circle of Eight. But in this case, the Mad Mage has cast a mind blank spell on himself. As long as that spell remains in effect, his sanity can’t be restored by any spell. If the characters surmise that powerful magic is preventing them from restoring the Mad Mage’s wits"
Not true, the Rakshasa (see link in prior post #20) does specifically allow its limited magical immunity to be by choice, if the creature wants to be affected, it can be. But that is specifically stated in that effect. no such statement exists here, so there is no RAW or arguably RAI that this immunity is conditional or "by choice"
I'm definitely on the side of "immunity means it doesn't effect you, beneficial or not."
As for "beneficial" diseases, one actually comes to mind: the aboleth's mucus cloud lets creatures breath underwater (granted it takes away the ability to breath air).
But that supports my point. The title of that section includes the word immunity, but the section itself says "can't be affected or detected unless it wants to be". It doesn't say "is immune unless it wants to be". The language assumes that immunity is protection, not a complete inability to receive benefits.
You are completely missing my point. You are trying to apply a specific instance of a rule as a general rule. That is the opposite of Specific beats general and not the way the rules are written or interpreted. The rakshasa example is a specific example the overrides the general rule because it has that language, it is not meant to be applied to other things that aren’t rakshasa limited magic immunity. The reason I listed it as an example is because when they want immunity to act conditionally, they include specific language allowing it. Mind Blank does not include that specific language, so the immunity granted follows the general rule and is absolute, not conditional
I'm not really trying to apply a specific or a general anything. I'm not debating the RAW at all. "Immune" means what it means, so you probably can't get the effects from the spell in question, RAW.
I'm talking about the likely intention of the writers. In all of the other rules, the word immunity is never used in a manner that excludes a beneficial effect. The Rakshasa is a great example of that, where immune to spells means "cannot be harmed by, but can still choose to benefit from". Immunity to poisons or diseases never excludes beneficial effects because no beneficial poisons or diseases exist.
I strongly believe that Mind Blank was in fact lazily written, and that the designer had no intention to prevent the user from benefiting from divination buffs. The use of the word "immune" in the rest of the rules is the reason I believe this. As such, I will be personally ruling that the two spells can be combined just fine, and I would encourage other DMs to do the same - also because it is more fun than the alternative.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I like the idea of Foresight being the same thing as Spiderman's Spidersense. It gives you just enough information about the near future to give you an advantage. For 8 hours, you know stuff about the future. I imagine Mind Blank as an absolute and inviolable protection from attempts to read your mind, not even with a Wish, the most powerful spell in the game. I don't see any interaction between the two at all. Foresight doesn't try to read your mind.
Spells generally don't do anything they do not specifically say they do. Where in Mind Blank does it say you can't foretell the future?
<Insert clever signature here>
It's been mentioned before. Mind Blank specifically makes you immune to (among other things) "divination spells" - and Foresight is a divination spell. Therefore Mind Blank makes you immune to Foresight.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Yes, agreed. One of the most popular d&d memes, with good reason, is how poison immunity makes you immune to beneficial poisons - alcohol is the one primarily memed about, but it also applies to other intoxicants, like marijuana/pipeweed/halfling lettuce or what have you. Immunity doesn't let things through or not based on those things being judged good or bad.
The "limited" nature of that immunity clearly relates to the fact that it has a limit of 6th level spells, and beyond that limit the Rakshasa is not immune to the spells at all. Below that limit they are immune to any spell they choose, but can choose to be affected if they want. And DxJxC mentioned a disease that is at best situationally neutral. However, if the "immune to disease" creature were allied to the Aboleth and specifically desired to acquire its disease then I would go ahead and allow that.
I agree that nobody else can cast Foresight on you. What does that have to do with casting it on yourself?
<Insert clever signature here>
Allowing it or not isn't the issue. If you want to allow it in your games then that is absolutely fine - but remember this is the rules forum - what the actual rules are. In this case I can't see a single rule for immunity meaning anything other than being "completely unaffected by in all circumstances".
The Rakshasa doesn't change my mind on that because it's feature isn't an immunity at all (in the sense that the rules describe immunities).
Firstly - it's limited for two reasons:
But the biggest reason is that you'll notice how in the Rakshasa's ability the only time it is referred to as immunity is in it's name. Within the feature itself (the actual mechanics of the feature) it never once says it's "immune to" anything. It just says "can't be affected" - which means it actually isn't an immunity in the same way that every other immunity is listed.
If you're immune to a spell - it doesn't matter who casts it - you're immune to it.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I've said twice before that I agree with your interpretation of the RAW. I have been presenting evidence that the intention of the designers does not align with the RAW in this case, because they have very lazily written the description for Mind Blank, using the word immunity in a manner they never have before or since. My thesis is that in RAI, "immunity" is always purely protective. The Rakshasa is one thing that supports that thesis.
That's pretty funny actually because I believe the intent is that immunity is always "can't be affect by" no matter what - and that the Rakshasa's feature is the poorly worded (or rather: named) outlier. *shrug*
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
The effect of limited magic immunity doesn't matter because it is the name of a trait, not the definition of a word. There is no full magic immunity, so we'll never know (I mean we could look at turn immunity or spell immunity which never have the option to be effected, but even though they completely defeat the argument, they are equally irrelevant).
"Immunity/immune" means protected or exempt from the effects of something; or not affected or influenced by something. It doesn't mean choice.
Again. I know what immunity means. I agree with you. The RAW is you can't be affected.
But, you have presented no examples from the text other than this spell where the word "immunity" is used and includes being unaffected by beneficial effects.
The word is used to describe immunity/protection from a range of always-negative effects: damage types, conditions, disease, turning undead, death from vorpal beheading, etc.
Then the word is sometimes mentioned regarding magic or spells, but always allows beneficial magics: the Rakshasa who can choose to be affected, the Helmed Horror who is immune to 3 chosen spells (all harmful ones obviously), and the Canopic Golem who automatically passes saves against harmful spells. Various magic items make you immune to magic that reads your mind, but allows telepathy if you choose.
The only example I can find are the traits that make you immune from magical sleep combining with the newer spell Catnap, which has been debated elsewhere as probably being intended to be useful even to elves.
So, since the word immunity has never elsewhere been used to to exclude positive magic, I deduce that it doing so here was an error of careless writing and make my ruling of RAI accordingly.
I'm a million years too late to participate in this debate in a timely fashion, but I read the comments hoping to get clarity on my own understanding, and I think a point in favour of "the designers meant for Mind Blank to stop beneficial effects" (albeit "spells used... to affect the target's mind" rather than Divination spells specifically) is the encounter with the Mad Mage of Mount Baratok, in Curse of Strahd: -
"Under normal circumstances, a greater restoration spell cast on the Mad Mage would restore his wits and ends the madness, allowing him to remember that he is none other than Mordenkainen, an archmage of Oerth and the leader of a powerful group of adventurers called the Circle of Eight. But in this case, the Mad Mage has cast a mind blank spell on himself. As long as that spell remains in effect, his sanity can’t be restored by any spell. If the characters surmise that powerful magic is preventing them from restoring the Mad Mage’s wits"