Topic: Does unpresence give immunity to mental spells?

[Voriig Kye]

If a mental spell requires a target mind, and beings "without a mind" are immune, then maybe even if a mentalist can see its target and is within range, if the target has already casted unpresence on himself, should the mental attack spell be allowed to work?
The restriction that targets need to be located by presence is only mentioned in the utility lists, but never in the attack lists (Mind Attack, Mind Control, etc.).
Hopefully someone already has encountered this dilemma before and can comment on the subject. Even if you haven't thought about this up to now, please do so and share your opinions!

[markc]

Do you have the Mentalsim Companion? IIRC correctly it goes into more detail in that book on mentalism stuff.


 I will have time to take a look at the books later on but in general I would say that if the unpresence is cast and the caster has not detected the person (ie the presence spell did not over come the unpresence) then the spell would not work. But if the presence spell broke through the unpresence spell then the target would be affected like anyone else.
 To test presence vs unpresence I would do caster level vs caster level with mods for each if any.


 Note:
 This type of discussion of presence and unpresence has been going on for a long time and there should be many saved articles in the archives. If you and or you GM need a quick decision then make a temporary decision and look at the archives later. 


MDC

[rdanhenry]

If you can see the target, you don't need to use Presence to make a mental attack. There just needs to be a mind to attack. Unpresence doesn't make the target mind not there any more than Invisibility makes your target body not there, it just disguises it from one sense. So Unpresence protects against Jolts the way that Invisibility protects against Fire Ball. I.e., it might stop the caster from knowing he ought to be tossing it your way, but if he does, it is no protection at all.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

If you can see the target, you don't need to use Presence to make a mental attack. There just needs to be a mind to attack. Unpresence doesn't make the target mind not there any more than Invisibility makes your target body not there, it just disguises it from one sense. So Unpresence protects against Jolts the way that Invisibility protects against Fire Ball. I.e., it might stop the caster from knowing he ought to be tossing it your way, but if he does, it is no protection at all.

True, but Fireball is an area attack whereas Jolts is a targeted one. As an attack against an invisible target is subjected to a penalty, I'd personally say a targeted mental attack vs. an unpresent target would be subjected to a penalty as well… (such as -20 to the BAR, i.e., equal to the "detected but not sighted" penalty)

[jdale]

Any time you look at a rule and think...

This rule only specifies this one specific effect, does it also have this other huge effect that dwarfs the original effect in importance, but which is being presented only by vague implication?

...I think the answer should be obvious. The spell specifies it protects against a specific type of detection. If it also granted immunity to all m-type spells, an effect never granted on the spell resistance lists, wouldn't it mention that?

[Voriig Kye]

Don't worry about the GM, for he and I are the same person 
I do have Mentalism Companion, and in the past I think I have read many of the threads touching this subject.
jdale's comment on the lack of mention of this type of immunity is quite convincing, so I will most likely handle it as he said, although the idea of "breaking through" in the style of the piercing rules from the Mentalism Companion also has some appeal.
The reason I have been doubting how to handle it is that in the current campaign I have allowed the mentalist to direct attacks from his base lists to foes he could not see, but had detected using presence (e.g. behind a wall). So I figured it would be a good countermeasure if his foes started casting unpresence on themselves.
In any case, I thank you all for your inputs, and of course if there are more ideas keep them coming!

[arakish]

If you can see the target, you don't need to use Presence to make a mental attack. There just needs to be a mind to attack. Unpresence doesn't make the target mind not there any more than Invisibility makes your target body not there, it just disguises it from one sense. So Unpresence protects against Jolts the way that Invisibility protects against Fire Ball. I.e., it might stop the caster from knowing he ought to be tossing it your way, but if he does, it is no protection at all.

These were my EXACT thoughts as well after reading this post:

If a mental spell requires a target mind, and beings "without a mind" are immune, then maybe even if a mentalist can see its target and is within range, if the target has already casted unpresence on himself, should the mental attack spell be allowed to work?
The restriction that targets need to be located by presence is only mentioned in the utility lists, but never in the attack lists (Mind Attack, Mind Control, etc.).
Hopefully someone already has encountered this dilemma before and can comment on the subject. Even if you haven't thought about this up to now, please do so and share your opinions!

Thus, I totally agree with rdan.

rmfr

[providence13]

Here's what I used in my games; it might not work for everyone/anyone.

With Presence spells, "Caster is aware of the presence of all sentient/
thinking beings within 20'". It never says you know where they are located, just that you are aware of their presence. This is a great way to detect Invisible people, ghosts, etc. If by "find" you mean somewhere within the 20' rad, then yes, you can find them. To target them with another spell is different.
  I made the Mage move in circles, finding the exact edge where the stable presence was detected. Think of overlapping Venn diagrams. Eventually, the Mage was able to zero in on a sleeping individual for a Choke spell. But it took a few rnds to work out the overlaps.

[VladD]

Reading this I'm actually seeing it might apply that way... There are even spells on the Mentalist Baselist: Presence (Finding n), that imply that a presence caster is not aware of the location, just their presence. It does however not say that it cannot be used to target people, especially with "m"type spells. It makes sense that a mentalism user may seek out a presence, even in the next inn room and target them with "m"spells.
I feel it puts some power in the hands of Mentalism users. They are slightly underpowered, due to the fact they mostly don't control large crowds, their attack spells are not that spectacular and they get the bad end of the stick when it comes to healing.

[Voriig Kye]

The way we play the Presence spell is based on all the older posts in the forum, I let him cast it as a full circle, or as a cone extending to the normal radius. This means that if time is not an issue, and an additional unexpected presence is detected, the general location can be known.
But  that is just to be able to point the target to the rest of the party, with his own 'm' spells I allow casting as soon as the presence is detected, no need to see the target, as the mind is the real target. That is why I thought that seeing someone that had an unpresence cast on themselves may not be enough to attack with 'm' spells.
Anyway, I understand that it might give too much power to a simple hiding-type spell, and I might rule some modifier to the RR in favor of the target.