Thought Shield spell and pre-emptive knowledge of effect

[Yonman]

Since this is an immediate action, do you know if the attack is mind-affecting or not before you get affected by it?

[Azothath]

one thing you want to do is reference the source or original material as sometimes names are highly similar or not unique and readers don't know if it is a spell, class, etc. It also shows you've read the material.
Search on AoN

Thought Shield 1:A2 spell is a passive short term crcm bonus to Will saves for mind-affecting effects & bars specific thought reading.
The caster of Thought Shield 1 only knows what he usually knows. It requires a Spellcraft check to determine spell specifics. Spell Manifestations are detectable but just indicate spellcasting/Sp is taking place.
Sometimes the short description of a spell is helpful, but not here. Introductory sentences in descriptions are usually "flavor text" and don't have any mechanical/rule effect. "sensing an intrusion" would mean the target is making a save (see the description of Save) and it is too late...
'interrupt' and 'immediate' are terms used in the game.
When it comes to the Rules forum, the details need to be specific and in print or clearly implied.

Your Home GM has more flexibility. Does a Psychic or such (not just having the spell on your list) automatically detect when mind-affecting effects are used on their person? that's tricky and fortunately rather specific. by RAW, no.

Protection from Evil:A1 is waaaaay better. Just tell the GM you are thinking about a mundane topic (like fruitcake recipes or the many uses of waffles) most of the time as a psychic defense.

[Belafon]

Pathfinder always had a poorly defined "stack" (order of operations) when it comes to immediate actions. Some clearly can't occur until after the triggering effect has resolved, some prevent the triggering effect from happening. Some confusingly appear to do both. This one's kinda in the middle. What constitutes "sensing an intrusion?"

Thought Shield I wrote:

Sensing an intrusion, you throw up a defense to protect your mind from attack or analysis. This grants you a +4 circumstance bonus on Will saving throws against mind-affecting effects. As long as this spell lasts, spells and effects that allow a creature to read your thoughts receive no information from you.

I'd say you'd need to use thought shield before you are actually attempting your save. That means succeeding at a Spellcraft check to identify the spell as it is being cast or some other way of detecting it. Maybe an enchantment Runeward Tattoo, though you run the risk of wasting your spell if it turns out to be a non-mind-affecting enchantment. Or you could just throw it up anytime you are asked for a save, again with the possibility of wasting the spell.

I don't think that simply knowing the spell should constitute an automatic "mind-affecting detector" ability. Especially since you could then decide not to cast thought shield.

Spoiler:

That kind of ability would be acceptable as a feat, class ability, or even a magic item. But there's no spell that even comes close to giving you information regardless of whether you have cast or are casting it.

[Yonman]

Makes sense, thanks for the input

[Diego Rossi]

You can't interrupt another character's action unless the action you use is a readied one with the right trigger or the action you are using explicitly says it can interrupt another action, even if your action is an immediate spell.

If the enemy is performing an attack be it physical, spell, SLA, SU, or EX, after he has started it you can't cast Thought Shield until the attack has been resolved.
Yes, the speel seems to imply it is meant to be cast in the time between the moment in which the enemy starts using a mental attack and the moment in which you have to roll the save, but it doesn't explicitly say that, so you can't do it.
Apparently, the main benefit is that "As long as this spell lasts, spells and effects that allow a creature to read your thoughts receive no information from you."

You can always cast it as soon as your turn ends and before the opponent's turn starts, but casting it every turn will consume your spell slots very rapidly.

I would probably house-rule it, allowing it to be cast in response to an enemy action, but it would be a house rule.

[Matthew Morris]

Diego Rossi wrote:

You can't interrupt another character's action unless the action you use is a readied one with the right trigger or the action you are using explicitly says it can interrupt another action, even if your action is an immediate spell.

I was trying to find, did we ever get an official answer to this? RAW you can use it 'at any time.'

[Diego Rossi]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

You can't interrupt another character's action unless the action you use is a readied one with the right trigger or the action you are using explicitly says it can interrupt another action, even if your action is an immediate spell.

I was trying to find, did we ever get an official answer to this? RAW you can use it 'at any time.'

"Any time", not "While an action from another character is resolved". There is a specific action that allows you to act while the action of another character is resolved, and is the Ready action, which has some serious limitations.

Then there are the AoOs, which are triggered by specific actions of the enemy and preempt them, but again when have a specific trigger.

If "at any time" means "this ability can interrupt the action of another character" several feats and abilities work very differently from how the majority of the people posting on the forum seem to use them.

[Derklord]

If you can't use immediate actions "While an action from another character is resolved", most of them wouldn't work. Any rule interpretation that breaks the game should be taken to be erroneous.

Not that you have a strong argument to begin with, because "While an action from another character is resolved" is still a time, and thus is included in "any time". You need something more explicit to prove that immediate actions RAW can't be used in response to things.

[Mysterious Stranger]

I agree with Derklord on this one. What you cannot do is to use an immediate action to interrupt an action that has been completed. Once the action has been resolved it is too late. Prior to the action being completed It is possible to interrupt an action.

[Diego Rossi]

Derklord wrote:

If you can't use immediate actions "While an action from another character is resolved", most of them wouldn't work. Any rule interpretation that breaks the game should be taken to be erroneous.

Not that you have a strong argument to begin with, because "While an action from another character is resolved" is still a time, and thus is included in "any time". You need something more explicit to prove that immediate actions RAW can't be used in response to things.

Most immediate actions explicitly say when they can be used. That explicit statement allows the player to interrupt another character's action but those without that kind of explicit text can't.

This spell lacks any text about the trigger, besides the very undefined "Sensing an intrusion, you throw up a defense to protect your mind from attack or analysis."

So, when can you use it?
If you make a spellcraft check that says that the opponent is using a mind-affecting effect?
Before rolling your save?
After rolling the save but before the GM says if you have failed or saved?
After the GM announced the result of the save?
After GM explain what is the effect of the failed save?

"At any moment" without a specific trigger breaks the game way more than "you can interrupt another character action only if the ability says that you can".

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

I agree with Derklord on this one. What you cannot do is to use an immediate action to interrupt an action that has been completed. Once the action has been resolved it is too late. Prior to the action being completed It is possible to interrupt an action.

Can you explain to me when the action is completed?

When the opponent completes the spell or uses the SU power?
When the GM asks for a Will save?
When you have rolled the dice and seen the number you did get?
When do you know that you have failed?

There are immediate actions that can be used after any of those steps, but they say explicitly when they should be used.

This spell doesn't say anything about its timing, only that it is an immediate action.

[Belafon]

Diego Rossi wrote:

This spell doesn't say anything about its timing, only that it is an immediate action.

Yup, that's the crux of the matter. As I said way back near the top of the thread, "Pathfinder always had a poorly defined "stack" (order of operations) when it comes to immediate actions."

So we have to use that horrible, horrible, terrible word. The one that makes a few posters in these forums break out in a cold sweat, then stand on a peak screaming their defiance. "Intention."

This spell is an immediate action and only lasts one round. It's clearly intended to be used as a response to something ("sensing an intrusion...") so the only thing that makes sense is to allow it to be used after a spell is cast.

Could it have been worded better? Of course. "This spell may be cast in response to another spell or ability but must be cast before you attempt your saving throw." would have cut off most argument. Though I bet I probably could still nitpick it if I really wanted to. (Probably around the definition of "spell or ability.")

Look, we've all got to stop trying to "prove" that many of the feats, abilities, etc. of PF1 have problems. We all know there are holes and that there has not been errata for years and will be no more. So (he asks with faint hope), can we please switch to a default mindset of "How should we read this in order to make it work as intended?" instead of "What rule can I point to in order to prove that this doesn't work as intended?"

Edit: which is not to imply that everything works exactly as the authors thought it did. Just that we should be willing to acknowledge rules ambiguities where they exist.

[Diego Rossi]

Belafon wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

This spell doesn't say anything about its timing, only that it is an immediate action.

Yup, that's the crux of the matter. As I said way back near the top of the thread, "Pathfinder always had a poorly defined "stack" (order of operations) when it comes to immediate actions."

So we have to use that horrible, horrible, terrible word. The one that makes a few posters in these forums break out in a cold sweat, then stand on a peak screaming their defiance. "Intention."

This spell is an immediate action and only lasts one round. It's clearly intended to be used as a response to something ("sensing an intrusion...") so the only thing that makes sense is to allow it to be used after a spell is cast.

Could it have been worded better? Of course. "This spell may be cast in response to another spell or ability but must be cast before you attempt your saving throw." would have cut off most argument. Though I bet I probably could still nitpick it if I really wanted to. (Probably around the definition of "spell or ability.")

Look, we've all got to stop trying to "prove" that many of the feats, abilities, etc. of PF1 have problems. We all know there are holes and that there has not been errata for years and will be no more. So (he asks with faint hope), can we please switch to a mindset of "How should we read this in order to make it work as intended?" instead of "What rule can I point to in order to prove that this doesn't work as intended?"

To cite what I said above:

Diego Rossi wrote:

I would probably house-rule it, allowing it to be cast in response to an enemy action, but it would be a house rule.

I think it is a house-rule, but it seems to follow the intention of the spell.

As it is a 2nd level spell that adds a fairly large circumstance bonus to the die roll, I would allow it to be cast after you know what kind of save you need to make (i.e., after the GM ask for a will save) but before the target knows if it is a mind-affecting spell or effect (in my current group several have positive or negative modifiers against mind-affecting spells or effects).

[Matthew Morris]

Derklord wrote:

If you can't use immediate actions "While an action from another character is resolved", most of them wouldn't work. Any rule interpretation that breaks the game should be taken to be erroneous.

Not that you have a strong argument to begin with, because "While an action from another character is resolved" is still a time, and thus is included in "any time". You need something more explicit to prove that immediate actions RAW can't be used in response to things.

So... No.

That's what I was asking.

[Mysterious Stranger]

The way I would handle it would be that you cannot change something after it takes place. So, if the character completed casting the spell an immediate action cannot change that. If the GM calls for a will save the character can use an immediate action before he makes the save, but once he rolls the dice it is over. If the ability in question gives you more options that overrides these circumstances.