# Get pedantic on Feeblemind



## AuraSeer (Nov 3, 2006)

_Feeblemind_ is a weird spell. It's a mind-affecting compulsion, but not "mind control" per se. It's an instantaneous effect that reduces ability scores, but is neither ability damage nor ability drain. What exactly is the effect? And in what various ways can it be fixed?

The spell description indicates that it can be fixed by _heal_, _limited wish_, _wish_, or _miracle_. Yet it doesn't specifically that those are the *only* possible fixes, so I'm wondering if other spells can be effective.

_Break enchantment_ seems like it should work, as long as the caster level check succeeds. It's useful against enchantments, even those of instantaneous duration, as long as they're no more than 5th level. FM is exactly 5th level.

Would a pair of _lesser restoration_s work? My guess is no, but I could be wrong. LR says it "dispels any magical effects reducing one of the subject’s ability scores", but the _feeblemind_ has instantaneous duration, so it doesn't seem to count as a "magical effect" that could be dispelled.

_Greater restoration_ looks like a better bet, because it "removes all forms of insanity, confusion, and similar mental effects." The enfeebling is clearly a mental effect... right?

_Feeblemind_'s description lists a bunch of things the affected creature is unable to do, such as speak, understand language, use Int- or Cha-based skills, etc. Is that a separate effect of the spell, or is it just elucidating the consequences of having Int and Cha of 1? That is, say my friend gets _feebleminded_, and I then cast _fox's cunning_ and _eagle's splendor_ on him to raise those ability scores to 5. Is he now able to speak Common again?


----------



## szilard (Nov 3, 2006)

hmmm... if you manage to turn the Feebleminded creature into an animal or tree, could you reverse the Feeblemind via Awaken?

-Stuart


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 3, 2006)

Sorry. the listed fixes are the only way. You might be able to make an _argument _ for break enchantment, but the other effects have no chance. The character has less int than a typicle housepet. Handle animal will have more use than diplomacy with the character.

_Feeblemind
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

If the target creature fails a Will saving throw, its Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1. The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently. Still, it knows who its friends are and can follow them and even protect them. *The subject remains in this state  until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind. * A creature that can cast arcane spells, such as a sorcerer or a wizard, takes a –4 penalty on its saving throw.

Material Component: A handful of clay, crystal, glass, or mineral spheres._


----------



## Zaruthustran (Nov 4, 2006)

Break Enchantment would totally work.



> This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.
> 
> If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.
> 
> If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.




No ambiguity there.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 4, 2006)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Break Enchantment would totally work.
> 
> No ambiguity there.



If feeblemind was silent on it's curing methods, BE would have worked.







> The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.


----------



## Corsair (Nov 4, 2006)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Break Enchantment would totally work.
> 
> No ambiguity there.




I had this argument with David Eckleberry when I worked at Turbine on Dungeons and Dragons Online.  I claimed the same thing you did, and he was emphatic about Break Enchantment not working.  Feeblemind is only intended to be removed by the listed spells according to him.

Seeing as his name is written in my PHB, and mine isn't, I was pretty much forced to go along with it.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 4, 2006)

> The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.




This means that if you use a heal, limited wish, miracle or wish spell then the feeblemind effect is canceled.  It does not rule out other methods.  It is permissive, not prohibitive.  The text for _break enchantment_ says that it can reverse an instantaneous enchantment of 5th level or lower. That describes feeblemind to a T.

If they intended something different, they should have written something different. (Like "feeblemind can only be canceled by...")  But I'm going to invoke the Hypersmurf principle of rules interpretation: If it says X, then assume they mean X.


----------



## PallidPatience (Nov 4, 2006)

And it says that the subject remains in that state until one of those spells is applied. Which means that even after BE is applied, you're in that state because the listed condition for the "until" trigger has not been met.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Nov 4, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> If they intended something different, they should have written something different. (Like "feeblemind can only be canceled by...")  But I'm going to invoke the Hypersmurf principle of rules interpretation: If it says X, then assume they mean X.



I concur.  _Break enchantment_ works.


----------



## Starglim (Nov 4, 2006)

edit: Mostly answered by others.



			
				AuraSeer said:
			
		

> _Feeblemind_'s description lists a bunch of things the affected creature is unable to do, such as speak, understand language, use Int- or Cha-based skills, etc. Is that a separate effect of the spell, or is it just elucidating the consequences of having Int and Cha of 1? That is, say my friend gets _feebleminded_, and I then cast _fox's cunning _ and _eagle's splendor _ on him to raise those ability scores to 5. Is he now able to speak Common again?




_Fox's cunning _ and _eagle's splendor _ will not raise his ability scores nor alter the feebleminded state.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 4, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> This means that if you use a heal, limited wish, miracle or wish spell then the feeblemind effect is canceled.  It does not rule out other methods.  It is permissive, not prohibitive.  The text for _break enchantment_ says that it can reverse an instantaneous enchantment of 5th level or lower. That describes feeblemind to a T.
> 
> If they intended something different, they should have written something different. (Like "feeblemind can only be canceled by...")  But I'm going to invoke the Hypersmurf principle of rules interpretation: If it says X, then assume they mean X.




And that's why it doesn't work.

If you use _Break Enchantment_ you contradict the above-quoted text from _Feeblemind_, since neither _Heal_, _Limited Wish_, _Miracle_ nor _Wish_ have been used to cancel the effect and thus, according to the description, the subject remains in this state.

As you say, if it says X, then it means X. And if they give a finite list of methods to remove the effect, then they probably mean the list to be finite and exactly as presented.

_Break Enchantment_ has no effect.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 4, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> If feeblemind was silent on it's curing methods, BE would have worked.




Why does the feeblemind description description trump the BE description?

If BE fails to work, that contradicts that would contradict the text of ME. There is no rule that states that one spell cannot contradict another, actually. Nothing in feeblemind precludes BE that I can see. 

Greater restoration also seems like it would work since it seems having your ability scores drop to 1 is a "penalty."


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 4, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> And that's why it doesn't work.
> 
> If you use _Break Enchantment_ you contradict the above-quoted text from _Feeblemind_, since neither _Heal_, _Limited Wish_, _Miracle_ nor _Wish_ have been used to cancel the effect and thus, according to the description, the subject remains in this state.




And the wording of BE would then end the state if BE was used.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 4, 2006)

That's not possible. _Feeblemind_ specifically says that. The subject still remains in that state.

Specific cases generally override generic cases, if they contradict each other.

_Break Enchantment_ works on enchantments like this in general.

_Feeblemind_ specifically contradicts this by not listing _Break Enchantment_ as a possible method to remove the state.

_Feeblemind_ wins. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 4, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> That's not possible. _Feeblemind_ specifically says that. The subject still remains in that state.




It does not state the subject remains in that state irrespective of casting BE. Why is feeblemind god? BE states it affects enchantments, and it effects spells with an instantaneous duration. 

Magic missile states it strikes inerringly and does damage. Shield states it blocks magic missile. Contradiction? I don't really think so.

BE does not contradict Feeblemind by dispelling it. Yes, the subject remains in that state. But then BE comes along and removes that state, removing the need to have feeblemind cured in some other fashion.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 4, 2006)

Hmmmm....

Instantaneous
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting. 

Feeblemind
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Duration: Instantaneous
If the target creature fails a Will saving throw, its Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1... The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind

Break Enchantment
This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect.

This one is a litle tricky.  It seems cleaer on its face that "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used" *cannot* be the *only* ways to remove the Feebleminded state.  One could also use other means to raise the Intelligence and Charisma of the affected creature, for example.  That HAS to work as there is no magic to counter it, so magic items, etc. that raise those scores must still work.

With that as precedent, and given the way Break Enchantment is written, Break Enchantment should work.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 4, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> One could also use other means to raise the Intelligence and Charisma of the affected creature, for example.  That HAS to work as there is no magic to counter it, so magic items, etc. that raise those scores must still work.




Probably, yes. But how does that change the state of the subject?

The subject's own Intelligence is affected. Temporary modifiers apply as usual.

By the way it is worded, it's very clear, that the listed methods are the only methods to remove the _Feeblemind_ state, because whatever you do (other than using these four spells) the subject remains in that state. Quite straightforward, really.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 4, 2006)

In most rules systems - D&D, Magic: The Gathering, hell even Monopoly, *can't* trumps *can*.  _Feeblemind_ states it can't be removed by any spell except those listed.

Note that if you want to houserule that Break Enchantment works that's fine.  You can also write other spells that break a feeblemind condition if you want.  I have one in my campaign...

*Cleanse*
Conjuration (Healing) [White]
*Level:* (4), Clr 4
*Components:* V, S
*Casting Time:* 1 standard action
*Range:* Touch
*Target:*  Creature touched.
*Duration:* Instantaneous
*Saving Throw:* Will Neg. (harmless)
*Spell Resistance:* Yes (Harmless)

_ “All that is befouled can be cleansed and reclaimed.” ~ Lisana._

_Cleanse_ is a weaker version of _heal_ that heals no damage but does remove the following conditions from the subject: temporary ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, _feeblemind_, insanity, nauseated, sickened and poison.  Cleanse has no affect on permanent ability damage or level draining effects.​
The reason this spell works and Break Enchantment doesn't is it specifically lists feeblemind as a spell it can undo - where feeblemind lists the spells that can undo it specifically, it was also printed before cleanse was.  If I was to go back and 'reprint' a house version of feeblemind cleanse would be included.

Feeblemind is intended to be a spellcaster killer spell without actually killing the spellcaster.  A feebleminded character is all but dead and it's almost as much a pain to bring them back from this condition as it is to bring back the dead.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 4, 2006)

> In most rules systems - D&D, Magic: The Gathering, hell even Monopoly, *can't* trumps can. _Feeblemind_ states it can't be removed by any spell except those listed.




Except it doesn't say "feeblemind can't be removed by any spells except the following."  I'm reading it as saying that the listed spells *can* remove the condition, not that other spells can't.  Imagine a first draft of _feeblemind_ for 3.5 that says just that the subject's Intelligence and Charisma drop to 1.  People would ask how this could be fixed.  Is this ability damage?  Ability drain?  A curse?  It would appear not.  Then how is it fixed?  The designer says "Well, a _heal_ would work.  Or a _limited wish_.  A _wish_ or _miracle_, obviously."  This answers the question of how to remove it, but it doesn't exclude other solutions.

And _break enchantment_ pretty clearly applies to _feeblemind_; it's an instantaneous 5th level enchantment.  Without words that mention _break enchantment_ by name, I don't see how you could exclude it.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 4, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Except it doesn't say "feeblemind can't be removed by any spells except the following."  I'm reading it as saying that the listed spells *can* remove the condition, not that other spells can't.  Imagine a first draft of _feeblemind_ for 3.5 that says just that the subject's Intelligence and Charisma drop to 1.  People would ask how this could be fixed.  Is this ability damage?  Ability drain?  A curse?  It would appear not.  Then how is it fixed?  The designer says "Well, a _heal_ would work.  Or a _limited wish_.  A _wish_ or _miracle_, obviously."  This answers the question of how to remove it, but it doesn't exclude other solutions.
> 
> And _break enchantment_ pretty clearly applies to _feeblemind_; it's an instantaneous 5th level enchantment.  Without words that mention _break enchantment_ by name, I don't see how you could exclude it.




I tend to agree with this logic.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 4, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Probably, yes. But how does that change the state of the subject?...Bye
> Thanee




The "state" of the subject is:

"...its Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1. The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently. Still, it knows who its friends are and can follow them and even protect "

Since you can use items to raise the scores enough to be able to use a item that gives permanent increases, tomes for example, than the "state" of the subject is no longer as listed in the spell, but you have not used one of the listed spells to change the "state.". In other words, it is possible to do things OTHER than those listed to affect the "state" of the feebleminded victim.

Since Break Enchantment could normally "cure" Feeblemind, takes a very clear statement like" only" those other spells can be used to indicate that Break Enchantment wil not work.

An instantaneous effect can be reversed by anything that says it has that sort of power. The listed spells really work, it seems to me, because they can duplicate a Break Enchantment spell, or, in the case of Heal, because it is a listed thing that can be Healed.

None of those things needed to be listed in the spell - so they are, in effect, only a list of example solutions to being feebleminded.

Heal works because Heal says it works.
Break Enchantment works becasue it is an instantaneous enchantment of fifth level or lower.
Limited Wish, Wish and Miracle all can be used to emulate a Break Enchantment.

It appears the list in the spell is merely for convenience and is incomplete, rather than an exclusive list of all possible remedies.

Looks to me like either leaving Break Enchantment off the list was an oversight or using more specific language to exclude the possibility of other solutions other than those listed was an oversight.

Actually, if one wants to list only a certain set of "cures" and exclude all others that might work, the effect should have been "permanent" rather than "instantaneous" so that some residual magic could be in place that would prevent anything else from working.

*As it is, because the effect is "instantaneous," the rules allow any possible solution that can affect a fifth-level instantanous enchantment, like Break Enchantment.*


----------



## Corsair (Nov 4, 2006)

Out of curiousity, does David Eckelberry's interpretation which I stated above affect anyone's opinion?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 4, 2006)

Corsair said:
			
		

> Out of curiousity, does David Eckelberry's interpretation which I stated above affect anyone's opinion?




That definately counts towards orignal intent, but, unfortunately, he made an error (perhaps) by making this effect "instantaneous" rather than "permanent."

A "permanent" effect is still a magical effect and so you could apply any rules you want on how to get rid of it.  Thus a "Dispel Magic" need not work, for example, if the spell does not permit it to do so (as in Bestow Curse).  I should think that this would leave it subject to Mage's Disjunction, though, but I hardly see that as a major issue.

An "Insantaneous"effect has no residual magic, so any in-the-rules stated cure for that effect must work unless clearly and specifically prohibited.

In this case, it's a fifth level instantaneous enchantment, so Break Enchantment will work unless specifcally prohibited.

If that's what was intended, it should have been so stated.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 4, 2006)

This is a case of specificity vs. generality. 

Anytime you have two texts (technical manuals, operating instructions, rule books...) that contradict one another, you have to consider specificity vs. generality. 

Someone tried to point this out above, but referred to it as can vs. can't...they were right, but it just opened the door to semantics arguments. 

You have a rulebook that states, with *specificity,* a limited set of actions that will function to produce a desired reaction. 

No other action that states a *general* effect may function to produce the same reaction as required in our specific list. 

Now, just to make this confusing, there is one possible exception, but it doesn't apply to Break Enchantment. 

If there were a spell that specifically stated that it provided all of the functionality of one of our required spells, (heal, wish, limited wish or miracle) in so far as repairing damage, removing effects or the like is concerned, then that spell would function. 

Why? Because it would have it's own limited specificity that allows it to apply in the same instances where our existing list of spells apply. 

Example, Mass Heal. It's not the same as a Heal spell...however it specifically states that it provides the same functionality. So it works. 

Sorry if this came off as too convoluted. Sometimes you have to think of rule books as technical manuals, operating instructions or the like. And there are very clear precedents of hierarchy for those. 

Considering what Break Enchantment is intended to do, it makes sense that it would work, however, there is a specific list of available solutions and break enchantment is not on that list. If Break Enchantment was released in a subsequent rulebook and were not available in the core rulebook, then you could make a plausible argument that it is an addition to the rules and is specific enough in its capabilities that it should also function. 

However, break enchantment is from the core rulebook, along with the other spells in question. Were it to be intended to function to remove feeblemind, the specific list of remedies would have to be updated to include break enchantment. 

Cedric


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 4, 2006)

FWIW:

At the beginning of this discussion I would have said, "No, way, Break Enchantment won't work - it's not on the list of things that work."

Further analysis has led me to that Break Enchantment really does work here.  What do you know!


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 4, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> This is a case of specificity vs. generality.
> 
> Anytime you have two texts (technical manuals, operating instructions, rule books...) that contradict one another, you have to consider specificity vs. generality.




Ah, but they do NOT contradict.  The list within the spell is merely incomplete.

...







			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> You have a rulebook that states, with *specificity,* a limited set of actions that will function to produce a desired reaction.




But, once again, although the list is specific, it is not claimed to be exclusive of all other possible remedies, which is a good thing because as a instantaneous effect there is no residual magic left to limit the scope of possible remedies.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> ....However, break enchantment is from the core rulebook, along with the other spells in question. Were it to be intended to function to remove feeblemind, the specific list of remedies would have to be updated to include break enchantment.
> 
> Cedric




Nothing says their cannot be an oversight in a core rulebook.  The list does not purport to be an exclusive list of remedies.  Other solutions may (and can) exist.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 4, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Ah, but they do NOT contradict.  The list within the spell is merely incomplete.




Where is it stated that the spell is incomplete? 

...



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> But, once again, although the list is specific, it is not claimed to be exclusive of all other possible remedies, which is a good thing because as a instantaneous effect there is no residual magic left to limit the scope of possible remedies.




Specificity works by stating what is allowed. Absent of any text to acknowledge that other solutions or options may exist, the list is complete. 



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Nothing says their cannot be an oversight in a core rulebook.  The list does not purport to be an exclusive list of remedies.  Other solutions may (and can) exist.




If other solutions are going to be official solutions, then an FAQ or errata entry would be required to allow this. 

Every GM has the option of saying, "this is how it will work in my game."

However, that same GM cannot cloak himself in the comforting blanket of this is "official" based upon his own reading and interpretation. 

For "official" rules to be used differently, there has to be a statement in an official source. 

Again, if Break Enchantment were not in the core rulebook, I might very well agree with  you. But since there is a clear, distinct list of what works, with no allowance for "other things to work," I contend the Break Enchantment does not function in this case. 

Cedric


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 4, 2006)

I think the magic missle vs shield argument mentioned above is a perfect one in this case.

Magic Missile strikes unerringly, that's what is says. But along comes this shield spell and says it can block it.

Feeblemind says, here are the ways to get rid of me. But along comes Break Enchantment and says, I'm special, I can break ANY enchantment of 5th level or level with an instantaneous duration. But of course, BE requires a check, all the other spells are automatic.

As far as general vs specific, Break Enchantment is pretty specific. It work against a certain class of spells, of a certain level or lower.


----------



## mirivor (Nov 4, 2006)

Alright. I have to respond to this. 

Break enchantment will not work. It is not one of the specified cures. How much easier can this get?

The argument that other things are not excluded is wishy-washy. Example: I am going to make fortitude saves against all spells from now on. Why? Because it is not specified that I can't. Sure, the save says "will", but it does not say "no fortitude". 

Come to think of it, nearly every rule in the game is shattered by this method of thought, that unless something is excluded specifically it is not excluded at all. 

Where does the book say that I cannot use my will save to make a melee attack?

Where does the book say that I cannot use my hide skill to jump up a small ledge?

I do not disagree about the possibility of Break Enchantment working, but as written in the rules it does not.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 4, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think the magic missle vs shield argument mentioned above is a perfect one in this case.
> 
> Magic Missile strikes unerringly, that's what is says. But along comes this shield spell and says it can block it.




Shield says is blocks Magic Missile ...specifically. 



			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Feeblemind says, here are the ways to get rid of me. But along comes Break Enchantment and says, I'm special, I can break ANY enchantment of 5th level or level with an instantaneous duration. But of course, BE requires a check, all the other spells are automatic.
> 
> As far as general vs specific, Break Enchantment is pretty specific. It work against a certain class of spells, of a certain level or lower.




Working against a certain class of spells of certain levels, is a general list with a few parameters to define the list. 

If, instead, Break Enchantment had listed every spell it worked against by name, that would be a specific list.


----------



## Squire James (Nov 4, 2006)

Feeblemind is an old spell (first seen in oD&D, I think), so it is most likely to have a "grandfathered" description that doesn't take newer spells into account.  It seems to have undergone SOME revision over the years, but not much.

Insanity has a similar problem, since it too has a fixed list.  It actually has a slightly larger "cure list", adding Greater Restoration to the mix.  Given the similarity of effects, and Insanity's higher spell level, I think Feeblemind should have a slightly larger "cure list".  So I would recommend that Greater Restoration and Break Enchantment be added to the Feeblemind "cure list".

I think "cure lists" are a bad thing to use in spell descriptions, because they don't account for new spells being added to the system.  It would be better if the spell just stated what spells or kind of spells that normally would work but NOT work on this spell.  An example would be Feeblemind stating that Break Enchantment would not work.


----------



## Solarious (Nov 4, 2006)

Does anyone else get the feeling people who support the "Break Enchantment doesn't work" angle just want to punitively punish the players (who are most typically inflicted with the problem of curing it)?

I haven't seen any arguements that refute the logic that Feeblemind's text doesn't say the list is comprehensive, or the fact that Feeblemind is entirely within Break Enchantment's parameters. Most of which I've seen either says: No, Feeblemind can only be broken by -list- when no such wording appears, or just flat out say Break Enchantment doesn't work. By the RAW (which in itself debateable, but not relavant to the discussion), Feeblemind can cured by Break Enchantment. RAI is estoric knowledge, and seems heavy handed.

So... what's the whole arguement again?


----------



## Cedric (Nov 4, 2006)

Squire James said:
			
		

> Feeblemind is an old spell (first seen in oD&D, I think), so it is most likely to have a "grandfathered" description that doesn't take newer spells into account.  It seems to have undergone SOME revision over the years, but not much.
> 
> Insanity has a similar problem, since it too has a fixed list.  It actually has a slightly larger "cure list", adding Greater Restoration to the mix.  Given the similarity of effects, and Insanity's higher spell level, I think Feeblemind should have a slightly larger "cure list".  So I would recommend that Greater Restoration and Break Enchantment be added to the Feeblemind "cure list".
> 
> I think "cure lists" are a bad thing to use in spell descriptions, because they don't account for new spells being added to the system.  It would be better if the spell just stated what spells or kind of spells that normally would work but NOT work on this spell.  An example would be Feeblemind stating that Break Enchantment would not work.




I will completely agree that having cure lists is a poorly thought out concept because it creates confusion as other texts and spells become available.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 4, 2006)

My reading?

A programmatic interpretation of the rules leads to a fatal exception error.  The rules were written by humans, and they've written in an unstoppable force encountering an immovable object.  It seems very clear to me that this is a contradiction in the rules:  Feeblemind states that the subject remains in the state until one of four conditions are used, and Break Enchantment states that it can remove the Feeblemind state.

This is why a common-sense interpretation is necessary.  Yes, this is fuzzy; yes, there are two different common-sense approaches to this.  No, there's no way to prove that one approach is better than the other.  Figure out which way you like more for your campaign, and use it.

FWIW, I like *Artoomis's* approach best.

Daniel


----------



## Cedric (Nov 4, 2006)

Solarious said:
			
		

> Does anyone else get the feeling people who support the "Break Enchantment doesn't work" angle just want to punitively punish the players (who are most typically inflicted with the problem of curing it)?




First of all, I don't use Feeblemind against my players, and if I did, I would do so when they were high enough level to have reasonable access to a Heal spell. 



			
				Solarious said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any arguements that refute the logic that Feeblemind's text doesn't say the list is comprehensive, or the fact that Feeblemind is entirely within Break Enchantment's parameters. Most of which I've seen either says: No, Feeblemind can only be broken by -list- when no such wording appears, or just flat out say Break Enchantment doesn't work. By the RAW (which in itself debateable, but not relavant to the discussion), Feeblemind can cured by Break Enchantment. RAI is estoric knowledge, and seems heavy handed.
> 
> So... what's the whole arguement again?




A "list" is defined as the total number to be considered or included. Every list by its nature is comprehensive unless there is verbiage to allow additions, exclusions or exceptions. The list in the Feeblemind text allows none of these. Therefore, it falls back to the default nature of being comprehensive...the total number to be considered or included. 

By the RAW, only that list works. Had there been no list or had the list included the possibility of other solutions, break enchantment would work. 

Break Enchantment is from the same book as Feeblemind and the spells that can reverse the effects of feeblemind. If break enchantment was intended to work, it should have been in the list.


----------



## mirivor (Nov 4, 2006)

"I haven't seen any arguements that refute the logic that Feeblemind's text doesn't say the list is comprehensive...."

Yes you have, if you read my post. Where in the book does it say that I cannot use my climb skill to make attack rolls? Where in the book does it say that I cannot roll 5d8 for my Cure Light Wounds at 1st level? Where in the book does it say that I cannot use my spellcraft skill to craft a masterwork sword? 

These are all ludicrous ideas, yet no where in the books are they specifically spelled out. It is taken for granted that because base attack bonus is used to make attacks, then my climb skill is not. The people that are arguing for Break Enchantment on the grounds that Feeblemind's list  is not specified as "exclusive" have no basis from which to argue that point. There is no prior examples set in the books. The entire ruleset has the assumption that if a book says that component X is used for component why, then that is the way it is. 

Now, as for arguing based on Break Enchantment's text, that is a logical and reasonable idea. I would not refute the points made from that stand.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 4, 2006)

mirivor, the grounds for saying that _break enchantment_ will work is in the description of _break enchantment_; it says it will reverse instantaneous fifth level enchantments.  If this isn't referring to _feeblemind_, what *is* it referring to?

If there is a line in the Climb description that I've been overlooking that allows you to make a climb check when an attack roll is called for, then you can do it.  If your 1st level character possesses a feat or magic item that allows you to roll 5d8 for your _cure light wounds_, then you can.  And so on for the rest of your examples.

The reason we are saying that _break enchantment_ works is not just because _feeblemind_ doesn't rule it out, but because the text of _break enchantment_ says it works and the _feeblemind_ spell doesn't mention _break enchantment_ even by description.

The case would be different if there were words that said that _feeblemind_ could *only* be removed by those spells.  Or it couldn't be removed *except* by those spells.  But what the description does is effectively add "can reverse the effect of _feeblemind_" to a short list of spells.  But it doesn't have to include _break enchantment_ in that list because _break enchantment_ already has the equivalent text.  Just read the part where it says it can reverse instantaneous fifth level enchantments.

When people say that "the text of _feeblemind_ doesn't rule this out" the fact that _break enchantment_ has text that will apply is an unstated, but obvious, part of their position.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 4, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> A "list" is defined as the total number to be considered or included. Every list by its nature is comprehensive unless there is verbiage to allow additions, exclusions or exceptions. The list in the Feeblemind text allows none of these. Therefore, it falls back to the default nature of being comprehensive...the total number to be considered or included.
> 
> By the RAW, only that list works. Had there been no list or had the list included the possibility of other solutions, break enchantment would work.
> 
> Break Enchantment is from the same book as Feeblemind and the spells that can reverse the effects of feeblemind. If break enchantment was intended to work, it should have been in the list.




The list in _feeblemind_ text effectively adds a line to the spell descriptions of _heal_ and _limited wish_ that says they can reverse the effects of _feeblemind_.  The inclusion of _miracle_ and _wish_ in the list is unnecessary, since these spells can duplicate _heal_.  The addition of any spell that can duplicate _heal_ is unnecessary, for the same reason.  And the addition of _break enchantment_ to the list is unnecessary, because _break enchantment_ doesn't need a line that says it can reverse a _feeblemind_.  It already has the relevant text:

This spell frees victims from *enchantments*, transmutations, and curses. *Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect*. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by _dispel magic_, *break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level* or lower.​
In other words, _break enchantment_ can work against instantaneous 5th level enchantments that cannot be dispelled by _dispel magic_.  No text needs to be added, so the description of _feeblemind_ doesn't have to supply it.


----------



## mirivor (Nov 4, 2006)

Cheiromancer: My posts are more addressed to those saying that are saying that the list in Feeblemind is not descripted as a complete list, therefore they are assuming that there are other things allowed. This does not make sense. If that were the case, the why bother with the list to begin with? By that logic, I don't need a rule or mechanic to let me use my jump check to attack, nor anything to let my first level character roll the 5 dice for a 1st level CLW. I can do it because the spells and mechanics in question do not specify that is all that they are used for. 

Example: There is no line in the Climb skill that allows that. However, there is no line that forbids it. That is the logic that is being used by some of the posters here to support use of Break Enchantment. They are declaring that because the "list" is not specified as complete then other effects are possible. Faulty logic. My point is that the text of Feeblemind DOES rule it out.

I am not against Break Enchantment working, although as written it would not. Its description is more general than Feeblemind's. When determining effects, it is always the most general first. Saying "This spell gets rid of enchantments" is by no stretch as specific as saying "This spell is removed by spells x, y, or z".

Here is the reasoning that some are using, which I will parallel with another example that is ridiculous:

1)Feeblemind's text does not specifically eliminate the use of Break Enchantment.
1) The climb skill does not specifically eliminate the use of itself to make attack rolls with.

2) Break Enchantment will remove Feeblemind.
2) The Climb skill can be used to make attack rolls.

Surely that is an easy logical process to follow and, by the rules of logic, that makes sense. Problem is, I daresay that everyone on the boards would agree that the second notion is nuts. Therefore, by logic, the first is as well.


----------



## mirivor (Nov 4, 2006)

Drat. You are fast, Cheiro. 

The text does have to supply it because it is more specific than the text in Break enchantment.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 4, 2006)

mirivor said:
			
		

> Here is the reasoning that some are using, which I will parallel with another example that is ridiculous:
> 
> 1)Feeblemind's text does not specifically eliminate the use of Break Enchantment.
> 1) The climb skill does not specifically eliminate the use of itself to make attack rolls with.
> ...




I think the people who are saying "Feeblemind's text does not specifically eliminate the use of Break Enchantment" are taking for granted the fact that _break enchantment_ has text that allows it to apply in this case.  If this premise about _break enchantment_ is not part of their argument it is, in fact, absurd.  But it is uncharitable to assume that they do not intend this point to be part of their argument.  

The principle of charity requires you to construe an opponent's argument in the best light; this means allowing for obvious, unstated premises.  You don't seem to have been doing so; instead you have been interpreting some of the posts as expressing patent absurdities.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 4, 2006)

Once a discussion reaches it's second page of back-and-forth, I let it go. 

For what it's worth, I would house rule that Break Enchantment works. But I would consider it a House Rule, not an official rule. 

Cedric


----------



## mirivor (Nov 4, 2006)

Cheiromancer: I agree with that statement, although I stand by my assertion that when discussing effects the general must come before the specific.

On a less arumentative note, anyone else come to believe through this thread that maybe Feeblemind is mislabeled as an enchantment spell? Seems to me that it should be a Transmutation effect. Afterall, enchantments are suppose to be continuous effects. If this is the case, then that would answer some of the questions stated in the thread thus far.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 4, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I think the people who are saying "Feeblemind's text does not specifically eliminate the use of Break Enchantment" are taking for granted the fact that _break enchantment_ has text that allows it to apply in this case.  If this premise about _break enchantment_ is not part of their argument it is, in fact, absurd.  But it is uncharitable to assume that they do not intend this point to be part of their argument.



I agree that Feeblemind's text allows it to work:  it is, when it comes to such effects, an unstoppable force.

However, Feeblemind is pretty clear that the victim remains in that state--i.e., cannot be moved from the state--until one of a set of specific, finite events happen.  Having "Break Enchantment" cast on the victim does not fall into this set.  The spell is, when it comes to Break Enchantment, an immovable object.

Do you see what I mean?  I htink it's perfectly plausible to read the rules as contradicting one another when it comes to this case.  The rules were written by people, and people make mistakes. It makes the most sense to me to recognize this contradiction and decide how to handle it.

Daniel


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 4, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Do you see what I mean?  I think it's perfectly plausible to read the rules as contradicting one another when it comes to this case.  The rules were written by people, and people make mistakes. It makes the most sense to me to recognize this contradiction and decide how to handle it.
> 
> Daniel



I'd love for this to be the case, simply because it would illustrate the need for a less mechanical reading of the rules. But I find myself convinced by my argument that _break enchantment_ is not mentioned in the text of _feeblemind_ because it doesn't need to be; its own text is sufficient. 



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> Once a discussion reaches it's second page of back-and-forth, I let it go.



You are a wise man.  I wish I had your self-restraint.

I wish I did, but I don't.  I'll try to let the _break enchantment_ argument rest.  There are, however, a few other things I wanted to give my opinion on:

Regarding _greater restoration_; I don't think having a score drop to 1 is the same as ability drain.  Ability drain reduces an ability by a certain amount; it doesn't reduce it to a target number.  Ability drain also only affects living creatures.  If a non-living creature were subject to mind-affecting compulsions they could be affected by a _feeblemind_, but not by ability drain.  _Greater restoration_ says that it "dispels all magical effects penalizing the creature’s abilities" but instantaneous effects can't be dispelled. And so I don't think _greater restoration_ would work.

Regarding _eagle's splendor_ and _fox's cunning_; I think these would raise the effective stats to 5, and restore playability to the character.  In other words, the bit that says that "the affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently" is only for when the stats are at 1; it spells out what it means for a PC to have animal intelligence.  This text shouldn't apply to victims whose stats are 3 or above.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 4, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'd love for this to be the case, simply because it would illustrate the need for a less mechanical reading of the rules. But I find myself convinced by my argument that _break enchantment_ is not mentioned in the text of _feeblemind_ because it doesn't need to be; its own text is sufficient.



According to my reading of both texts, here's how it goes:

1) Victim is Feebleminded.
2) Victim is subjected to break enchantment, which reverses the Feeblemind.
3) Victim remains feebleminded ("the subject remains in this state until X, Y, or Z happens.)
4) Victim is subjected to a heal spell.
5) Victim is no longer feebleminded.

It's true that break enchantment is not mentioned in the text of feeblemind; what IS mentioned in the text of feeblemind is that the victim remains in the feebleminded state until one of four things happens.

Technically, of course, this means that once you kill the feebleminded person, they remain at an intelligence of 1.  A dead creature has no intelligence score; this apparently means that killing a feebleminded creature does not kill them.

That suggests to me that the immovable object is at fault .

Daniel


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 4, 2006)

Must... let... it... go...

(Attempt Will Save... success!)

Luckily we clerics have good base Will saves *and* a high Wisdom.


----------



## glass (Nov 5, 2006)

Solarious said:
			
		

> Does anyone else get the feeling people who support the "Break Enchantment doesn't work" angle just want to punitively punish the players (who are most typically inflicted with the problem of curing it)?



No, I get the impression that people who support "Break Enchantment doesn't work" have read their PHBs. 

_EDIT: Not that I am suggesting that the 'does work' side haven't read them. I just don't see how "the subject remains in this state until X" can be read any other way._


glass.


----------



## Starglim (Nov 5, 2006)

I don't think it's been mentioned yet *why* it would be so bad to allow _break enchantment_ to work. _Fox's cunning_ isn't even worth considering.

The letter and the intent of the rules is that _feeblemind_ requires a 6th-level cleric spell or a 7th-level wizard spell to remove it. Allowing a 5th-level wizard spell to remove the effect, simply because of pedantry or player whining, is an unacceptable weakening of the spell.


----------



## glass (Nov 5, 2006)

Starglim said:
			
		

> I don't think it's been mentioned yet *why* it would be so bad to allow _break enchantment_ to work. _Fox's cunning_ isn't even worth considering.



Actually, I don't have a problems with BE removing feeblemind in principal. It makes it possible to use feeblemind without stalling the adventure as much. I might even rule to that effect if it ever came up IMC, but I would consider it 'the H-word'.


glass.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 5, 2006)

Yeah. For some reason, the people who say that _Feeblemind_ only lists some options, read 'remains in this state until' (finite list of options follows) as 'the state can be removed with' (list of examples follows).

Takes a lot of creative reading to get there. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Knight Otu (Nov 5, 2006)

Hm, that makes _break enchantment_ more or less a limited _greater dispel magic_ that might also free a petrified creature, doesn't it?
Most other instantaneous enchantment and transmutation spells that affect creatures either provide their own cure list (_feeblemind_, _insanity_), or are generally benefitial to the target. Well, and then there's _disintegrate_ and _power word: kill_.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 5, 2006)

The fact alone, that it can un-petrify a creature (without a risk even) makes the spell pretty good (much better than the spell, that is specifically for this purpose and one level higher)!

Also...


> *Targets:* Up to one creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other




So, don't say this spell is bad, it surely isn't. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Knight Otu (Nov 5, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> So, don't say this spell is bad, it surely isn't.



I'm not saying it is bad, I say that it is more limited in applications than _greater dispel_, which is ok, as the latter is higher level as well. Just an observation that the "can affect instantaneous spells" doesn't amount to all that much.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 5, 2006)

Yep, it's a highly specialized spell. And who knows what kind of instanteneous spells there will be in upcoming books.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Knight Otu (Nov 5, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yep, it's a highly specialized spell. And who knows what kind of instanteneous spells there will be in upcoming books.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



Or have been. I admittedly only looked through the core spells.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 5, 2006)

Starglim said:
			
		

> I don't think it's been mentioned yet *why* it would be so bad to allow _break enchantment_ to work. _Fox's cunning_ isn't even worth considering.
> 
> The letter and the intent of the rules is that _feeblemind_ requires a 6th-level cleric spell or a 7th-level wizard spell to remove it. Allowing a 5th-level wizard spell to remove the effect, simply because of pedantry or player whining, is an unacceptable weakening of the spell.




edit:  This is kind of long, but it brings all of my arguments together, I think

"...Allowing a 5th-level wizard spell to remove the effect, simply because of pedantry or player whining, is an unacceptable weakening of the spell"  No, it's just applying Break Enchantment as written, plus realizing that for an instantenous spell such a list is permissive rather than restrictive (or, if you like inclusive rather than exclusive).

Let's look at which fifth level or lower "instantaneous enchantments" actually exist in the PHB, for Break Enchantment is meant to apply to all of those.

Let's see, there is:

Feeblemind Sor/Wiz 5 and... oh, look, that’s it!  The only one.  (edit:  I searched the "Hyperlinked SRD." If I missed somehting please let me know.) 

That alone is evidence fairly strong evidence that Break Enchantment should work on Feeblemind,  *It is the only PHB spell that is an instantaneous enchantment that could be affected by Break Enchantment.*

The argument that the "feebleminded state" can only be removed as stated in the spell falls apart very quickly, as I have shown.  

There are other ways that one can remove the feebleminded state, even if rather inefficiently (such as magically raising the stats and/or even slowing raising them by level advancement). 

Since *that* is true, the list presented *cannot* be an exclusive list.  

Since *that* is true, Break Enchantment *must* work.

*An instantaneous effect, by definition, leaves behind no magic that can control its ongoing effect.*. This is a very key point  Because of this fact, any language about what can remove the instantaneous effect must be permissive, rather that restrictive.  In other words, it’s removing the normal restriction that one can pretty much do nothing to reverse “instantaneous” effect.   Feeblemind list some ways one can do this, but Break Enchantment lists another.  By the logic above, and because Feeblemind is the ONLY fifth level or lower instantaneous enchantment in the PHB, Break Enchantment must be able to work.

If not, the whole logic above must have a fatal flaw somewhere (please point it out to me) and, to top it off, the “fifth level or lower instantaneous enchantment” portion of Break Enchantment must have no meaning, at least as far as the PHB is concerned, and that is not really acceptable to me.

edit:  Unfortunately a quick surface reading for Feeblemind would lead one to a conclusion that ONLY those spells listed work to "fix" the feebleminded.

That's unfortunate, especially lin light of the fact that NONE of those spells needed to be listed.  That's because Heal already explicity states it "immediately ends...  the adverse condition..." of feeblemind, and the others all can be used in place of Break Enchantment anyway.  It would have been better (clearer) to have no such text at all in the Feeblemind spell description.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 5, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> edit:  Unfortunately a quick surface reading for Feeblemind would lead one to a conclusion that ONLY those spells listed work to "fix" the feebleminded.



Agreed--but I also agree that a slower surface reading leads to this same conclusion. The spell is poorly written, as you eloquently point out:  the line that the subject remains in that state until subjected to one of four spells is obviously unworkable in play.

This is why I think that a "surface reading" of the rules is a bad approach; it's much better to analyze the rules from multiple angles.

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 5, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Agreed--but I also agree that a slower surface reading leads to this same conclusion. The spell is poorly written, as you eloquently point out:  the line that the subject remains in that state until subjected to one of four spells is obviously unworkable in play.
> 
> This is why I think that a "surface reading" of the rules is a bad approach; it's much better to analyze the rules from multiple angles.
> 
> Daniel




Generally true, but should not be needed.  Of course, as you pointed out, the rules are written by people, not flawless machines.  Mistakes are made and not always corrected.  

Also, in writing rules (and any other exacting text) it is generally better to have things said *in only once place* .  Every time something is unnecessarily repeated, errors tend to creep in.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 5, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Also, in writing rules (and any other exacting text) it is generally better to have things said *in only once place* .  Every time something is unnecessarily repeated, errors tend to creep in.



Agreed.  I think they would've been better off leaving this line out of Feeblemind.  If they felt the need to emphasize the spell's nastiness, they could've written something like: "Note: because this spell is instantaneous, not permanent, Dispel Magic and similar spells have no effect."

Daniel


----------



## Thanee (Nov 5, 2006)

> That alone is evidence fairly strong evidence that Break Enchantment should work on Feeblemind,  *It is the only PHB spell that is an instantaneous enchantment that could be affected by Break Enchantment.*




As for the instantaneous effect (not just enchantment, even though both words start with an 'e'), there is an example in the PHB, actually.

The full sentence is: "_Break Enchantment_ can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as _Flesh to Stone_." So much for _that_ part.



			
				Break Enchantment said:
			
		

> If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.




And this part therefore cannot refer to instantaneous effects, BTW, which also becomes clear when reading the full description in the PHB, because it lists an example for what is meant there (a spell, that could normally be dispelled (i.e. has a duration other than instanteneous), but actually states, that it cannot be dispelled, like _Bestow Curse_).

Otherwise it would be kinda funny, that they use an example spell (_Flesh to Stone_), which doesn't even work, since it is 6th level. 




> The argument that the "feebleminded state" can only be removed as stated in the spell falls apart very quickly, as I have shown.




Not sure what you think you have shown, but nothing falls apart there...

It doesn't state whether it is modified Int or base Int. Either it is modified Int, then those modifiers won't raise it, or it's base Int, then you can raise it, but only from 1 onwards. Either way, the state remains.



> There are other ways that one can remove the feebleminded state, even if rather inefficiently (such as magically raising the stats and/or even slowing raising them by level advancement).




As already said, that doesn't _remove_ the state, it might lessen its effect (if it works, and one could easily make an argument, that regardless of any modifiers, Int is always set to 1, because the modified Int is affected), but the state is still there.

The state is what turned the Int value at the moment the spell was cast to 1.

The Int value doesn't have to remain at 1 in order for the state to remain.
As long as the Int is still lowered by the margin it has been lowered when the spell was cast, the state is still in effect.

Of course, if you are adamant about that the state is and can only be that Int is exactly 1, then everything you name to change the Int will fail, since only four spells (as listed in the description) can remove the state. So if _that_ is the state, then that's exactly what happens.

As I said, it doesn't really matter what way you define the state, there is always a fitting and consistent answer to it, so there is really no way to make an argument, that the state cannot only be removed by the four listed spells, since whatever method can alter the state. It cannot. The spell description clearly says so.

Your logic is highly flawed here. You basically use two different definitions for the state, one to make your other methods (i.e. _Fox's Cunning_) work (because there is no other rule to say, that they do; it's just an unproven assumption your whole argument is based upon), and the other definition to say, that if anything else works, then it's not only those four spells that work (obviously, since something else works, too). It doesn't work that way. You have to use the same definition throughout (as mentioned a few times above in this post, as long as you are consistent with the state definition, everything falls into place). If it is possible to raise the Int via those methods, then that is part of the state definition, because that is the state then, and by virtue of that definition, the state is not removed then either. If not, then those methods fail. Choose one, no switching allowed.



> Since *that* is true, the list presented *cannot* be an exclusive list.
> 
> Since *that* is true, Break Enchantment *must* work.




Since the initial assumption is false, the rest is also false. 




> edit: Unfortunately a quick surface reading for Feeblemind would lead one to a conclusion that ONLY those spells listed work to "fix" the feebleminded.




Yeah, all the ones that don't agree with you only did a quick surface reading... that must be it! 

I even looked up the 3.0 version to see, if something got edited in or out.

How about... a quick surface reading for _Break Enchantment_ would lead one to a conclusion that ALL those spells that fall under the listed categories will be canceled, regardless of what the specific spell descriptions have to say about that matter.

See? Works that way, too.



> Of course, as you pointed out, the rules are written by people, not flawless machines. Mistakes are made and not always corrected.




And of course, it must be _Feeblemind_, which is wrong. It absolutely cannot be, that the description of _Break Enchantment_ is written too loosely by not figuring in spells, which are even in the same book (and have been in the previous version as well and all corrected printings of that one), which fit the pattern but still do not get countered. No way! That's totally not possible.


Sorry, Artoomis, but your thoughts are so much fixed on how _Break Enchantment_ totally has to work by now, that you cannot see the simple truth anymore, I think. 

There's a list of exactly four PHB spells, which work to counteract _Feeblemind_. The spell description makes clear, that there is _no other way_ to remove the _feeblemind_ effect (remains... until...). That's it. That's all there needs to be.

And how is that _obviously unworkable_ in play, anyways, Pielorinho?

Someone casts _Feeblemind_. Someone else casts _Break Enchantment_. Nothing happens.

Quite workable, if you ask me. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 5, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> ...Sorry, Artoomis, but your thoughts are so much fixed on how _Break Enchantment_ totally has to work by now, that you cannot see the simple truth anymore, I think.




No..., I actually started out on your side (befoe I posted anything), but logic inexorably took me the other way.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> There's a list of exactly four PHB spells, which work to counteract _Feeblemind_. The spell description makes clear, that there is _no other way_ to remove the _feeblemind_ effect (remains... until...). That's it. That's all there needs to be.




Patently false.  What about Mass Heal, for starters?...

You are so fixed on how that list must be an exclusive list that you cannot follow the logic that states otherwise.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 5, 2006)

_Mass Heal_ is _Heal_. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 5, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> As for the instantaneous effect (not just enchantment, even though both words start with an 'e'), there is an example in the PHB, actually.
> 
> The full sentence is: "_Break Enchantment_ can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as _Flesh to Stone_." So much for _that_ part.
> 
> ...





Actually, the full SRD text is:



> This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.
> 
> If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.
> 
> If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.




Feeblemind is the ONLY instantaneous enchantment of fifth level or lower.

For transumations, there is:

Reincarnate (does this make Break Enchantent a save or die spell if you've been Reincarnated?)
Awaken (can make the animal/plant unawakened?)
Mnemonic Enhancer (lose the benefit of the spell?)

That's a Weird selection of possibilities.

For instantaneous curses, there is only:

Unholy Blight

That's it as far as I can tell.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> _Mass Heal_ is _Heal_.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




No it's not.  It a different spell.  "This spell functions like heal, except as noted above. The maximum number of hit points restored to each creature is 250."  It is not the same spell. 

You don't get to have it both ways.   Either this list is completely exclusive or it is not.

I agree that Mass Heal would work because Heal specifically say it works and Mass Heal functions "like Heal," but, then, I also say Break Enchantment works because it says it will work on an instanteous fifth level enhantment.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> ...The full sentence is: "_Break Enchantment_ can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as _Flesh to Stone_." So much for _that_ part.
> 
> And this part therefore cannot refer to instantaneous effects, BTW, which also becomes clear when reading the full description in the PHB, because it lists an example for what is meant there (a spell, that could normally be dispelled (i.e. has a duration other than instanteneous), but actually states, that it cannot be dispelled, like _Bestow Curse_).
> 
> ...




The example is not in the SRD - which is a good thing, since it is in error, as you correctly point out.

Note that ALL instantaneous effect spells cannot be dispelled, and so are covered by Break Enchantment along with any other spell that cannot be dispelled.

I guess that does make the list of affected non-dispellable spells longer than I have posted so far.  On that point, at least, you are right - even though you did not put it that way.

Hmmm... that makes making a list of all non-dispellable enchantments, trasmutations and curses a bit harder to produce.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Feeblemind is the ONLY instantaneous enchantment of fifth level or lower.
> 
> For transmutations, there is:
> 
> ...



Artoomis, I think you win the thread!  I would never have thought of using _break enchantment_ to reverse the effect of _reincarnate_ or _awaken_.  Who would have thought that it was an anti-druid spell!


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Artoomis, I think you win the thread!  I would never have thought of using _break enchantment_ to reverse the effect of _reincarnate_ or _awaken_.  Who would have thought that it was an anti-druid spell!




Wierd, eh?  I probably would not allow it as being a little too wierd and unintended, but it looks like it fits the way the spell was written.

Oh, and of course  it can be used to reverse Break Enchantment itself.  I left that off this list.

The way out of the four weird and unhelpful results is to focus on the word "victim."

Now's a good time to hear from Hyp, now that we exposed all the rule wierdness.  What's your opinion, Hyp?  Am I right on the rules?


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 6, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> However, Feeblemind is pretty clear that the victim remains in that state--i.e., cannot be moved from the state--until one of a set of specific, finite events happen.  Having "Break Enchantment" cast on the victim does not fall into this set.




However, BE states that it can remove the effect of someone in such a state. 

Feeblemind is a special case, but is not therefore exempt from other special cases. 

Let's take the following text from the SRD:

_FLANKING
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.
_

That is the text for flanking. Let us suppose you have a class ability that allows you to flank from a square adjacent to you and a threatened foe (there are several such classes). If you refuse to allow a special case, then having such an ability is useless; flanking is already defined. 

Feeblemind is defined by what it does. It cannot itself define Break Enchantment. 

Suppose for a moment that _miracle_ is used to duplicate _heal_ in order to cure _feeblemind_. If feeblemind is, in fact, an immovable object, then it will fail. The miracle may duplicate the effects of heal, but feeblemind actually requires heal to be cast. 

Further, a feebleminded character has amazing powers since they know "who its friends are and can follow them and even protect them." The inerring ability to follow someone is very valuable. Further, this is more valuable than true seeing in detecting an imposter. Presumably, even if a friend is transported to the Ethereal Plane, the feebleminded character appears loyally by their side. 

I think that is enough to demonstrate feeblemind is not an "immovable object." It is simply an instantaneous spell with certain effects and remedies. It itself does not have the ability to define how other spells work, such as break enchantment.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, the full SRD text is: ...
> 
> That's it as far as I can tell.




As I said above... the complete text isn't in the SRD, it's only in the PHB.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No it's not.  It a different spell.  "This spell functions like heal, except as noted above. The maximum number of hit points restored to each creature is 250."  It is not the same spell.




That's all there needs to be. Only _Heal_ and those other three work. This works as _Heal_. This works.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Nov 6, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I think that is enough to demonstrate feeblemind is not an "immovable object." It is simply an instantaneous spell with certain effects and remedies. It itself does not have the ability to define how other spells work, such as break enchantment.




This is obviously wrong, since many spells list other spells, that do not work against them. They thereby do not define how other spells, but only how other spells work in context with themselves, thus defining themselves.

Try _Prismatic Wall_, for example. You don't want to tell us, that it can be brought down by thousands of spells, and not only by the ones listed, or do you? Well, I guess you do. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 6, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> However, BE states that it can remove the effect of someone in such a state.



Absolutely agreed.  Again, I am not arguing that, per the rules, Break Enchantment doesn't work.  I am arguing that, according to a strict reading of the rules, Break Enchantment removes the effect of Feeblemind, AND that someone under the effect of Feeblemind remains under this effect after the Break Enchantment is cast.  Fatal Exception Error.

*Thanee*, the spell is unworkable in play because it makes someone under the effect of Feeblemind immortal.  A dead creature, IIRC, is an inanimate object, and inanimate objects have no intelligence score.  You cannot remove the intelligence score of a person under the effect of Feeblemind, however:  they continue to have an Int of 1 until they're affected by one of the four listed effects.  You therefore cannot turn them into an inanimate object, which means you can't kill them.

I suppose you *could* work that into play,but the spell becomes far more powerful in that case.  Armies of immortal animals FTW!

Daniel


----------



## Thanee (Nov 6, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Thanee*, the spell is unworkable in play because it makes someone under the effect of Feeblemind immortal.  A dead creature, IIRC, is an inanimate object, and inanimate objects have no intelligence score.  You cannot remove the intelligence score of a person under the effect of Feeblemind, however:  they continue to have an Int of 1 until they're affected by one of the four listed effects.  You therefore cannot turn them into an inanimate object, which means you can't kill them.




Very reasonable interpretation! 



Bye
Thanee


----------



## glass (Nov 6, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Thanee*, the spell is unworkable in play because it makes someone under the effect of Feeblemind immortal.  A dead creature, IIRC, is an inanimate object, and inanimate objects have no intelligence score.  You cannot remove the intelligence score of a person under the effect of Feeblemind, however:  they continue to have an Int of 1 until they're affected by one of the four listed effects.  You therefore cannot turn them into an inanimate object, which means you can't kill them.






			
				The SRD said:
			
		

> If the target creature fails a Will saving throw, its Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1.



Feeblemind only reduces the Intelligence of _creatures_ to 1. Since dead creatures aren't creatures any more, they are no longer subject to the int restriction. So they can be Int -, and dead, just fine while feebleminded.


glass.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 6, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Feeblemind only reduces the Intelligence of _creatures_ to 1. Since dead creatures aren't creatures any more, they are no longer subject to the int restriction. So they can be Int -, and dead, just fine while feebleminded.



I'm not sure I buy that.  The subject, after all, "remains in this state until" etc.  Surely changing from a creature to an object means that they're no longer in that state.

But even if I stipulate that you're correct, a programmatic reading of the spell (which, again, I reject) suggests that such creatures are immune to wisdom or int-draining poisons or other effects.  Do you agree?

Daniel


----------



## sirwmholder (Nov 6, 2006)

I don't think Break Enchantment would work... Feeble Mind reduces the person to an Int and Cha of 1 then it is done ( ie instantanious )... you could walk through an anti-magic field and your ability scores would still be 1... therefore there is no enchantment to break... it's not like a Lesser Geas/Quest.  Just my take.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 6, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> I don't think Break Enchantment would work... Feeble Mind reduces the person to an Int and Cha of 1 then it is done ( ie instantanious )... you could walk through an anti-magic field and your ability scores would still be 1... therefore there is no enchantment to break... it's not like a Lesser Geas/Quest.  Just my take.



How, then, do you interpret the line in which Break Enchantment specifically says it can reverse instantaneous effects?

Daniel


----------



## Thanee (Nov 6, 2006)

Yep.

He has a point, though, that it is kinda weird, that BE affects instantaneous effects. 

There isn't really anything to _break_ left. You can only restore (or should be able to, anyways).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> This is obviously wrong, since many spells list other spells, that do not work against them. They thereby do not define how other spells, but only how other spells work in context with themselves, thus defining themselves.
> 
> Try _Prismatic Wall_, for example. You don't want to tell us, that it can be brought down by thousands of spells, and not only by the ones listed, or do you? Well, I guess you do.
> 
> ...





Prismatic Wall is not "instantaneous."  That's what makes all the difference here.  Any non-instantaneous spell is free to state anything about how to neutralize the spell's effects - after al, the spell is STILL in effect while you are trying to neutrailize it.

Instantaneous spells are different.  There is no more magic in place.  "The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting."  Thus any list of how to reverse the effects of an instananeous spell are, by defintion, a permissive list of how to reverse the effects of the spell.  Other solutions may exist.

In fact, it is invalid for an instantaneous spell to have an *exclusive* list of remedies because there is no magic in place to enforce those restrictions.  

That's the key point.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> As I said above... the complete text isn't in the SRD, it's only in the PHB.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




Other than deleting the invalid example of Flesh to Stone, there is no significant difference between the PHB text and the SRD text.

Ragardless, you are not still trying to say that Break Enchantment was not meant to reverse instantaneous effects (enchantments, transmutations and curses) of fifth spell level or lower, are you?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> He has a point, though, that it is kinda weird, that BE affects instantaneous effects.
> 
> ...




Yep.  Break Enchantment is a little misnamed.  However:

"Fix Magical Misfortune" while possibly more accurate, is really not as cool a spell name.


----------



## sirwmholder (Nov 6, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> How, then, do you interpret the line in which Break Enchantment specifically says it can reverse instantaneous effects?
> 
> Daniel



Personally, I would line item veto that single line... seems to not fit with the spirit of the spell and creates more confusion than it should be.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## evilbob (Nov 6, 2006)

Starglim said:
			
		

> I don't think it's been mentioned yet *why* it would be so bad to allow _break enchantment_ to work.



I skipped some of this thread due to the back-and-forth nature of it, so I don't know if this point has already been made:  but, I generally agree with the idea that BE should be able to counter _feeblemind_, if nothing else because they are both 5th level spells.  Typically spells that counter other spells include language about being able to counteract spells of "equal level or lower" (like _haste_ vs. _slow_).  I see no reason why these two 5th level spells couldn't oppose each other.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 6, 2006)

mirivor said:
			
		

> Cheiromancer: My posts are more addressed to those saying that are saying that the list in Feeblemind is not descripted as a complete list, therefore they are assuming that there are other things allowed.




The other allowed things that people are arguing for are specifically those that are called out in other places in the rules.  Nobody here is arguing for anything that isn't an interpretation of a written rule.



> 2) Break Enchantment will remove Feeblemind.
> 2) The Climb skill can be used to make attack rolls.




See, the second sentence is ridiculous because there's no reason to think that you could use your skill checks to make attack rolls.  The first isn't, because there is a reason to think that Break Enchantment removes Feeblemind.  It says in the spell description that it removes 5th level instantaneous enchantment effects, which describes Feeblemind.

Do you see the difference here?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> Personally, I would line item veto that single line... seems to not fit with the spirit of the spell and creates more confusion than it should be.
> 
> Thank you for your time,
> Wm. Holder




Wow.  That's a huge change.  Still, if that works for you, that's fine.

To me it does fit within the spirit of the spell, though the number on instananeous spells (that cause harmful effects making one a "victim" of the effects) that are available in the PHB to be reversed is very low.  

In fact, there are exactly two: Unholy Blight and Feeblemind.  The other four instantaneous spells (enhantment, transmutations or curses) are all helpful things (Reincarnate, Awaken, Mnemonic Enhancer and Break Enchantment).

Break Enchantment's intent seems to me to be:

All bad things that happen to you from enchantments, transmutations or curses (including items) can be reversed with Break Enchantment unless it is too powerfull, defined as:

1.  It is an undispellable spell of sixth level or higher

and/or

2.  It was cast with a caster level (CL) of 24 or lower (Max possible successful check is vs. DC35, set by 11 + CL).


----------



## TheGogmagog (Nov 6, 2006)

evilbob said:
			
		

> I skipped some of this thread due to the back-and-forth nature of it, so I don't know if this point has already been made:  but, I generally agree with the idea that BE should be able to counter _feeblemind_, if nothing else because they are both 5th level spells.  Typically spells that counter other spells include language about being able to counteract spells of "equal level or lower" (like _haste_ vs. _slow_).  I see no reason why these two 5th level spells couldn't oppose each other.



I'll agree with this rule of thumb reasoning.

I also agree with the poster (can't see who from this page) who questioned what difference does it make?  If it's players who are afflicted, why punish them if Break Encheantment is all they have?  If It's NPC's the DM can provide whatever resources he wants for the NPC so this only seems to affect the fun of the players.


----------



## thompgc (Nov 6, 2006)

*Panacea from SC*

The Panacea spell from the Spell Compendium (not sure what source it was in before that) specifically states that it cures Feeblemind (does lots of other stuff as well - beefier version of Cleanse that was posted towards the beginning of this thread)
It is a 4th level Cleric spell (and 5th level druid)


----------



## sirwmholder (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Wow.  That's a huge change.  Still, if that works for you, that's fine.
> 
> To me it does fit within the spirit of the spell, though the number on instananeous spells (that cause harmful effects making one a "victim" of the effects) that are available in the PHB to be reversed is very low.
> 
> In fact, there are exactly two: Unholy Blight and Feeblemind.  The other four instantaneous spells (enhantment, transmutations or curses) are all helpful things (Reincarnate, Awaken, Mnemonic Enhancer and Break Enchantment)...



Hardly a huge change... and you proved why that single line should be removed.  It creates the ambiguity of seemingly to work for two spells that explicitly state how to remove the effects.  Unholy Blight is a curse... you need to have Remove Curse cast to remove it... Feeblemind has a small list of spells that can remove the effect and Break Enchantment is no where on that list... in fact it takes a level 6 spell or higher to remove the effect.  As the case with most D&D effects, a higher level spell is needed to negate a lower level effect.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Thanee (Nov 6, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> Hardly a huge change... and you proved why that single line should be removed.  It creates the ambiguity of seemingly to work for two spells that explicitly state how to remove the effects.




Yeah, though I have posted above, that there is hardly an ambiguity, since the complete spell description from the PHB (not from the SRD) explains what is meant there with two examples.

With 'instantaneous' they meant spells like _Flesh to Stone_ (a 6th level instantaneous transmutation spell).

With 'cannot be dispelled' they meant something like _Bestow Curse_ (a non-instantaneous spell, that specifically cannot be dispelled; the 5th-level limit only applies to spells, that specifically list such a restriction; instanteneous spells of *any* level can be countered by _Break Enchanted_, as long as they fit the general pattern of what can be affected, and there is no other rule, that prevents this, as in the case of _Feeblemind_, for example).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Tahnee and sirwmholder, you are doing a great job of illustrating why it is somtimes better to just state the rule without examples.  This whole thread is a great exa,mple of why rules whould only be stated in one place, with no uneedded repitition.

Focusing on the example instead of the rule can lead one down the wrong path.

Re-stating rules when not needed can lead to oversights and errors.

Bottom line:


1.  Break Enchantment works on enchantments, transumatations and curses.
2.  It even works on them if they are instantaneous effects.
3.  It even works on cursed items.
4.  If there is no save to a spell, then the spell must be fifth level or lower for Break Enchantment to work.
5.  It cannot remove curse from items, but can lift the cursed effect temporarily so one can remove the item from one's person and no longer be cursed by the item.
6.  It works using a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect, with cusrd magic items having a fixed DC of 25.

That's it  Nothing more, nothing less.  It's very, very clear.

If you take the two PHB example as being anything more than illustrative examples, then you are adding in rules where none exist.  They are only _examples_.  They do not say anything about how the spell does or does not work.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> ...With 'instantaneous' they meant spells like _Flesh to Stone_ (a 6th level instantaneous transmutation spell).




So, from that one example, you choose to think they do not mean to cover other instantaneous spells?  



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> With 'cannot be dispelled' they meant something like _Bestow Curse_ (a non-instantaneous spell, that specifically cannot be dispelled; the 5th-level limit only applies to spells, that specifically list such a restriction; instanteneous spells of *any* level can be countered by _Break Enchanted_, as long as they fit the general pattern of what can be affected, and there is no other rule, that prevents this, as in the case of _Feeblemind_, for example).




Wow, that's an interesting interpretation.  If that were true, than ANY instantaneous enchantmemt, transumation or cusre may be countered with Break Enchantment.   Nothing in those two examples suggests that they were meant as defining examples, they are each merely one example.

Sorry, but without clear, convincing language to the contrary I am pretty much foced to believe that "instananeous" means "instantaneous" - not "instantnenous kind, sorta like Flesh to Stone.

I also must beleive that the phrase "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic" includes instantaneous effects, because, well, it does.

In niether case does one example override the clear rules text.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So, from that one example, you choose to think they do not mean to cover other instantaneous spells?




Sure, all instanteneous enchantments, transmutations or curses can get removed with the spell, as long as no other rule prevents this in a specific case.



> Wow, that's an interesting interpretation.




I wouldn't even call that an interpretation, it's what the spell says, as long as we assume, that there is no error, which seems like a reasonable approach, as long as it works, and it does here.



> If that were true, than ANY instananeous enchantmemt, transumation or cusre may be countered with Break Enchantment.




Correct, and that's exactly how I think it is.



> Nothing in those two example suggests that they were meant as defining examples, they are each merely one example.




Of course. But the specific nature of the _Flesh to Stone_ example gives some additional hints towards the intention.

And really, while _Dispel Magic_ is of no use against instantaneous effects, which in a colloquial fashion can certainly be described as 'cannot be dispelled', it isn't quite the same as actual 'cannot be dispelled' as a rule (as in _Bestow Curse_), It's just that there is no target for a dispel attempt. It also doesn't really say, that instanteneous effects cannot be dispelled in the magic overview, it only says, that permanent effects are vulnerable to dispelling, because there is still active magic around.

'Cannot be dispelled' is a stronger term than that, it is meant as something, that actively prevents dispelling (like the 'cannot be dispelled' text in _Bestow Curse_). The example makes this clear. The rule text alone is ambiguous, so the example is necessary to actually understand in what direction it is meant to go.

And really, saying the examples are all wrong, just because they don't fit into your picture, is just cheap! 

(no offense meant )

The examples work perfectly fine within the context of the rules, and they do not contradict any rules. It just doesn't work the way you think it should work. That's all. You certainly realize that, since otherwise you wouldn't claim, that the examples _must_ be all wrong. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Yep. Break Enchantment is a little misnamed.



I think you’re forgetting that _Break Enchantment_ also works on Enchantments and Transmutations that aren’t Duration: Instantaneous. The spell name works fine, and there are plenty of spells it counters, so to say _Break Enchantment_ is useless because it doesn’t fix _Feeblemind_ isn’t a terribly robust argument. Not that you’ve used that argument, but I believe I did run over a post using that argument somewhere upthread.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> If not, the whole logic above must have a fatal flaw somewhere (please point it out to me) and, to top it off, the “fifth level or lower instantaneous enchantment” portion of Break Enchantment must have no meaning, at least as far as the PHB is concerned, and that is not really acceptable to me.




Look at the relevant texts of both spells:

_Break Enchantment_:


> This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. _Break enchantment_ can reverse even an instantaneous effect.




_Feeblemind_:


> The subject remains in this state until a _heal, limited wish, miracle_, or _wish_ spell is used to cancel the effect of the _feeblemind_.




A lot of people have been saying that the list in _Feeblemind_ is merely permissive, and not exclusive. This is not the case.

_Feeblemind_: If not [Unless] X, then Y.
X is the set of spells [_heal, limited wish, miracle, wish_].
Y is the _Feebleminded_ state.

The only spells that are _heal, limited wish, miracle_ and _wish_ are _heal, limited wish, miracle_ and _wish_. This list is indeed exclusive of other spells. No other spells will result in “not Y”; no other spells will cure the victim (except, of course "works as" spells, like _Mass Heal_).

But what about the apparent contradiction with _Break Enchantment_? It says, “_Break enchantment_ can reverse even an instantaneous effect.” Can it? Sure. Does it mean that it _must_ reverse an instantaneous effect? No. Because it can does not mean that it necessarily _will_. I can jump out of open windows. This does not mean that every time I encounter a window I will jump out of it.

So between the two, _Feeblemind_ is specific and exclusive, _Break Enchantment_ generalizes and is permissive. So I believe the RAW to be that _Break Enchantment_ is ineffective in curing the _Feebleminded_ state.

---

That being the case, however, a look through the SRD came up with exactly zero targeted Enchantments or Transmutations below 5th level that are instantaneous [Artoomis has since found some, but they are rather useless as spells you’d want to counter]; as _Bestow Curse_ is Duration: Permanent, it doesn’t provide any either. 

This leaves some possibilities: those writing the _Break Enchantment_ description either wanted it to be able to cure _Feeblemind_, or they wanted it to be able to affect any future spells that were Duration: Instantaneous, or both. Artoomis mentioned that the only explanation for “can break instantaneous effects” was _Feeblemind_; leaving the spell open to countering future spells is also a possible reason, and perfectly plausible. However, the dearth of Duration: Instantaneous spells _Break Enchantment_ can cure in the PHB is strong enough support for me to House Rule that _Break Enchantment_ cures _Feeblemind_, but I do believe the RAW to be otherwise.

After all, _Feeblemind_ hoses Wizards and Sorcerers more than anyone else; there is an incredible incentive to research an equivalent-level spell that defeats _Feeblemind_. 



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> With 'cannot be dispelled' they meant something like Bestow Curse (a non-instantaneous spell, that specifically cannot be dispelled; the 5th-level limit only applies to spells, that specifically list such a restriction; instanteneous spells of *any* level can be countered by Break Enchanted, as long as they fit the general pattern of what can be affected, and there is no other rule, that prevents this, as in the case of Feeblemind, for example).



This is a compelling argument. The PHB text is:



			
				PHB said:
			
		

> If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by _dispel magic, break enchantment_ only works if that spell is 5th level or lower. For instance, _bestow curse_ cannot be dispelled by _dispel magic_, but _break enchantment_ can dispel it.



_Bestow Curse_ cannot be dispelled by _Dispel Magic_ by virtue of the fact that it says: “The _curse_ bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a _break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse,_ or _wish_ spell.” [PHB, p 203] So any time you run into a spell that says, “Cannot be dispelled”, _Break Enchantment_ may be able to remove the effect, as long as the spell is 5th level or lower.

---

So, I would see two options to this spell were I ruling it.

First, rule with Thanee, _Feeblemind_ is unaffected by _Break Enchantment_, but _Break Enchantment_ can cure Duration: Instantaneous effects higher than 5th level because that clause in the spell description refers to spells that specifically have a “can’t be dispelled” clause, like _Bestow Curse_.

Or, rule with Artoomis, _Feeblemind_ is cured by [/i]Break Enchantment[/i] on the grounds that it is one of the only 5th level or lower Duration: Instantaneous Enchantments or Transmutations that can’t be dispelled [and can’t be dispelled because of _Dispel Magic’s_ inability to affect Duration: Instantaneous spells], and so the _Break Enchantment_ clause allowing it to affect Instantaneous spells becomes useless. With this ruling, _Break Enchantment_ would not be able to reverse _Flesh to Stone_ because that spell cannot be affected by _Dispel Magic_, and is 6th level.

Because the PHB description specifically mentions _Flesh to Stone_, I would hesitate to rule as Artoomis, and would likely rule as Thanee.

But then, I might allow _Break Enchantment_ to work, just out of spite for the amount of time I sat here writing this.


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Bottom line:
> 
> 1.  Break Enchantment works on enchantments, transumatations and curses.
> 2.  It even works on them if they are *can reverse even an* instantaneous effects.



Fixed it for you.

Because something _can_ do something, is able to do it, does not necessitate that it _will_ do it.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> The only spells that are _heal, limited wish, miracle_ and _wish_ are _heal, limited wish, miracle_ and _wish_. This list is indeed exclusive of other spells.




The problem is that there's an assumption -  The spell is not _explicitly_ exclusive.   The exclusivity must be inferred by the lack of modifiers saying it isn't.  

So you're left with two options:
The spell is exclusive, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.
The spell is merely demonstrative, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.

And the arguements for each position is equally strong, because they are both inferences.

To apply your mathematical logic - the spell would be clear if it read, "Y _if and only if_ X," but it stops short of that.  In a mathematical sense, the fact that X -> Y is true does not mean that W -> Y cannot also be true.


----------



## evilbob (Nov 6, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> So you're left with two options:
> The spell is exclusive, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.
> The spell is merely demonstrative, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.
> 
> And the arguements for each position is equally strong, because they are both inferences.



Seconded.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> Fixed it for you.
> 
> Because something _can_ do something, is able to do it, does not necessitate that it _will_ do it.





Thanks, but no fix was required.  On that list was also:

"6. It works using a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect, with cusrd magic items having a fixed DC of 25."

That makes it clear when it works and when it does not.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The problem is that there's an assumption -  The spell is not _explicitly_ exclusive.   The exclusivity must be inferred by the lack of modifiers saying it isn't.
> 
> So you're left with two options:
> The spell is exclusive, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.
> ...




Actually, they are not equally strong, but only because there are other independent arguments around instantaneous spells that indicate such lists can ONLY be permissive, not restrictive.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, they are not equally strong, but only because there are other independent arguments around instantaneous spells that indicate such lists can ONLY be permissive, not restrictive.




Mathematical logic is digital - the thing is true or it is not.  If you have an argument, the logic remains unimpressed.  Proof, or nothing.  Blame Spock, if you must 

The mere presence of arguments is nothing.  One can construct arguments for anything.  The presence of arguments that the audience accepts may serve to support, I suppose.  But I haven't explicitly accepted any - and not being an instantaneous spell, I get to say when I'm permissive or restrictive   However, those arguments may include similar inferences, in which case we're thoroughly up the river Styx without a paddle.


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> the spell would be clear if it read, "Y if and only if X," but it stops short of that.



I translate this:


> The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.



Into this: *Remains in state until [spells]*.

This also means: *No [cure] until [spells]*.

Are we agreed so far?

----

*No [cure] until [spells]*
X: [cure]
Y: [spells]
*No X unless Y*.

This is an exact translation into the following forms:


> If X, then Y



If the subject is cured, then those spells were present.


> All X are Y



All cures are these spells.


> If NOT Y, then NOT X



If you don't have these spells, then you don't get a cure.


> Only Y are X



Only these spells are cures.


> X only if Y



Cured only if you used these spells.

As long as you allow the transformation of this:


> The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.



Into this:


> Remains in state until [spells]



And thence into this:


> No [cure] until [spells]



Then acutally, the spell description does not stop short of saying Y if and only if X; it does indeed say it explicitly.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 6, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The problem is that there's an assumption -  The spell is not _explicitly_ exclusive.




While the rules are not written with mathematical precision, which they really should be sometimes (), the way they wrote up the list of spells there really is as exclusive as it gets.

_Feeblemind_ can be removed by the means of _Heal_, _Limited Wish_, _Miracle_, or _Wish_.

-> non-exclusive list of options.

If it was worded like this (and enough things are), one could easily say, that this is just a list of possible options. But it isn't worded like this.

The subject remains in this state until a _Heal_, _Limited Wish_, _Miracle_, or _Wish_ spell is used to cancel the effect of the _Feeblemind_.

-> exclusive list of the only possible means to remove the state.

It remains in this state... until...

Whatever you do, unless it is one of the things listed there, the subject remains in this state.

That's really as exclusive as it gets.

(...and silly arguments like immunity to death because you cannot become a corpse with an Int of 1 and such, do not really change that! And regardless of what else you stack on top of it, the state _feebleminded_ doesn't get removed by that. A creature that is _poisoned_ and _feebleminded_ is certainly in the _feebleminded_ state.)

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Thanks, but no fix was required.  On that list was also:
> 
> "6. It works using a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect, with cusrd magic items having a fixed DC of 25."
> 
> That makes it clear when it works and when it does not.



So because there is one restriction on when it might work, there must necessairly be no other restrictions?

Why?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> I translate this:
> 
> Into this: *Remains in state until [spells]*.
> 
> ...




Sort of.  Remains Y until X is the same as "If X then Y," that's true, but...

After this your logic is faulty.

IF X then Y does not mean that IF Z then Y cannot also exist. 

No exclusivity.

IFF (If and only if) X then Y does that, but that's not present here.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> So because there is one restriction on when it might work, there must necessairly be no other restrictions?
> 
> Why?





Actually, there are two other restrictions.  They are in that some post.

"4. If there is no save to a spell, then the spell must be fifth level or lower for Break Enchantment to work.
5. It cannot remove curse from items, but can lift the cursed effect temporarily so one can remove the item from one's person and no longer be cursed by the item."

Number (5), though,  is not really so much of a restriction as it is making it clear what happens with items.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> "Remains Y until X" is the same as "If X then Y"






Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> IF X then Y does not mean that IF Z then Y cannot also exist.



Would you please define your terms. If you do not it becomes frustrating arguing with you because we might have different definitions on what X is and what Y is. Please.

Like in my previous post:
X: [cure]
Y: [spells]

Let us add:
Z: _Break Enchantment_.

Let us also specify that Z is not an element of Y.

So, let's pick up here:


			
				Felix said:
			
		

> No X unless Y.



This transforms into:

*If not Y, then no X.*

Z, being not an element of Y, is substitutable for "Not Y". So we have:

*If Z, then no X.*

Or, in English, "If _Break Enchantment_, then no cure".

There's no logical breakdown Artoomis. This is how the logic transforms. You cannot argue that it doesn't, you can only argue that the text of the spell doesn't translate into "No X unless Y" assuming the terms are defined as I have.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> ...Whatever you do, unless it is one of the things listed there, the subject remains in this state.
> 
> That's really as exclusive as it gets.
> 
> ...




If it was really meant to be that strongly exclusive, Mass Heal would not work, nor would any remedy in any supplemental material, regardles of any specifc langauge contained within that remedy.

Really, the nails in the coffin of exclusivity are:

1.  The langauge *is* pretty strong, granted, but does not indicate that these are *[the only possible solutions*.

2.  An instaneous spell has no residual magic to restrict what can undo it's effects.  Thus ANY list of what can undo its effects is, by its very nature, permissive and other remedies may exist if they are defined as a remedy for that type of instaneous effect.

Number two is the really big deal here.  There is no way to publish a totally complete list of remedies for an instantaneous effect because there is no magic left to restrict any solutions from working.  On the other hand, you can (and need to) publish a list (somewhere) of spells than CAN reverse the effects because otherwise well nigh nothing could reverse the effects.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> While the rules are not written with mathematical precision, which they really should be sometimes (), the way they wrote up the list of spells there really is as exclusive as it gets.




Perhaps, but even if so, "as exclusive as it gets" does not mean it really is exclusive.  Clearly it isn't absolutely and irrovocably exclusive, as later texts explicitly revoke the exclusivity.  And once exclusivity is broken once, the question arises for all time...

You note the rules weren't written with mathematical precision, and I agree.  I wasn't the one who started the mathematical logic argument, I was merely noting the fault.  Natural language does not generally fit mathematical logic without some asumptions on the author's intent. Since the rules were not written with such rigor, I submit that there is no one concrete answer present in the rules directly.   

I personally feel a discussion on whether BE _should_ deal with Feeblemind (in terms of balance and desired difficulty in dealing with the challenge) would be far more constructive than one on whether the rules say it does or doesn't, given the ambiguity.  Which was why I tried to get to the "it is open to interpretation" point, so that folks could perhaps move on.  Silly me


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Sort of.  Remains Y until X is the same as "If X then Y," that's true, but...
> 
> After this your logic is faulty.
> 
> ...



Okay, but X=cure, and Y=spells in his equation.  "IF X, then Y" means, "If [a cure is effected], then [one of these spells is cast]".  We may change X to Z, as in, "If [I am to have 10 hit points restored], then [one of these spells is cast]."  We may also change X to ~X, as in, "If [a cure is not effected], then [one of these spells is cast]"--for example, a Heal spell may be cast on a creature not under a Feeblemind.

What we may not do, using formal logic*, is to replace Y with ~Y, as in, "If [a cure is to be effected], then [none of these spells are cast]".

Daniel

* Which, I remind folks, I think is inadequate for examining rules--I think this case demonstrates its inadequacy well.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> Would you please define your terms. If you do not it becomes frustrating arguing with you because we might have different definitions on what X is and what Y is. Please....




It makes no difference.  Logic is logic is..., well,... logic.

Logically: If X then Y has no bearing at all on what else might get you Y.  For that you need an IFF X than Y.

Also, If X then Y does not mean If not X then not Y.

Okay, now to translate:

If <listed spell> then Cure.  (True enough)
If NOT <listed spell" then NOT Cure.  (False - not correct logic.  Only true if you ALREADY ASSUME the list is exclusive).

Moving on...

If <listed spell> then Cure.  (True enough)
If <Break Enchantmetn> then Cure (True enough by  spell description).

Thus you REALLy have:

If <listed spell> OR <Break Enchantment> Then Cure.

Not that even that last statement is NOT an "IFF" - other solutions MAY exist.

You logic ONLY works if you START with an assumption that the list is exclusive.  Assuming an "IF" is exclusive (an "IFF") is a common error in logic by the way.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 6, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I personally feel a discussion on whether BE _should_ deal with Feeblemind (in terms of balance and desired difficulty in dealing with the challenge) would be far more constructive than one on whether the rules say it does or doesn't, given the ambiguity.  Which was why I tried to get to the "it is open to interpretation" point, so that folks could perhaps move on.  Silly me



I agree with this entirely, and so I'll stop devil's-advocating and instead analyze the rules as I think they ought to be analyzed.

Namely, what should Break Enchantment "look like," and what should Feeblemind "Look like"?  As I see it, Feeblemind turns someone into an idiot:  it's changing their brain around.  It's pretty close to a curse in its feel.  Break Enchantment is the most powerful specific magic to get rid of curses.  It somehow "knows" what a person's uncursed state used to be (thus its ability to get rid of instantaneous effects), and restores folks to that former shape.  I say it should work.

Furthermore, I think that feeblemind is clearly not intended to make someone immune to wisdom-damaging poisons or to death or to any other effect that changes their ability score.  That makes me think that the line about "X unless Y" is poorly phrased; they should have written it permissively, as in, "If Y then X."

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> ... Which was why I tried to get to the "it is open to interpretation" point, so that folks could perhaps move on.  Silly me




Don't be a spoil sport!     Such extended arguments (with very little true redeeming value for D&D once the issues are understood) are what helps me stave off Alzheimer's disease.  An active mind is a healthy mind.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> Let us also specify that Z is not an element of Y.




Well, if you want to go there, we still have the hanging assumption: the set Y was completely defined by the authors at the time of writing.

If you accept the assumption, then as others have noted, later spells that say they deal with Feeblemind actually don't.  If you don't accept the proposition, then the set Y is surely not complete, and so Z may or may not be part of Y.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 6, 2006)

Try Sudoku.


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> It makes no difference. Logic is logic is..., well,... logic.



It makes a difference if I define X=beans, Y=fart, and so I say "If X, then Y" and you define them the other way round. Because then I'm arguing that eating beans make you fart, and you're arguing that farts make you eat beans. 

I was asking you to please define your terms when you use them, unless you make clear that you're using my assumptions. Otherwise we could be eating beans for the cause of us having farted.




> Also, If X then Y does not mean If not X then not Y.



You'll be pleased to notice that I did not make that novice mistake. Perhaps you misread it.

*If X then Y* does indeed not translate into *If not X, then not Y*.

But what it _does_ translate into is: "*If no Y, then no X*". Which is what I did, and why it does exclude, "If Z, then Y".

Because the only way for
*If no Y, then no X*
and
*If Z, then Y*
to both simultaneously be true is for Z to be an element of X.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I personally feel a discussion on whether BE should deal with Feeblemind (in terms of balance and desired difficulty in dealing with the challenge) would be far more constructive than one on whether the rules say it does or doesn't, given the ambiguity. Which was why I tried to get to the "it is open to interpretation" point, so that folks could perhaps move on.



Arguing what the rules should be in terms of balance is indeed a worthy discussion; my first post in this thread admitted that I might very well allow BE to cure Feeblemind.

But I think it is important to know what the rules are as they are written, be they written well or poorly, before you move on to reasons of balance and intent. Which is why the exclusivity of this list figures large, and why a logic transformation into "[cure] only if [spells]" is signifigant.


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, if you want to go there, we still have the hanging assumption: the set Y was completely defined by the authors at the time of writing.
> 
> If you accept the assumption, then as others have noted, later spells that say they deal with Feeblemind actually don't.  If you don't accept the proposition, then the set Y is surely not complete, and so Z may or may not be part of Y.



Oh, certainly. I completely understand that spells not yet written were not included in the list of possible cures for _Feeblemind_, and were a spell (like the spell _Panacea_ mentioned earlier) to be written that explicitly stated it cured the _Feeblemind_ condition, I would allow that spell to work, and add it to the set of spells "Y".

That willingness to expand "Y" does not extend to _Break Enchantment_; it was present when "Y" was written, and as I have shown, the list provided is exclusive.

So Y is a complete list until that time when other spells that explicitly cure _Feeblemind_ are accepted into the game. At which point they will be an element of "Y", and that set will again be complete.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> ...You'll be pleased to notice that I did not make that novice mistake. Perhaps you misread it.
> 
> *If X then Y* does indeed not translate into *If not X, then not Y*.
> 
> ...




Edit:

Text removed because I do not want it quoted AGAIN.  No longer relevant anyway.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> ...That willingness to expand "Y" does not extend to _Break Enchantment_; it was present when "Y" was written, and as I have shown, the list provided is exclusive...




So far you have failed to prove exclusivity.  Your logic is built upon the very assumption you are trying to prove and it is thus an invalid proof.


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So far you have failed to prove exclusivity.  Your logic is built upon the very assumption you are trying to prove and it is thus an invalid proof.



My logic is built on the translation of this:


> The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.



Into this:


> Remains in state until [spells].



And thence into the form I use to make logical transformations from, this:


> No [cure] until [spells].




At this point you've not raised any problems with this translation. By all means, do. If you have a problem with it, or if I've made a mistake, then have at it. 

But as soon as you get to this:


> No [cure] until [spells].



Formal logic transformation will inexorably lead you to the list of spells being exclusionary.

---

What you _have_ argued is: *If X, then Y* does not exclude *If Z, then Y*.

This is true.

But take a look at how I'd defined the terms.

If "X" means [spells], and "Z" means _Break Enchantment_, then you're right. These are not exclusionary. But that is not how I've defined the terms.

Again:
X: [cure]
Y: [spells]
Z: _Break Enchantment_

If you use your argument of:


> *If X, then Y* does not exclude *If Z, then Y*



What you've done is say:

"If [Cure], then [spells]" does not exclude "If _Break Enchantment_, then [spells]".

And that doesn't make sense! Which is why I'd like you to define your terms when you argue the logic; as it is, it _is_ true that *If X, then Y* does not exclude *If Z, then Y*, but unless you define what you're talking about, your rebuttal makes no sense for those who have defined the terms, and deceptive to those who haven't been paying close attention.


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, you DID make a novice logic mistake.
> 
> If X then Y does NOT lead to :
> 
> ...



Re-read what you've written.

*If beans, then fart.*
[If ever you eat beans, then you _will_ fart.]

*If no fart, then no beans.*
[If you haven't farted, then you couldn't have eaten beans, because if you had eaten beans, you would have farted.]

I made no mistake.

*If X then Y* _does_ transform into *If no Y, then no X*.

----



> Other things can cause farts, right?



Sure.

If Cabbage
If Eggs
If Milk
If Beans
If Brussel Sprouts
If Hot Sauce
If Carbonated Drink

The ending of all of those things can be: "then fart."

But if you don't fart, then you could not have had any of them. Including beans.

*If X, then Y* <--------> *If not Y, then not X*


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, you DID make a novice logic mistake.
> 
> If X then Y does NOT lead to :
> 
> If no Y then no X



Actually, that's exactly what it leads to.  I can't do tables here, but here's the truth table for x->y
-------X---Y---STATEMENT
X->Y--T---T-----T
X->Y--F---T-----T
X->Y--T---T-----T
X->Y--T---F-----F

In other words, if X->Y is true, and Y=F, then X=F

Consider another statement.  "If it rains, I'll get wet."  If it rains and I do not get wet, the statement is false.

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Ferlix:  Please do not use quotes for emphaisis in you posts.  It makes it harder to quote your points.  Use underline or something instead, okay?



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> My logic is built on the translation of this:
> 
> Quote:
> The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.
> ...




Okay.  First, Remains in state until [spells] is valid.

No [cure] until [spells] is also valid.

But in both cases as you progress you proceed as if it read:

No [cure] unless only [spells]

Which is not the way it read.

Let's use a headache and aspirin as an example (and assume the aspirin will actually cure the headache).

The subject remains with a headache until aspirin is used.  (True enough, even though other things might cure the headache)

Remains with headache until aspirin.  (Still true, as far as it goes)

No relief from headache. until aspirin.

Whoops - not true.  Only true if ONLY aspirin could relieve a headache. 

Do you see know how your whole argument assumed exclusivity from the start to prove exclusivity?


----------



## Thanee (Nov 6, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Clearly it isn't absolutely and irrovocably exclusive, as later texts explicitly revoke the exclusivity.




What later text do you mean?



> Which was why I tried to get to the "it is open to interpretation" point, so that folks could perhaps move on.  Silly me




Yep, because it's not open to interpretation. The intent and the rules are clear. 



Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Actually, that's exactly what it leads to.  I can't do tables here, but here's the truth table for x->y
> -------X---Y---STATEMENT
> X->Y--T---T-----T
> X->Y--F---T-----T
> ...




Okay, now my head is starting to hurt.  

You're right - but Felix is still operating by using his assumption to prove his point, and that does not work.

If X then Y does not in any restict some other variable, "Z," from causing Y.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> ...Yep, because it's not open to interpretation. The intent and the rules are clear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Agreed.  You can, of course, use Break Enchament to reverse the effects of Feeblemind.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> Re-read what you've written.
> 
> *If beans, then fart.*
> [If ever you eat beans, then you _will_ fart.]
> ...




Okay, you're right.  Your logic still has a faulty assumption in it , though.

It really comes down to trying to take ordinary English and applying formal logic rules to it - never a really good idea.


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

> Please do not use quotes for emphaisis in you posts. It makes it harder to quote your points. Use underline or something instead, okay?



Fair enough.



> Do you see now how your whole argument assumed exclusivity from the start to prove exclusivity?



X: [cure]
Y: [spells]
Z: _Break Enchantment_

The inclusive way to show that Y [spells] produces X [cure] is the form: *If Y, then X*.

This would allow all manner of other things to produce a cure. Including _Break Enchantment_. Acutally, most lists of spells in the PHB are of the inclusive sort and my previous argument wouldn't work on them because they are of that *If Y, then X* form.

But the translation of *If Y, then X* into a form using "until" is: *No Y until X*.

Translating that back into English it would be: "No [spells] have been cast until the target is [cured]". _This_ is the way it could have been written inclusively, and it would be true: nobody has cast those spells because he's still afflicted.

But this is not the way it's written in the spell description. It's written as, "No [cure] until [spells][/b]. This then translates into *If X, then Y* (meaning If [cure], then [spells]). This then translates into *If no [spells], then no [cure]*.

I'm not assuming exclusivity: exclusivity is written into the language. There is no mathmatical difference between "No X unless Y" and "No X unless only Y". They are the same. "Y" is a _necessary_ element before you can get "X".


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Let's see....

[Feeblemind] until [spell list]  equals....

If [spell list], then [no Feeblemind].

Right?

On step at a time.


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If X then Y does not in any restict some other variable, "Z," from causing Y.



Artoomis, I've posted this upthread, and will again.

"If X then Y" does not prevent "If Z, then Y". You are right. But look at the substitutions:

X: [cure]
Y: [spells]
Z: _Break Enchantment_

"If [cure] then [spells]" does not prevent "If _Break Enchantment_, then [spells]".

While this is ultimately True, your rebuttal does not make sense as long as the terms are defined this way. And if the terms are re-defined, the letters will simply change places and the Truth of the matter will remain the same.



> Okay, you're right.



Thank you for this concession.



> Your logic still has a faulty assumption in it , though.



Perhaps post #128 might persuade you that this is not true.



> It really comes down to trying to take ordinary English and applying formal logic rules to it - never a really good idea.



Well, you might find out that the language actually means something other than what you thought, but it does not mean that the process of of applying logic isn't a good idea; at least you find out what the text actually says.

For once you do you are in a superior position to change it to suit your preferences.

I just want to say that I'm only arguing about _What the rules say_, seperate and distinct from _What the rules should be_. I imagine that I might very well be on your side as far as that argument goes.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> ...But this is not the way it's written in the spell description. It's written as, "No [cure] until [spells][/b]. This then translates into *If X, then Y* (meaning If [cure], then [spells]). This then translates into *If no [spells], then no [cure]*.




I think I may have found your error.

No [cure] until [spells] DOES NOT equal if [cure], then [spell].  That is already assuming exclusivity.

It only means If [spells], then [cure].


----------



## PallidPatience (Nov 6, 2006)

Until you clean your room, you cannot have a cookie.

How do you get a cookie?


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Let's see....
> 
> [Feeblemind] until [spell list]  equals....
> 
> ...




Well, the pertinent transformations of "If X, then Y" are:

If not Y, then not X
X only if Y
No X unless Y

So if we define our terms:
X: [Feeblemind state]
Y: [Spell list]
Z: _Break Enchantment_

Then...

[Feeblemind] until [spell list]

is also:

No [Feeblemind], then [Spell List]
No [Spell List], then [Feeblemind]

Remember that the standard "If X then Y" translates into "No X unless Y". Because we start with "X unless Y", we must apply the negative when we transform it. So it becomes "If no X, then Y".


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I think I may have found your error.
> 
> No [cure] until [spells] DOES NOT equal if [cure], then [spell].  That is already assuming exclusivity.
> 
> It only means If [spells], then [cure].



You're claiming "No X until Y" means, "If Y, then X"
"No [cure] until [spells]" == "If [spells], then [cure]".

In "No X unless Y", Y is a necessary condition for X. Unless Y is present, X cannot be. Yes, this is exclusivity. But I'm not assuming it: it's already there.

In "If Y, then X", X can be present regardless of Y's existance. Like you said, there can be other reasons for X. This is true. But it is fundamentally different from "No X until Y" where Y was necessary for X.

"No X unless Y" does indeed equal "If X, then Y". 

At the very least, this was how it was defined as True in my Critical Thinking textbook, my Intermediate Logic text, and my LSAT prep texts, the last of which I have open in my lap.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 6, 2006)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> Until you clean your room, you cannot have a cookie.
> 
> How do you get a cookie?



YOu steal it! 

"Honey, you know I love you.  I'll wait for you until you come home."

Tomorrow, I fall into bed with some floozy.  Did I break my word?

X until Y is the form of the phrase above.  It's the form of the Feeblemind spell.  I contend that, strictly read, if the state described by X is canceled before Y occurs, the statement is false.

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 6, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> ...Remember that the standard "If X then Y" translates into "No X unless Y". Because we start with "X unless Y", we must apply the negative when we transform it. So it becomes "If no X, then Y".




Here's the whole problem.  X Unless Y is NOT a logic term.  It's plain English, and in plain English usage, there are often exceptions.

No cookie until your room is clean.  Seems pretty straight forward.  Until Uncle Larry hands you a cookie and you eat it.  Hmmm.....

Mayeb it shoudl have been, "No cookie until your room is clean ot Uncle Larry hands you a cookie while my back is turned."



Point being you cannot assume exclusivity when the list is written like this.  That's assuming too much precision in the language.

Besides, if you attempt to apply that much precision, it quickly breaks down as you start to list out exceptions.


----------



## PallidPatience (Nov 6, 2006)

I did not say "may not". I said "cannot". There is a big difference between "aren't allowed to" and "aren't able to".


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No cookie until your room is clean.  Seems pretty straight forward.  Until Uncle Larry hands you a cookie and you eat it.  Hmmm......



Sure, let's look at that.  When I told you that you couldn't have a cookie until your room was clean, was I correct, given that your room is still dirty and you're eating a cookie?

Daniel


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No cookie until your room is clean.  Seems pretty straight forward.  Until Uncle Larry hands you a cookie and you eat it.  Hmmm.....



If it is the case that you get a cookie before you clean your room then the statement, "No cookie until your room is clean" is a false statement. If you apply this argument to the spell, then you must state that:

"Remains in this state until [list of spells] is cast upon him"

Is a false statement. So your position relies upon the wording being false to begin with.



> Maybe it should have been, "No cookie until your room is clean or Uncle Larry hands you a cookie while my back is turned."



Are we arguing what the spell says, or what the spell _should have_ said? Because there is no such "or" clause in the _Feeblemind_ spell description.



> Point being you cannot assume exclusivity when the list is written like this.  That's assuming too much precision in the language.



I am not assuming exclusivity. Exclusivity is hardwired into the language that was used.



> Besides, if you attempt to apply that much precision, it quickly breaks down as you start to list out exceptions.



If the language is imprecise, then requiring precision of it is fruitless; this language is not imprecise, nor do I find my argument bogged down by the listing of exceptions.

What exceptions am I listing?

Spells listed in the _Feeblemind_ spell description

Future spells that explicitly say they remove the _Feeblemind_ condition

And as long as I stick to the core rules, then the only "exceptions" are those cures listed in the spell description, and those hardly qualify as "exceptions".


----------



## Felix (Nov 6, 2006)

[ASIDE]

I'd just like to say that the OP _must_ be pleased with himself, because we have done nothing if not gotten Pedantic on Feeblemind!



[/ASIDE]


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> ...What exceptions am I listing?
> 
> Spells listed in the _Feeblemind_ spell description
> 
> ...




Well, let's see.

There is Mass Heal, which is not the same spell as Heal, and yet I think we all agree that should work.  But it most definately was left off the list.

Is Wish needed to be there as well as Limited Wish, doesn't Mass Heal need to be there as well as Heal?

I say it does if the list is truly an exclusive list.

This means the list is not truly all-inclusive.

Now once you poke one small hole, the "exclusive list" argument falls apart and Break Enchantment is indeed allowed to work. 

Let's face it, the list of spells is:

1.  Incomplete and
2.  Was not even needed.

Of course it's relatively easy to see that with hindsight.  Who knows, I might have written it the same way!


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> [ASIDE]
> 
> I'd just like to say that the OP _must_ be pleased with himself, because we have done nothing if not gotten Pedantic on Feeblemind!
> 
> ...




True enough.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 7, 2006)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> Until you clean your room, you cannot have a cookie.
> 
> How do you get a cookie?




Impossible to say. However, as a precondition, you must clean your room.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 7, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> This is obviously wrong, since many spells list other spells, that do not work against them. They thereby do not define how other spells, but only how other spells work in context with themselves, thus defining themselves.
> 
> Try _Prismatic Wall_, for example. You don't want to tell us, that it can be brought down by thousands of spells, and not only by the ones listed, or do you? Well, I guess you do.
> 
> ...




What if I created a spell, Destroy Prismatic Wall? Is there a problem there?


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 7, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Absolutely agreed.  Again, I am not arguing that, per the rules, Break Enchantment doesn't work.  I am arguing that, according to a strict reading of the rules, Break Enchantment removes the effect of Feeblemind, AND that someone under the effect of Feeblemind remains under this effect after the Break Enchantment is cast.  Fatal Exception Error.
> 
> *Thanee*, the spell is unworkable in play because it makes someone under the effect of Feeblemind immortal.  A dead creature, IIRC, is an inanimate object, and inanimate objects have no intelligence score.  You cannot remove the intelligence score of a person under the effect of Feeblemind, however:  they continue to have an Int of 1 until they're affected by one of the four listed effects.  You therefore cannot turn them into an inanimate object, which means you can't kill them.
> 
> ...




Actually, it can only reduce Int to 1, it cannot raise it to 1. To be perfectly pedantic.


----------



## Felix (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Well, let's see.
> 
> There is Mass Heal, which is not the same spell as Heal, and yet I think we all agree that should work.  But it most definately was left off the list.
> 
> ...




When you cast _Mass Heal_, you cast _Heal_ on multiple different targets; someone _Feebleminded_ will be targeted by a _Heal_ effect. It's the same spell effect. Similarly, when you cast _Mass Cure Light Wounds_, each individual target is targeted by a _Cure Light Wounds_ effect.

_Limited Wish_ and _Wish_ do not have that kind of relationship; they have much different effects than simply an increased number of targets. They are different spells in a way that _Heal_ and _Mass Heal_ are not.

So the presence of both _Wish_ and _Limited Wish_ on the list of spells that cure _Feeblemind_ and the lack of _Mass Heal_ does absolutely nothing to poke any kind of hole in the exclusivity of the list, nor does it disallow _Mass Heal_ from curing the _Feeblemind_ condition.



> Let's face it, the list of spells is:
> 
> 1.  Incomplete and
> 2.  Was not even needed.



1. The list _is_ complete.

2. Where does this claim come from? Of course a list is needed when you restrict the remedies for a spell; if the list excludes those not on the list (as _Feeblemind_ does), you need the list to know which spells work; if the list is open-ended (as the list in _Bestow Curse_), then the list provides spells we can look at for characteristics to determine if other spells will remedy the effects.

So no, there is no problem with _Feeblemind_'s exclusivity, and _as written Break Enchantment does not work._

What intent, hindsight, or revisions might produce I won't speculate on. But that's how it's written.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> When you cast _Mass Heal_, you cast _Heal_ on multiple different targets; someone _Feebleminded_ will be targeted by a _Heal_ effect.




Well, almost.  It does cure more damage.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> _Limited Wish_ and _Wish_ do not have that kind of relationship; they have much different effects than simply an increased number of targets. They are different spells in a way that _Heal_ and _Mass Heal_ are not.




Not realy, no.  Anything Limited Wish can do, Wish can do.  No need to list them both.




			
				Felix said:
			
		

> 1. The list _is_ complete.




Nope.  Not quite.  Mass Heal is not on it.  You claim it does not need to be, and at the same time claim the list is truly complete.  Can't have it both ways, now.  



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> 2. Where does this claim come from? Of course a list is needed when you restrict the remedies for a spell; if the list excludes those not on the list (as _Feeblemind_ does), you need the list to know which spells work; if the list is open-ended (as the list in _Bestow Curse_), then the list provides spells we can look at for characteristics to determine if other spells will remedy the effects.




There are, for this argument, only two kinds of spells.  Instantaneous and Non-Instantaneous.

Instantaneous spells have no residual magic in place.  Thus they cannot be truly restrictive in their remedies.  You can declare certain things that will reverse the condition, but you cannot really declare an exclusive list of those because there is NO MAGIC to enforce that restriction, unlike non-Instantaneous spells.

This is a very important point that you do not yet seem to grasp.


----------



## Felix (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Well, almost.  It does cure more damage.
> 
> Not realy, no.  Anything Limited Wish can do, Wish can do.  No need to list them both.



Yeah, Wish can do everything Limited Wish can. But while Limited wish cannot do nearly as many things as Wish can, Heal and Mass Heal's only difference to the target of the spell is the cap on the HP gained. Very different.

But having both Limited Wish and Wish on the list is redundant. So what? Redundancy in one instance does not necessitate it in another.



> Nope.  Not quite.  Mass Heal is not on it.  You claim it does not need to be, and at the same time claim the list is truly complete.  Can't have it both ways, now.



Mass Heal produces a Heal effect, and Heal is on the list; I'm not trying to have it both ways.

If there is a spell that says, "works as Heal, but does not recover any HP", then that spell will also find itself on the list of spells that remove Feeblemind, and that list will _still_ be exclusive.



> This is a very important point that you do not yet seem to grasp.



So it seems; I have no idea what you're talking about. Would you mind being a bit clearer as to why, when exclusive language is used (and we don't seem to be arguing that point anymore), a list of spells that have not been excluded is "not even needed". Is this a new angle of yours, or perhaps you've simply re-phrased an older argument?


----------



## Thanee (Nov 7, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> What if I created a spell, Destroy Prismatic Wall? Is there a problem there?




No. You can always create new spells, that overrule old rules text, as long as they specifically say so. There's also a spell, which cures _Feeblemind_ in a later book. No problem. An exclusive set of options only applies up to the point where it was set up, anything that comes after it, can change that list (but also needs to specifically say so, a generic rules text, like 'destroys all ongoing abjurations' wouldn't be sufficient).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> There are, for this argument, only two kinds of spells.  Instantaneous and Non-Instantaneous.
> 
> Instantaneous spells have no residual magic in place.  Thus they cannot be truly restrictive in their remedies.  You can declare certain things that will reverse the condition, but you cannot really declare an exclusive list of those because there is NO MAGIC to enforce that restriction, unlike non-Instantaneous spells.




Why do you need magic to enforce a restriction!?

It's just an effect, a state. There is absolutely no need for magic there...

It's like the target was naturally in this state. There are only few cures for it.
You cannot send the target into psychotherapy, or whatever, to change that.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## mirivor (Nov 7, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> You cannot send the target into psychotherapy, or whatever, to change that.




LOL! _THAT_ is funny.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Instantaneous spells have no residual magic in place.  Thus they cannot be truly restrictive in their remedies.



Can you explain how the first statement leads to the second?

And do you agree with the sample sentences above about cookies--that if I tell you that you'll remain in a cookieless state until you clean your room to cancel that effect, and then Uncle Larry gives you a cookie, my initial statement was incorrect?

Daniel


----------



## glass (Nov 7, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> And do you agree with the sample sentences above about cookies--that if I tell you that you'll remain in a cookieless state until you clean your room to cancel that effect, and then Uncle Larry gives you a cookie, my initial statement was incorrect?



Either that, or Uncle Larry issued errata for the cookie rule! 


glass.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 7, 2006)

Against my better judgment, I am re-entering this discussion just to make a point. 



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Instantaneous spells have no residual magic in place.  Thus they cannot be truly restrictive in their remedies.  You can declare certain things that will reverse the condition, but you cannot really declare an exclusive list of those because there is NO MAGIC to enforce that restriction, unlike non-Instantaneous spells.




If you truly believe this, then I think you should reread the Spell: Imprisonment. 



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Imprisonment
> Abjuration
> Level: 	Sor/Wiz 9
> Components: 	V, S
> ...




That's an instantaneous spell that quite clearly has a magical affect still in place and very much has a restricted list of cures/remedies. 

As to the subject of this statement being exclusive:



			
				srd said:
			
		

> The subject remains in this state *until* a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.




Now..."until"...that's a funny word. It's exclusive and yet it isn't. For instance. I could tell my daughter, you're not getting a cookie until you finish your vegetables. However, if I look away for a moment, she could snag a cookie on her own and eat it. Obviously she got the cookie and didn't finish her veggies. 

So, "until" doesn't enforce or absolutely require exclusivity. Another case, "You're not getting out of prison until you're approved for parole." However, if you are pardoned the day after I say that, then obviously, it wasn't very exclusive. 

The real point to this is that the word "until" does not enforce rigid exclusivity. What it does is indicate the desire, wish or plan of the author/user of the word "until" that the condition be exclusive. 

So, even though my daughter had a cookie when I told her she had to finish her veggies first...it was my intention in using the word "until" that she not have a cookie without having first finished her vegetables. 

Now, what does this mean? It means that the author of the spell, Feeblemind, intended the required steps to relieve the condition to be an exclusive list. 

Much discussion has been made now about Mass Heal. Well, Mass Heal is exclusively written to provide all of the functionality of Heal, with the addition of more targets and more hit points healed. 

So will it function to cure Feeblemind (by my logic), even though it's not on the list? Yes.

Why do I say that? Because it has text that specifically provides it the complete functionality of a spell on the list. 

Likewise, any spell that specifically states that it cures Feeblemind, or copies the abilities precisely of one of the spells on the list known to cure Feeblemind...also functions as a cure. It has exclusive abilities that alter this. Just like being pardoned is an exclusive action that alters the prisoner's release regardless of parole. 

Lastly, would temporary modifiers improve the condition of the afflicted? Fox's Cunning, etc?

No, the condition remains in effect until one of those listed spells has cleared the condition. Putting on a headband of intellect doesn't satisfy that requirement and will not raise the subjects intellect. 

Cedric


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Why do you need magic to enforce a restriction!?
> 
> It's just an effect, a state. There is absolutely no need for magic there...






			
				Felix said:
			
		

> So it seems; I have no idea what you're talking about. Would you mind being a bit clearer as to why, when exclusive language is used (and we don't seem to be arguing that point anymore), a list of spells that have not been excluded is "not even needed". Is this a new angle of yours, or perhaps you've simply re-phrased an older argument?




I had a feeling this concept was not being clearly understood.  I've said it many time in this thread, so it is not a brand new argument.

Here's the way it goes. 

A spell that is not instantaneous can list any restriction it chooses on remedies because that spell still has magic energy in place to enforce this restriction.

A spell that is instantaneous has no magic still in place to enforce any restriction.  There is no enforcement mechanism.  If some solution exists (defined elsewhere, most likley), than the solution will indeed work because there is no mechanism (magic energy) to prevent it from working.

In this particuler case, Feeblemind reduces INT and CHA to 1.  It's not damage, so no normal ability damage cures will work.  It's not a curse, so Remove Curse won't work.  It appears to be something new - a state of Feeblemindeness.

So what will work - wihout regard to the spell list in Feeblemind for the moment?  Well, Heal we know will work because the spell says so.  Break Enchantment works because the spell says so (Feebleming is an instantaneous enchantment).  Limited Wish, Wish and Miracle work, of course, because they can each be used in place of Break Enchantment.  Plus Panacea seems to work because the spell says so (so I've heard).

Now we look at the list of cures in Feeblmeind.  Break Enchament is not included, and the list appears to be an exclusive list of possible redemedies...  

But wait!  If Break Enchantment should work, and Feeblemind is instantaneous, is it even possible for the Feeblemind spell description to exclude Break Enchantment?  What enforces the restriction of Break Enchantment not working?

Answer:  Nothing.  The spell is instantaneous, so there is nothing left to enforce the exclusion of Break Enchantment (there is no magic energy left - it's all "gone").

It is not logical ("legal" within D&D rules) possible to exclude an otherwise-valid remedy in an instantaneous spell.  For example, a Cause Light Wounds variant spell cannot restrict Cure Light Wounds from working to eliminate the damage unless it actually changes the damage to be something other than regular damage - because the spell is instantaneous and any spell energy that might restrict a remedy from working is not present.

Feeblemind cannot restrict Break Enchantment from working unless it somehow changes Feeblemind to be something other than what Break Enchantment can reverse.  

For example, if Feeblemind was Permament instead of Instantaneous then it could prevent all other remedies other than those listed - it would then still have magic energy available to enforce those restrictions, so one could declare in the spell description that Dispel Magic AND Break Enchantment (or anything other than the listed spells) would not work.

The whole argument in this post rests on the very nature of an "instantaneous" spell duration.  "The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting." 

Does this now make sense?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Against my better judgment, I am re-entering this discussion just to make a point. ...If you truly believe this, then I think you should reread the Spell: Imprisonment. ...
> 
> That's an instantaneous spell that quite clearly has a magical affect still in place and very much has a restricted list of cures/remedies. ...Cedric




However, if there was a 9th level spell that reversed the effect on 9th level instananeous abjurations it would work.

Why? Because there is no residual magical energy left to prevent that from working.  This fictional spell is not so much "curing" the state of "Imprisonment" as it is somehow restoring the victim to its pre-Imprisonment state.

Of course, it won't actually work anyway because there is no way to target the unfortunate Imprisoned creature - unless this fictional spell indicate that you could target the intended subject by merely identifying him/her and affect him/her regardless of range/location.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 7, 2006)

SRD said:
			
		

> Instantaneous
> 
> The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.




There is nothing about this statement, which defines an "instantaneous" spell to limit the consequence to being non-magical. 

The spell energy that brought about the consequence has come and gone, yes. However, the consequence itself can have magical energy of it's own, and that clearly seems to be the case with Imprisonment. Otherwise, how would a non-magical sphere impose a stasis on the target? 

So, in light of the fact that the consequence of imprisonment is very much a persistent magical effect, it then stands to reason that the consequence of feeblemind can be a persistent magical effect. 

So persistent that only a limited number of remedies or cures may work to remove it even...


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 7, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Now..."until"...that's a funny word. It's exclusive and yet it isn't. For instance. I could tell my daughter, you're not getting a cookie until you finish your vegetables. However, if I look away for a moment, she could snag a cookie on her own and eat it. Obviously she got the cookie and didn't finish her veggies.



The question is, was your statement correct?  I say your statement was incorrect.



> So, "until" doesn't enforce or absolutely require exclusivity. Another case, "You're not getting out of prison until you're approved for parole." However, if you are pardoned the day after I say that, then obviously, it wasn't very exclusive.



Again, your statement was incorrect.  You made a prediction about the future, and it didn't come true.

D&D rules are different from predictions:  they're *descriptions of the fantasy world*.  If a passage in D&D says, "Children do not get a cookie until they have eaten their dinner," then, *by the rules*, they do not get a cookie from Uncle Larry until they've eaten their dinner.  It's a description of the way the cosmos works, not a prediction about its working.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> But wait! If Break Enchantment should work, and Feeblemind is instantaneous, is it even possible for the Feeblemind spell description to exclude Break Enchantment? What enforces the restriction of Break Enchantment not working?
> 
> Answer: Nothing. The spell is instantaneous, so there is nothing left to enforce the exclusion of Break Enchantment (there is no magic energy left - it's all "gone").



The peculiarity of the change wrought by the spell.  What it does to your mind is something that can only be reversed by a very specific things, listed in the spell.

The fact that it's instantaneous doesn't matter.  It's not that there's a magic aura preventing other things from getting through; according to the spell's description, the change is static and unfixable until one of four specific things happen.

Also, and sorry to be pedantic (well, I guess that's the point of the thread), but what about the cookie?  Do you agree that my statement about a cookieless child is rendered incorrect by my mischievous Uncle Larry?

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> There is nothing about this statement, which defines an "instantaneous" spell to limit the consequence to being non-magical.
> 
> The spell energy that brought about the consequence has come and gone, yes. However, the consequence itself can have magical energy of it's own, and that clearly seems to be the case with Imprisonment. Otherwise, how would a non-magical sphere impose a stasis on the target?
> 
> ...




However, one cannot prevent an otherwise-valid remedy unless one does so quite specifically.

A remedy that is specifcally designed to reverse instantaneous effects of the type in question must always work unless somehow the spell's effects make it not work.  Not the spell itself, but the remaining effect. 

In this case, there is nothing in the "Feebleminded" state that would indicate that a solution that reverses all that type (enchantments) of instantaneous spells would not work.

Even more evidence for this is the fact that this is the ONLY instantanous enchantment of fifth level or lower in the PHB.

Of higher-level spells, there are only Insanity and Word of Chaos (both 7th level).

It seems that if you do not allow Break Enchantment to work, the "instantaneous" reversal portion of that spell is pretty much useless.  Within the PHB, Feeblemind is really about the only instantaneous spell that can be reversed.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> ...The peculiarity of the change wrought by the spell.  What it does to your mind is something that can only be reversed by a very specific things, listed in the spell.
> 
> The fact that it's instantaneous doesn't matter.  It's not that there's a magic aura preventing other things from getting through; according to the spell's description, the change is static and unfixable until one of four specific things happen.
> 
> ...




First, I do agree with the cookie thing.

Second, if a remedy is set up to reverse ALL instantanous effects, that the other remedies within the spell do not matter because the remedy has nothing to do with the residual effect from the spell - it actually somehow reverses the spell to restore the victim to a state as if the spell had never been cast.  Weird, but that seems to be the way it works.

Break Enchantment is set up to work pretty much no matter what the spell says about remedies.  It's really kind of wierd because it is set up to reverse instantaneous effects.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> First, I do agree with the cookie thing.
> 
> Second, if a remedy is set up to reverse ALL instantanous effects, that the other remedies within the spell do not matter because the remedy has nothing to do with the residual effect from the spell - it actually somehow reverses the spell so restore the victim to a state as if the spell had never been cast.  Weird, but that seems to be the way it works.
> 
> Break Enchantment is set up to work pretty much no matter what the spell says about remedies.  It's really kind of wierd because it is set up to reverse instantaneous effects.



Okay, let me make sure I'm following you.
1) A child is told "You can't have a cookie until you finish dinner."  The child receives a cookie before he finishes dinner.  You agree that the original statement was incorrect.
2) A spell says that you remain in a certain condition until one of four specific things happens.  You are removed from taht condition before one of those specific four things happen.

Do you agree with all of that?  If so, do you agree that the statement "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind" is incorrect, given that the subject can be removed from the state before one of those four spells is cast?

Daniel


----------



## glass (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Why? Because there is no residual magical energy left to prevent that from working.  This fictional spell is not so much "curing" the state of "Imprisonment" as it is somehow restoring the victim to its pre-Imprisonment state.



So, can you _raise_ someone killed by an instantaneous death effect? After all, there is no magic around to prevent it.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Okay, let me make sure I'm following you.
> 1) A child is told "You can't have a cookie until you finish dinner."  The child receives a cookie before he finishes dinner.  You agree that the original statement was incorrect.
> 2) A spell says that you remain in a certain condition until one of four specific things happens.  You are removed from taht condition before one of those specific four things happen.
> 
> ...




Yep, I do.  To me more accurate, I think the statement ""The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind" is incorrect ONLY if you think it was meant to be a complete list.  After all, it is correct as far as it goes, it is just incomplete.

Just as the cookies statement was.  It was correct as far as it went - it was just incomplete:  that is, its error was in failing to state all conditions under which the child gets a cookie.

I think that's the same situation here.  The statement in the spell is accurate, but incomplete.

The statement was not needed at all and should have not been in the spell.

If Break Enchantment really was not supposed to work, then the spell really needed to state:  "Break Enchantment will not restore a victim from the effects of Feeblemind, but Limited Wish will restore a victim, as will Heal, Wish and Miracle."

Anything short of that simply is not good enough to prevent Break Enchantment from working per RAW as presented in the PHB.  Even at that, such a statement is arguably illegal from a rules perspective, but at least it would be unarguably clear.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Yep, I do.  To me more accurate, I think the statement ""The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind" is incorrect ONLY if you think it was meant to be a complete list.  After all, it is correct as far as it goes, it is just incomplete.
> 
> Just as the cookies statement was.  It was correct as far as it went - it was just incomplete:  that is, its error was in failing to state all conditions under which the child gets a cookie.
> 
> I think that's the same situation here.  The statement in the spell is accurate, but incomplete.



And this might be our disagreement right here.  The statement cannot be both accurate and incomplete, given the way it was phrased.  If it said, "The victim can be cured by blah blah blah," then it could be accurate and incomplete; but when it says "the victim cannot be cured until blah blah blah," then if the victim can be cured before blah blah blah, then it is not the case that the victim cannot be cured until blah blah blah.  Then incompleteness of blah blah blah renders the statement false.

(Again, I agree that BE should work; I'm just stubbornly pointing out what i see as a "fatal exception error" in the rules, for my own ulterior purposes  ).

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> So, can you _raise_ someone killed by an instantaneous death effect? After all, there is no magic around to prevent it.
> 
> 
> glass.





Huh?  Sure, why not?  Is there a rule to prevent that?  Is not Raise Dead a valid remedy for the condition of "dead"?

Finger of Death is an Instantaneous Necromancy [Death] spell.  Raise Dead works, within the limits of the spell and with the loss of level, etc., as defined in the Raise Dead spell.

I think I am missing your point.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 7, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> 1) A child is told "You can't have a cookie until you finish dinner."  The child receives a cookie before he finishes dinner.  You agree that the original statement was incorrect.




A lot of focus is being placed on this statement being "incorrect". Incorrect is not a valid judgment of the sentence. 

As the parent in this case, I was making the rules. Within the rules there is only one way to get the cookie, finish dinner. 

While there may be other ways to get the cookie, none of them satisfy the requirements that I laid down when I made the rules. They would be cheating.

In order for a cookie to be obtained, within the rules, prior to finishing dinner...some aspect of the rules would have to change after the fact, specific to the situation. 

For instance, I make the statement, you can only get a cookie if you finish your dinner. However, my daughter then bites her tongue trying to chew her food and ends up crying because it hurt. In order to make her feel better, I allowed her to have her cookie even though dinner wasn't finished. 

Why was this allowed? Because an event that transpired after my declaration caused me to change the rules.

Now...bringing this back around to Feeblemind. 

The author of Feeblemind clearly only intended for the four listed effects to cure the residual consequence of this spell. Those are the "rules".

Had Break Enchantment been intended to function, it would have to be included in this very specific list, because the publication of both are concurrent to one another, neither follows the other. 

Now, after the fact, another spell (panacea) could be written that changes the rules, but it has to do so specifically.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Huh?  Sure, why not?  Is there a rule to prevent that?  Is not Raise Dead a valid remedy for the condition of "dead"?
> 
> Finger of Death is an Instantaneous Necromancy [Death] spell.  Raise Dead works, within the limits of the spell and with the loss of level, etc., as defined in the Raise Dead spell.
> 
> I think I am missing your point.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Death Attacks
> 
> In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly.
> 
> ...




I think that was the point...


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> And this might be our disagreement right here.  The statement cannot be both accurate and incomplete, given the way it was phrased.  If it said, "The victim can be cured by blah blah blah," then it could be accurate and incomplete; but when it says "the victim cannot be cured until blah blah blah," then if the victim can be cured before blah blah blah, then it is not the case that the victim cannot be cured until blah blah blah.  Then incompleteness of blah blah blah renders the statement false.
> 
> (Again, I agree that BE should work; I'm just stubbornly pointing out what i see as a "fatal exception error" in the rules, for my own ulterior purposes  ).
> 
> Daniel




Sure it can be both accurate and incomplete.  That's a function of the English language and the fact that normal, mortal beings write this stuff.   

It is accurate *as far as it goes*. It just does not go far enough.  In fact, I'd say it is virtually impossible to exclusively list ALL remedies.

Okay, really, I am agreeing with you - I am just trying to find a way to make it ALL work together.  If you allow for the fact that the list is only partially complete, than everything all works together with no "fatal exception error".

Generally speaking, absolute, exclusive lists for anything fail.  There is always an exception, and/or new things get discovered, and/or there was an oversight initially.  Thus such lists should be assumed to be less than fully complete and one should leave open the possibility for other solutions if they are otherwise valid.


----------



## glass (Nov 7, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> SRD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Indeed it was. You get a cookie! 


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I think that was the point...





Oh, right. Got it.  Thanks.  

It appears that the effect of being killed by a death attack leaves you in a state other than simply "dead."  You are in a state of, I guess, "dead by death attack" which appears to be different from simply "dead."

Note that, in this case, an otherwise valid remedy has been specifically excluded from working.  There really should have been an explanation of why Raise Dead does not work, as this is somewhat unsatisfying, but, alas, that's the way it is.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Indeed it was. You get a cookie!
> 
> 
> glass.




Is his room clean??  Did he eat his dinner??


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> A lot of focus is being placed on this statement being "incorrect". Incorrect is not a valid judgment of the sentence.
> 
> As the parent in this case, I was making the rules. Within the rules there is only one way to get the cookie, finish dinner.
> 
> While there may be other ways to get the cookie, none of them satisfy the requirements that I laid down when I made the rules. They would be cheating.




Or a simple oversight - even when I made that rule I probably knew that cookies miught be given out under other circumstances, but I did not state them (whoops - that's not really very precise, is it?).



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> Why was this allowed? Because an event that transpired after my declaration caused me to change the rules.




You did not change the rules, you simply forget to mention that you might get a cookie if an otherwise valid reason came up that was not excluded by the rule about dinner.  That is always implied, btu rarely actually stated.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> Now...bringing this back around to Feeblemind.
> 
> The author of Feeblemind clearly only intended for the four listed effects to cure the residual consequence of this spell. Those are the "rules".
> 
> ...




Assuming the authors could not possibly make any errors, oversights or unresolved contradictions in the rules.  That's too big an assumption for me.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Oh, right. Got it.  Thanks.
> 
> It appears that the effect of being killed by a death attack leaves you in a state other than simply "dead."  You are in a state of, I guess, "dead by death attack" which appears to be different from simply "dead."
> 
> Note that, in this case, an otherwise valid remedy has been specifically excluded from working.  There really should have been an explanation of why Raise Dead does not work, as this is somewhat unsatisfying, but, alas, that's the way it is.




Regardless, this along with Imprisonment sets the very clear precedent that consequences of an instantaneous effect can have specific removal requirements. 

So that negates that part of your argument. 

Still, you've not addressed my question as to why Break Enchantment, which is from the same publication as Feeblemind, Heal, Wish, Limited Wish and Miracle, should be allowed to function when it was not on the list of cures. 

You have stated yourself that the list is redundant, there was no need to have both Limited Wish and Wish on the list, since Wish can copy Limited Wish. So, if the list is careful to be redundant in that regard, why would it leave out a possible cure from the same book...unless, that possible cure was not intended to function as a cure for Feeblemind? 

If you can answer that to my satisfaction, I'll agree your argument has merit.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Or a simple oversight - even when I made that rule I probably knew that cookies miught be given out under other circumstances, but I did not state them (whoops - that's not really very precise, is it?).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So have you given up arguing what the rules actually state? Now are you taking a stance on how the rule was intended, regardless of how it reads? Because...that's a WHOLE other discussion.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> So have you given up arguing what the rules actually state? Now are you taking a stance on how the rule was intended, regardless of how it reads? Because...that's a WHOLE other discussion.




Not exactly.  I am stating that unless an otherwise-valid remedy is specifically disallowed (especially for an instantaneous spell), the remedy remains valid.

This pretty much means that it is not really possible to make an exclusive list (especially for an instantaneous spell).

This further means that the list in Feeblemind is not an exclusive list - because it cannot really be so and, in common usage, the language used in the spell typically does not really mean to include every possibility.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Sure it can be both accurate and incomplete.  That's a function of the English language and the fact that normal, mortal beings write this stuff.



The cookie example isn't really such a big deal.  But look at one where the statement makes a pretty big difference:  "I promise to wait for you until you get back from the war."  If my sweetheart makes me this promise (she'll stay in the state of waiting until I complete the act of getting back from the war), and I find out that three weeks later she hooked up with my best friend, I'm hardly going to accept her excuse that her promise to me was "accurate, but incomplete."  I'm going to say that she broke her word.

Or try it a different way.  I say, "Frank cannot eat a cookie until he finishes his dinner."  Uncle Harry gives him a cookie before Frank finishes dinner.  I look back and say, "Apparently, it is not the case that Frank cannot get a cookie until he finishes his dinner."  Is this statement correct?

If so, we've got a world in which P and not P are both true (assuming you equate "accurate" with "true").  That's the very essence of a fatal exception error.

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Regardless, this along with Imprisonment sets the very clear precedent that consequences of an instantaneous effect can have specific removal requirements.
> 
> So that negates that part of your argument.
> 
> ...




First, if the list was so carefully redudant to list both Wish and Limited Wish, it should have also listed Mass Heal to be truly complete, if its intent was to be a full and complete list and exclude break Enchatment.  That's pretty strong evidence of an oversight.

Second, the lists of "specific removal requirement" are, in fact,  a list of things that can work and do not prohibit other possible solutions, *if they are otherwise valid*.

For example, let's make up a new spell.

William's Uncontrollable Tapping Finger.

Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 2 
Components: V, S, 
Casting Time: 1 standard action 
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) 
Target: One creature; see text 
Duration: Ten minutes per level
Saving Throw: Will negates 
Spell Resistance: Yes 

This spell afflicts the subject with uncontrollable urge to tap a finger on whatever surface is handy.  The game effect is that spell casters require two hands be used for casting spells with somatic components, since one hand is forced to make motions that are not part of any somatic gesture. 

The effect remains until a "William's Cease Tapping" spell is used upon the victim.

Note that this spell did not explicity exclude the otherwise-valid remedy of "Dispel Magic." Therefore, Dispel Magic works because it works on all permanent spells of this spell level unless otherwise prohibited.

Note also the the effect also ends when the spell duration ends, which is another remedy (the passage of time).

One cannot assume an "until" clause is totally compete to the point that it excludes all other valid remedies.

I submit that my example is poorly worded (just as with Feeblemind) in that I should have specifically addresed by the spell duration running out and Dispel Magic in the "until" clause.


----------



## AuraSeer (Nov 7, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yep, because it's not open to interpretation. The intent and the rules are clear.



That's the most obviously incorrect statement anyone has made so far in this thread.

If the intent and rules were clear, I wouldn't have had to ask this question in the first place, and we certainly wouldn't have 5 pages of arguments about it. =b^)


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> The cookie example isn't really such a big deal.  But look at one where the statement makes a pretty big difference:  "I promise to wait for you until you get back from the war."  If my sweetheart makes me this promise (she'll stay in the state of waiting until I complete the act of getting back from the war), and I find out that three weeks later she hooked up with my best friend, I'm hardly going to accept her excuse that her promise to me was "accurate, but incomplete."  I'm going to say that she broke her word.
> 
> Or try it a different way.  I say, "Frank cannot eat a cookie until he finishes his dinner."  Uncle Harry gives him a cookie before Frank finishes dinner.  I look back and say, "Apparently, it is not the case that Frank cannot get a cookie until he finishes his dinner."  Is this statement correct?
> 
> ...




I submit that "I promise to wait for you until after the war" is incomplete, too.  What if he/she never returns (marries another wnile overseas, for example)?  Unstated was, at least, "unless you marry another while you are gone."

Now I do agree, of course, that without any of the unstated (but implied, perhaps) conditions being met that marrying another would be breaking his/her word.

To me when faced with an apparent "fatal exception error," the first thing to do is to see if there is a way to interpret the language to avoid the "fatal exception error."  That's pretty much what I've done here, I think.

Anyway, let's say there is a "fatal exception error" here, for argument's sake.  Now what?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> That's the most obviously incorrect statement anyone has made so far in this thread.
> 
> If the intent and rules were clear, I wouldn't have had to ask this question in the first place, and we certainly wouldn't have 5 pages of arguments about it. =b^)




I'm pretty sure that statement was tongue-in-cheek.  As was, perhaps, you response?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

szilard said:
			
		

> hmmm... if you manage to turn the Feebleminded creature into an animal or tree, could you reverse the Feeblemind via Awaken?
> 
> -Stuart




Interesting trick.  I think you might end up with an awakened creature, but not back to it's pre-Feebleminded state.

Not a really good solution.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Anyway, let's say there is a "fatal exception error" here, for argument's sake.  Now what?



Now we gotta abandon programmatic interpretation of the rules in favor of contextual interpretation, considering how it'd work in play, what would be fun, what we can imagine coherently, what's balanced, what the authors probably intended, what the words say, etc. 

Daniel


----------



## Cedric (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I submit that my example is poorly worded (just as with Feeblemind) in that I should have specifically addresed by the spell duration running out and Dispel Magic in the "until" clause.




I agree your example is poorly worded, as it was written to be poorly worded in order to make your points. 

However, I do not agree that feeblemind is poorly worded. You are assuming it is poorly worded, and you know how slippery a slope assumptions are. 

Regardless that you think the spell is poorly worded, that does not allow you to use it differently than how it is worded and still cloak yourself in the protection of being "official."

Now, if you want to argue how it was actually intended to work, vice how it's written, then go for it. That won't change the fact that it is written very clearly to only allow four cures from the PHB.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 7, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Regardless that you think the spell is poorly worded, that does not allow you to use it differently than how it is worded and still cloak yourself in the protection of being "official."



Wait--huh?  Who's cloaking themselves in the protection of being "official"?


> Now, if you want to argue how it was actually intended to work, vice how it's written, then go for it. That won't change the fact that it is written very clearly to only allow four cures from the PHB.



Indeed--but *that* doesn't change the fact that Break Enchantment is written very clearly to work on a set of effects that includes Feeblemind.

Daniel


----------



## Cedric (Nov 7, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Wait--huh? Who's cloaking themselves in the protection of being "official"?




I was trying to make a distinction between discussing the rules as they are officially written and used...and discussing the rules as you feel they are intended to be used, despite what they specifically say. I'm sorry if it came out wrong. 



			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Indeed--but *that* doesn't change the fact that Break Enchantment is written very clearly to work on a set of effects that includes Feeblemind.
> 
> Daniel




I agree. If you just read Break Enchantment and ignore the line in Feeblemind about what might remove the effect, then Break Enchantment would work just fine. 

However, I'm not ignoring the line in Feeblemind about what might remove it. I'm not assuming it is wrong. I'm not assuming it is incomplete. I am assuming that it, officially, functions precisely as it is written. And as it is written, "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind." 

There are only four cures. Only one of those four spells, or a spell worded to function exactly like one of those four spells (Mass Heal), or a spell later added that explicitly states that it works (Panacea), actually works.


----------



## sirwmholder (Nov 7, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Okay, let me make sure I'm following you.
> 1) A child is told "You can't have a cookie until you finish dinner." The child receives a cookie before he finishes dinner. You agree that the original statement was incorrect.
> 2) A spell says that you remain in a certain condition until one of four specific things happens. You are removed from taht condition before one of those specific four things happen.



Given the cookie example above... the intent is the child has to finish dinner before before he gets a cookie.  If the child is given a cookie before he finishes dinner does that automatically means he is finished with his dinner?

In game terms... just because Break Enchantment is cast on the target doesn't mean the effect ends because the original conditions still have not been met.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> ...There are only four cures. Only one of those four spells, or a spell worded to function exactly like one of those four spells (Mass Heal), or a spell later added that explicitly states that it works (Panacea), actually works.




So you decided what the exceptions are to "unless."  By doing you you proved the the "unless" clause is flawed.

Now, having done so, it is only a question of degree.  You can make a judgement call on that as you have, or you can assume that any other valid remedy will work (which really only brings in Break Enchantment in addition to Mass Heal and Panacea).

You way involves a judgement call.  My way involves only the rules, no judgement calls at all, no splittiing hairs, no deciding what is included and what is not as a remedy except by what the rules state is a remedy.

And yet you feel your way is more closely following the rules.  Correct?

Go figure.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Now I do agree, of course, that without any of the unstated (but implied, perhaps) conditions being met that marrying another would be breaking his/her word.
> 
> To me when faced with an apparent "fatal exception error," the first thing to do is to see if there is a way to interpret the language to avoid the "fatal exception error." That's pretty much what I've done here, I think.
> 
> Anyway, let's say there is a "fatal exception error" here, for argument's sake.  Now what?




Luckily, the rules tell us what to do when we reach this problem, so we don't have to try and make up words that aren't there.



			
				Primary Source Rule said:
			
		

> When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.




All you have to do is choose which spell is the primary source.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> Given the cookie example above... the intent is the child has to finish dinner before before he gets a cookie.  If the child is given a cookie before he finishes dinner does that automatically means he is finished with his dinner?
> 
> In game terms... just because Break Enchantment is cast on the target doesn't mean the effect ends because the original conditions still have not been met.
> 
> ...





Actually, it does.  It reverses the instantaneous effect, which mean the effect no longer exists. 



> Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect.




Besides, we *know* the "unless" clause is flawed (incomplete).  It is only a matter of degree (see my last post).


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Luckily, the rules tell us what to do when we reach this problem, so we don't have to try and make up words that aren't there.
> 
> All you have to do is choose which spell is the primary source.





ROFL  Good luck with that approach:



> Errata Rule: Primary Sources
> When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
> 
> Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's  Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 7, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> Given the cookie example above... the intent is the child has to finish dinner before before he gets a cookie.  If the child is given a cookie before he finishes dinner does that automatically means he is finished with his dinner?



No; it means that the description of the child's circumstances were false.  It was not the case that the child would not receive a cookie until he finished his dinner.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> I agree. If you just read Break Enchantment and ignore the line in Feeblemind about what might remove the effect, then Break Enchantment would work just fine.
> 
> However, I'm not ignoring the line in Feeblemind about what might remove it. I'm not assuming it is wrong.



It does look to me as though you're assuming that Break Enchantment is wrong, then.  Does Break Enchantment actually do what the spell claims that it does?  Does it function exactly as it's written?


> I was trying to make a distinction between discussing the rules as they are officially written and used...and discussing the rules as you feel they are intended to be used, despite what they specifically say. I'm sorry if it came out wrong.



I'm just not sure I see that this is a useful distinction.  Can you point me to an official use of the rules?  And are you certain that all official uses of the rules are consistent with one another?

As I understand language, words themselves say nothing:  they communicate thoughts from one head to another with varying degrees of success.  They are the goblets that hold the wine of meaning, not the wine itself.  We therefore cannot establish a single meaning for a set of words; the closest we can come is to try to understand what their creator intended for us to understand.

Everyone here is trying to figure out the best interpretation of the rules, but as we can all see, intelligent people can reach different conclusions about what this best interpretation is--how we should best translate the squiggles of ink into meaning.  I think that's inescapable, and it's worth keeping that feature of human language in mind in any discussion of game rules.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You way involves a judgement call.  My way involves only the rules, no judgement calls at all, no splittiing hairs, no deciding what is included and what is not as a remedy except by what the rules state is a remedy.



I disagree.  Both ways involve a judgment call; both of you are setting up a different heuristic for resolving the apparent contradiction.  Either heuristic will work, but choosing which to use is a judgment call.

Daniel


----------



## Felix (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I think the statement ""The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind" is incorrect ONLY if you think it was meant to be a complete list.



_Feeblemind_'s "until" clause, along with the "No cookie until clean room" example, outlines a necessary element. It is necessary to have a clean room in order to get a cookie; it is necessary to cast one of those spells before the _Feeblemind_ condition is removed.

Necessary conditions do not ensure the objective, they are merely prerequisites; if you clean your room, you still might not get a cookie, but you will not get a cookie if your room is not clean. In the "*If X, then Y*" example, Y is a necessary condition for X. You must have Y if you are going to have X. 

Necessity is easily shown in feat chains. Power Attack is a necessary condition for Cleave. You cannot have Cleave without having Power Attack. The syllogism would run: "*If Cleave, then Power Attack*". There is no way to have Cleave without having Power Attack, but there is a way to have Power Attack but not have Cleave.

This syllogism is equal to "*If not Power Attack, then not Cleave*". "Combat Expertise" is equal to the term, "Not Power Attack", and so may be substituted: "*If Combat Expertise, then not Cleave*". 

Of course, you may have _both_ Combat Expertise and Power Attack, but it is only ever the Power Attack that allows Cleave, and never Combat Expertise.

This is both accurate and complete, and exclusivity has not been assumed: it has been shown as fundamentally part of the language.

So then the question is if the language in _Feeblemind_ may be translated into a similar syllogistic construct. Let us define our terms:

X: [cure]
Y: [spells]
Z: _Break Enchantment_

Now, as Artoomis stated before, there is no argument that "Condition remains until [spells] are cast" may be translated into: "No [cure] until [spells]". Substitute our letters: *No X until Y*". This is equal to the statement: *If X, then Y*". This is then also equal to: *If not Y, then not X*. "Z" is equivalent to "Not Y", so substitute: *If Z, then not X*.

[sblock]Substitute our letters: *No [cure] until [spells]*". This is equal to the statement: *If [cure], then [spells]*". This is then also equal to: *If not [spells], then not [cure]*. "Break Enchantment" is equivalent to "Not [spells]", so substitute: *If Break Enchantment, then not [cure]*.[/sblock]

Z is not a sufficient condition to produce X because Y is necessary and Z does not provide, nor is an element of Y.

[sblock]Break Enchantment is not a sufficient condition to produce [cure] because [spells] is necessary and Break Enchantment does not provide, nor is an element of [spells].[/sblock]

Y is a necessary condition for X. You must have Y if you want X. Yes, you can have both Y and Z, and that will result in X, but you will have X only because you first have Y.

[sblock][spells] is a necessary condition for [cure]. You must have [spells] if you want [cure]. Yes, you can have both [spells] and Break Enchantment, and that will result in [cure], but you will have [cure] only because you first have [spells].[/sblock]



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Sure it can be both accurate and incomplete.



Language can be both accurate and incomplete. _Bestow Curse_ is an example of it. The language runs: "Bestow Curse cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed by 
".

This language results in: *If 
, then [removed]
*
.

That language is both accurate and incomplete. It is also _not the language used in Feeblemind_.

IF the langugae in Feeblemind translated into: "If [spells], then [cure]", I would be the first to agree with you; that syllogism does not prevent other spells from producing a cure.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. _Feeblemind_ does not say "If [spells] then [cure]". It says: "If [cure] then [spells]", and that language is complete, it is accurate, it is exclusive, and no amount of dissembling about how imprecise a language can be will change it. This language happens to not be imprecise. Else I wouldn't be arguing with you.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> ...Break Enchantment is not a sufficient condition to produce [cure] because [spells] is necessary and Break Enchantment does not provide, nor is an element of [spells]...




That, of course, is assuming that the list is actually and truly complete and not, in error, incomplete.  If so, neither Mass Heal nor Panacea can work, either.

Mass Heal and Panacea are both indeed otherwise valid remedies, but made to be invalid choices by not being on "the list."  The list does NOT allow for Mass Heal or for any future spell, not matter how that spell happens to be worded, because the spell is simply not on the list.  It does not matter if the spell states it can "cure" Feeblemind or not, it's not on the list of those than can.  This is the inevitable result of Felix's logic chain.

If that's the path you want to go down, then indeed Break Enchament will not work, of course, neither will Mass Heal, Panacea or any other possible future spell, no matter what the designer's might be unless they also issue errata for Feeblemind.

It is unavoidable that the list simply is not complete, unless you prohibit Mass Heal and Panacea.  If you allow those (and I think there is no argument there), then the ONLY question is to what degree the list is incomplete.

On that question there can be at least a couple of answers. 

At this point I move from facts to opinion:

I personally feel the best approach is to take the two seemingly contradictory interpretations (Break Enchantment can't work because it is not on the list and Break Enchantment can work because Feeblmind is a instantaneous enchanment) and see if there is a rules interpretation that makes it all work together.  

If so, it seems to me like that would be the better choice.

Indeed there is such an interpretation:  Simply accept that the list is not a truly complete list.  We know that's factually true anyway (to at least some degree, see above), so just allow Break Enchantment to be addded to "the list " by virtue of the Break Enchantment's spell descirption and all is right with the world.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So you decided what the exceptions are to "unless."  By doing you you proved the the "unless" clause is flawed.
> 
> Now, having done so, it is only a question of degree.  You can make a judgement call on that as you have, or you can assume that any other valid remedy will work (which really only brings in Break Enchantment in addition to Mass Heal and Panacea).
> 
> ...




The funny thing is, I believe this to be a fundamental staple of how the rules function in this game and almost any other rules based activity in the world...and it works like this. 

Rule A - Functions to declare a specific consequence or event, and has a specific set of circumstances by which that consequence or event can be overcome or avoided. 

Rule A may only be circumvented by:

   - The specific circumstance listed in Rule A.
   - A specific circumstance, listed elsewhere that precisely assumes the role of the circumstance listed in Rule A. 
   - An update, errata, or FAQ entry detailing a different reading or understanding of the rule.
   - A subsequent release of rules that clearly and unequivocally provides a different, new solution. 

I think this functionality is a fundamental part of understanding and successfully using any rule based system that has situational exceptions. 

Cedric


----------



## Felix (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So you decided what the exceptions are to "unless."  By doing you you proved the the "unless" clause is flawed.
> 
> Now, having done so, it is only a question of degree.  You can make a judgement call on that as you have, or you can assume that any other valid remedy will work (which really only brings in Break Enchantment in addition to Mass Heal and Panacea).



The language within _Feeblemind_ is not flawed; it is accurate and complete.

The reason spells that are not on that list _may_ cure Feeblemind results from how the internally consistent language of Feeblemind interacts with the rest of the rules set. 

Re: _Mass Heal_. This spell says it functions "as _Heal_" specifically. Feeblemind allows _Heal_, and so because _Mass Heal functions as Heal, Mass Heal works. The rules set remains intact._
_

Re: Wish and

Limited Wish
_
. There is no language in _Wish_ that says it functions "as _Limited Wish_", and so were _Wish_ not specifically mentioned, it would not function, *Unless* you used _Wish_ to emulate the lower-level spell, _Limited Wish_; it would not be able to cure _Feeblemind_ on its own merits. Therefore the presence of _Wish_ on _Feeblemind's_ cures list does not imply an oversight in the list's construction. The language of the relationship between _Wish_ and _Limited Wish_ is fundamentally different from the relationship between _Heal_ and _Mass Heal_.

Re: New Spells. Any new spell written that specifically states it cures _Feeblemind_ is an alteration to the rules, as that rule was formerly not present, and yes, it would alter the list of possible cures in Feeblemind. But the mere possibility that an alteration in the rules might occur does not mean that the current rules are incomplete. To suggest such would imply that because a future Amendment to the constituion _might_ be written to allow dogs to vote, the current complete list of eligible voters is in fact incomplete, and that uneligible voters should be able to vote because of its incompleteness. I reject this argument.

There is no "matter of degree" here. The list is complete, accurate, and exclusive.

The language posesses those properties regardless of intent, balance, or opinion.

The discussion on what the language _should be_, and how the spell _should be_ ruled is something altogether different.

A is A, and _Break Enchantment_ doesn't work on _Feeblemind_.



> My way involves only the rules, no judgement calls at all, no splittiing hairs, no deciding what is included and what is not as a remedy except by what the rules state is a remedy.




You call _Feeblemind's_ language incomplete when it is demonstrably not.

You suggest the relationship between _Wish_ and _Limited Wish_ is identical to that of _Heal_ and _Mass Heal_, when the language shows this to be patently untrue.

You assume an error into the language of a spell with specific text in order to subordiante it to an errorless general text of another spell.

You dissemble when faced with ironclad syllogistic translations of the language.
No, Artoomis, your way involves the rules only in that you wish that they were otherwise.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, you DID make a novice logic mistake.
> 
> If X then Y does NOT lead to :
> 
> ...




Actually, it means precisely that. You'd better go back to logic class.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, it means precisely that. You'd better go back to logic class.





You must have missed the comment on that.  I've already admitted my error.  But thanks for pointing it out.... again!


----------



## Felix (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That, of course, is assuming that the list is actually and truly complete and not, in error, incomplete.



Wheras you would rather assume that the text is in error.


> If so, neither Mass Heal nor Panacea can work, either.



So are you saying that if I can show that both Mass Heal and Panacea can work while the list in Feeblemind remains accurate and complete you will throw your hat in with me?

Because if that's the case I will be off for a while composing that post.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You must have missed the comment on that.  I've already admitted my error.  But thanks for pointing it out.... again!




I was reading through from the beginning of the thread. I didn't get to the part where someone corrected it.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> Wheras you would rather assume that the text is in error.
> 
> So are you saying that if I can show that both Mass Heal and Panacea can work while the list in Feeblemind remains accurate and complete you will throw your hat in with me?
> 
> Because if that's the case I will be off for a while composing that post.




I am saying with what you have presented so far that it is not possible to add in Mass Heal and Panacea, as you have taken a view that the list is fully complete EXACTLY AS IS with NO EXCEPTIONS possible.

I say that is simply not true.

Now after that, it is simply a matter of to what extent you wish to allow flexibility in adding to that list.

Personally, I just say it's easiest to just assume a little human error and allow Break Enchantment to work.  It really seems to be the most reasonable thing to do.

On that, of course, reasonable minds may disagree.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, you DID make a novice logic mistake.
> 
> If X then Y does NOT lead to :
> 
> If no Y then no X




Gah!  For the love of...  Bloody...

*bangs head against wall until the hurting stops*


----------



## Fieari (Nov 7, 2006)

Here's an interesting interpretation to examine:

Consider that the list of things that can fix a feeblemind is part of the effect of the spell.

Now consider that Break Enchanment removes the effects of the spell.

Thus, part of Break Enchantment removes the limitation as to what can heal the condition.


----------



## Felix (Nov 7, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I was reading through from the beginning of the thread. I didn't get to the part where someone corrected it.



I think it was near the top of page 4 that several posters, Pielorinho and myself among them, pointed out his error; Artoomis was contrite.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Gah!  For the love of...  Bloody...
> 
> *bangs head against wall until the hurting stops*





Let it go.  I've admitted my error and we've moved on from there anwyay.

I'm going to edit that stuff so it no longer comes up.


----------



## Felix (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I am saying with what you have presented so far that it is not possible to add in Mass Heal and Panacea, as you have taken a view that the list is fully complete EXACTLY AS IS with NO EXCEPTIONS possible.
> 
> I say that is simply not true.
> 
> ...



Again, if I can show that the Feeblemind list can be both accurate and complete, while at the same time allow Mass Heal and Panacea to work, will you agree with me?

If it's impossible, then it's impossible; simply say, "Yes, Felix, if you can show me the impossible I'll believe it's acutally possible and agree with you." You don't have to expect me to produce a convincing argument, merely allow the possibility that you could be persuaded. Or else what's the point of this thread if you refuse even that possibility?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> Again, if I can show that the Feeblemind list can be both accurate and complete, while at the same time allow Mass Heal and Panacea to work, will you agree with me?
> 
> If it's impossible, then it's impossible; simply say, "Yes, Felix, if you can show me the impossible I'll believe it's acutally possible and agree with you." You don't have to expect me to produce a convincing argument, merely allow the possibility that you could be persuaded.




If you can do that AND ALSO address:



			
				Fieari said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting interpretation to examine:
> 
> Consider that the list of things that can fix a feeblemind is part of the effect of the spell.
> 
> ...




Fieari neatly made a point I've have danced around in several posts:



> Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect




Note it does not "remove" the effect, it does not "cure" it - it actually reverses the instantaneous effect.  In other words, it reverses the fact that Feeblemind was done.

So maybe Break Enchantment does not need to be on the list at all.  It kind of goes without saying that "the subject remain in this state until .... or something happens to make it as if the subject have never been subject to this spell in the first place."

Or something like that.

In other words, Break Enchantment sets up a new condition that does not so much cure or end the Feebleminded state as reverse the instantaneous effect that put in in place it so that it needs no cure.  Not really the same thing, I guess.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

BTW:  Looking for guidance, I searched the SRD for any other uses of the word "reverse" and found nothing even remotely similar.

Too bad, I thought maybe there would be something that could be used for or against my argument.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> ROFL  Good luck with that approach:




Can you please explain how this post serves any purpose than to try and belittle me?


----------



## Fieari (Nov 7, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Can you please explain how this post serves any purpose than to try and belittle me?



It probably was overly mean, but I think what he's getting at is that the primary source rule only give precidence between different books.  The problem here is precidence within a single book, and thus isn't covered.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Let it go.  I've admitted my error and we've moved on from there anwyay.
> 
> I'm going to edit that stuff so it no longer comes up.



1. I hadn't got to that part, so chill.
2. I have taught logic, and I have often wanted to throw chalk at my students for this very error.


----------



## Felix (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect




I will address this point first, and have not brought it up because I thought it thoroughly debunked earlier by Thanee and me.

Firstly, simply because something _can_ do A, does not mean that it _will_ do A. Listed in the Break Enchantment spell is the ability to reverse an effect like _Flesh to Stone_. The argument over BE's ability to specifically reverse FtS's effect should be held elsewhere, but it is enough to agree that BE can reverse Duration: Instantaneous effects.

This is wholly different from saying, "Break Enchantment reverses all Insantaneous effects", because in that case, _every Instantaneous effect could be removed by BE_. In such a case there would be a conflict with the BE language and the Feeblemind language. But that is not the language of the spell.

Feeblemind is a Duration: Instantaneous spell, yes. But it is not necessary that it should be removed _because_ it is instantaneous.

Consider both of these True:
Alan can hit curve balls.
Bill throws curve balls that nobody can hit.

Do you suggest that because Alan _can_ hit curve balls, he must be able to hit Bill's curve balls? There is no conflict between these two truths, nor is there in the relationship between Feeblemind and Break Enchantment.

Does that answer your issue regarding the "can reverse even Instantaneous effects" problem?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Can you please explain how this post serves any purpose than to try and belittle me?




Sorry, that came across wrong.   I just meant that there is no guidance whatsoever for deciding precendence between two spells within the PHB.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 7, 2006)

Fieari said:
			
		

> The problem here is precidence within a single book, and thus isn't covered.




Yes it is.  The primary source rule applies whenever there is a confict between two rules, no matter where they are.  The example given of text vs. table is an example of a conflict between two sources in the same book.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 7, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Yes it is.  The primary source rule applies whenever there is a confict between two rules, no matter where they are.  The example given of text vs. table is an example of a conflict between two sources in the same book.



Wouldn't that imply that no future spell could ever remove Feeblemind, because the primary source--the feeblemind spell--lays out the methods for removing it, and a new spell that removes it would therefore be in conflict with the primary source?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> I will address this point first, and have not brought it up because I thought it thoroughly debunked earlier by Thanee and me.
> 
> Firstly, simply because something _can_ do A, does not mean that it _will_ do A. Listed in the Break Enchantment spell is the ability to reverse an effect like _Flesh to Stone_. The argument over BE's ability to specifically reverse FtS's effect should be held elsewhere, but it is enough to agree that BE can reverse Duration: Instantaneous effects.
> 
> ...




Nope. 

Note that the word "can" is needed because it is not automatic. 

First, of course, it must an enchantment, abjuration or curse.
Second, it must be no hgigher than fifth level (that's arguable and does nto matter here)
Third, the Caster Level check must be successful.
Fourth, there nust not be some other rule that would prevent this from taking happening.

If all those are true, that it reverses the instantaneous effect.

The tricky bit is number four, of course.

Whether or not the spell list within Feeblemind represents a rule that can possibly prevent the revesal hinges on the defintion of "reverse." 
n
If "reverse' meas that the spell effect essentially never happens (it is "unraveled," for lack of a better term), than there is no spell effect to contain the "spell list" text and the "spell list" cannot prevent Break Enchantment from working.

On the other hand, if you take the word "reverse" to have it mean something more akin to "cure," then perhaps the spell list does exclude Break Enchantment, depending upon other arguments (with which I do not agree, but that's beside the point here).

Unfortuantely, we have no guidance other than ordinary English to decide what "reverse" means in this instance.


----------



## Felix (Nov 7, 2006)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that imply that no future spell could ever remove Feeblemind, because the primary source--the feeblemind spell--lays out the methods for removing it, and a new spell that removes it would therefore be in conflict with the primary source?



Unless you consider new material, such as the spell Panacea, to be an implicit _change of the rules_ that you make when you accept the material. This is an individual-campaign degree of eratta; it will not apply to other's games necessiarly, unless they too accept the change of the rules-set.


----------



## Felix (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> Note that the word "can" is needed because it is not automatic.
> 
> ...



I think perhaps you've miswritten something in the bolded sentence; would you please edit it before I respond if that is the case?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Yes it is.  The primary source rule applies whenever there is a confict between two rules, no matter where they are.  The example given of text vs. table is an example of a conflict between two sources in the same book.




 I do not think that, generally, there is an order of precendence between two spells.   

Certainly a spell that states "Dispel Magic will not affect this spell" takes precendence over the Dispel Magic rules within that spell, but, other than something really clear-cut like that, I see no way to establish precendence between spells.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 7, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> I think perhaps you've miswritten something in the bolded sentence; would you please edit it before I respond if that is the case?




Fixed it,  Thanks.  I hate it when my stupidness/carelessness/bad editing and/or typos gets quoted and I can no longer fix it!

Happens all to often!


----------



## Mephistopheles (Nov 7, 2006)

The _Break Enchantment_ spell states "This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses".

_Bestow Curse_ states "You place a curse on the subject" and also "The curse bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a _break enchantment_, _limited wish_, _miracle_, _remove curse_, or _wish_ spell".

The _Heal_ spell states "It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the Target: ... feebleminded ...".

(As a quick aside, _Mass Heal_ states "This spell functions like _heal_", so by reference _Mass Heal_ establishes that it is a remedy for _Feeblemind_.)

The _Feeblemind_ spell states "The subject remains in this state until a _heal_ ... spell is used to cancel the effect".

Now I'll bring this into context with the current debate. While _Break Enchantment_ establishes that it can remove curses _Bestow Curse_ still specifies _Break Enchantment_ as a specific remedy even though it is redundant to do so. Similarly while _Heal_ establishes that it can remove a _feeblemind_ effect the _Feeblemind_ spell description still specifies _Heal_ as a remedy even though it is redundant to do so.

Along similar lines the FAQ states "A _feeblemind_ effect remains until the subject receives a _heal_, _limited wish_, _miracle_, or _wish_ spell".

Based on the above it seems reasonable to infer that if _Break Enchantment_ was intended to remedy a _feeblemind_ effect then it would be listed as a remedy in the _Feeblemind_ spell.

In any case allowing _Break Enchantment_ to remedy a _feeblemind_ effect does not seem terribly unbalancing. The remedy list in the _Feeblemind_ spell lists spells that are 6th level and above as guaranteed remedies, while the success of the 5th level (for non-hybrid casters) spell _Break Enchantment_ in removing a _feeblemind_ effect would be dependent on a caster level check and not guaranteed.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 7, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Does this now make sense?




No. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I do not think that, generally, there is an order of precendence between two spells.
> 
> Certainly a spell that states "Dispel Magic will not affect this spell" takes precendence over the Dispel Magic rules within that spell, but, other than something really clear-cut like that, I see no way to establish precendence between spells.




It would seem that the errata thinks otherwise.

The main point here is that when you are faced with a decision between A or B, the rules state that you should choose whichever one is "primary", and follow that option.  The rules do not allow for a third party option C, or for you to make up unwritten rules about A so that it is consistent with B (where, there is a rule that allows that, but that's Rule 0).

Which of these two spells is the primary source is still open to debate.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 8, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, it means precisely that. You'd better go back to logic class.




Okay, this was a page back, but I'll address it now, just to be perfectly clear...

*If no nice, then no post.* 

And anyone who tries to apply mathematical logic to that will probably not like the results.  If you're technically correct, and know it, then your argument will stand without making others look small.


----------



## Felix (Nov 8, 2006)

Re: Umbran

While I bow to your Syllogistic Moderator Construct Hammer, I'd like to say that I think this is one of the few rules threads that has gone on for this many pages as quickly as it has and been this civil; generally we're calling each other yahoos by page 3. 

Go us?


----------



## glass (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Besides, we *know* the "unless" clause is flawed (incomplete).  It is only a matter of degree (see my last post).



I don't know anything of the sort. In fact, I know, because the spell is written in english and I have been speaking and reading english for the best part of 30 years, that the unless clause as worded cannot be anything else than complete.


glass.


----------



## glass (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I do not think that, generally, there is an order of precendence between two spells.



The precendence is that the specific overrides the general.

This is not stated explicitly, because it doesn't need to be; if the general overrode the specific then their would be no possibility of specific rules or exceptions ever. Since this is clearly unworkable, the specific _must_ override the general.


glass.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 8, 2006)

Having finally read all of the posts on the last 6 pages, my conclusion is that the specific overrides the general and Break Enchantment does not get rid of Feeblemind according to literal RAW. Unless means unless.

The arguments to the counter are not convincing.

Balance-wise, there is probably nothing wrong with allowing BE to get rid of Feeblemind, but that is not what is written.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> The precendence is that the specific overrides the general.
> 
> This is not stated explicitly, because it doesn't need to be; if the general overrode the specific then their would be no possibility of specific rules or exceptions ever. Since this is clearly unworkable, the specific _must_ override the general.
> 
> ...




That's assuming the "specific" is actually truly specific.  In fact, the list is not complete.

Wish and Limited Wish are both listed, implying that EVERY spell needs to be listed, even if redundant, as everything Limited Wish can do Wish can also do (plus more, of course), so only Limited Wish needed to be listed.

Therefore, if the list is to be complete. Mass Heal shoiuld have been listed.

Now there is a *very fine argument* on why Mass Heal should work.  However, the fact remains that it was not on the list.

There is a very fine argument why Break Enchament should work, too.

But it's not on the list.  Yes, I know the counter argument, how "Mass Heal" is really just Heal plus more, but here one is just deciding the degree to which the list may be expanded beyond the actual text.

Finally, on this topic directly, an "unti" a Break Enchament spell is used" clause could be viewed as innaccurate - a Break Enchament spell is not an automatic success (well, except under a generous reading) - a Caster Level check is still required.  If it has been on the list, I could see folks arguing how that is evidence that Break Enchantment needs to Caster Level check vs. Feeblemind.    

*More importantly*, there is an excellent argument why break Enchament DOES work, and *does not even need to be on the list*.  That's because Break Enchantment does something *UNIQUE* in the PHB.  It *reverses* certain intantaneous effects.   

"Reverses" them.

It does not "cure" them, it does not "remove" the effect, it actually "reverses " the instantaneous effect.

So, it seems, everything hinges on what "reverse" means.  At least everything for this one argument.

"Reverse" in this context means whatever the spell's effects are they no longer exist because (somehow) the pre-spell state of the character is restored.  In some sense, it is as if the instantaneous effect never really happened.   How this is possible is not explained, but what else can "reverse" really mean?

This trumps the "unless" clause in the same way the M's Disjunction trumps spells that cannot be dispelled, or spells that have a defined list of how to end them.  The magic is somehow "undone" - not dispelled, not cured, etc.  No spell can avoid M's Disjunction - certainly not unless it specifically stated so on the affiramtive, not by simply listing an apparently "exclusive" list of remedies.

In the same way no instantaneous  effect ( if a 5th level or lower enchantment, transmuatation or curse) can avoid Break Enchantment unless it specifically says so.

That really seems to be the way it works.

Of course those on the other side of the argument will have a different explanation, that is to be expected.

A matter of interpretation, really, I suppose.

Bottom line - yes, there CAN be more than one RIGHT answer.  That's what happens when humans right the rules.  Rule as you wish in your games, I am more than satisfied that, as written, Break Enhcantment trumps Feeblemind (provided, of course, you have the minute to spend casting it AND you successfully make the caster Level check).


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Therefore, if the list is to be complete. Mass Heal shoiuld have been listed.




If you were arguing the opposite side of this fence, I do not think you would think this.

This is an extremely weak argument due to the definition of Mass Spells in the PHB.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If you were arguing the opposite side of this fence, I do not think you would think this.
> 
> This is an extremely weak argument due to the definition of Mass Spells in the PHB.




Actually, I absolutely agree that Mass Heal works.  But it should have been on the list for the list to be truly complete.  Once it has been shown the list is incomplete IN ANY WAY it opens the door to any analyzing how else it might be incomplete.

However, that's really neither here nor there to the "*reverses* instantaneoius spells" argument.

Let me pose a hypothetical.  Let's suppose Feeblemind was written precisely as it is but was Permanent, rather than Instananeous.

Would Dispel Magic work? 

Let's make it easier and further suppose they added a line that even Dispel Magic does not work.

What about M's Disjunction.  Would that work?

If you say yes (as I think is likely), then the same argument hold for the spell as written and Break Enchantment.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If you were arguing the opposite side of this fence, I do not think you would think this.
> 
> This is an extremely weak argument due to the definition of Mass Spells in the PHB.




If I was on the opposite side of the fence I would admit that the list was incomplete, but then define how the inclusion of Mass Heal and non-PHB spells is implied.

That's a pretty strong argument, granted, but there is really no escaping that it is an argument over how much the list is allowed to be expanded. not whether it can be or not.


----------



## glass (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Let me pose a hypothetical.  Let's suppose Feeblemind was written precisely as it is but was Permanent, rather than Instananeous. Would Dispel Magic work? Let's make it easier and further suppose they added a line that even Dispel Magic does not work. What about M's Disjunction.  Would that work?



Obviously, the answer is 'no' in both cases. Niether dispell magic nor disjunction are on the list, so neither work.



> _If you say yes (as I think is likely), then the same argument hold for the spell as written and Break Enchantment._



Exactly, the same argument holds, and both spells do not work for the same reason.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Obviously, the answer is 'no' in both cases. Niether dispell magic nor disjunction are on the list, so neither work.
> 
> Exactly, the same argument holds, and both spells do not work for the same reason.
> 
> ...




Oh, wow!  How many agree that, all other things being equal, if the spell was Permanent that M's Disjunction would not work?

Glass:  I compliment you for your consistent approach.


----------



## glass (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If I was on the opposite side of the fence I would admit that the list was incomplete, but then define how the inclusion of Mass Heal and non-PHB spells is implied.
> 
> That's a pretty strong argument, granted, but there is really no escaping that it is an argument over how much the list is allowed to be expanded. not whether it can be or not.



No, there is no implication going on, and no expansion:

For the puposes of what it removes, mass heal explicitly is heal, and heal explicitly is on the list. Therefore Mass Heal explicitly removes feeblemind, and the list in intact and complete.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> No, there is no implication going on, and no expansion:
> 
> For the puposes of what it removes, mass heal explicitly is heal, and heal explicitly is on the list. Therefore Mass Heal explicitly removes feeblemind, and the list in intact and complete.
> 
> ...





Heal is on the list.  Mass Heal is not.  Thats simple enough.

I agree that Mass Heal works because Heal is on the list, but, nonetheless, the list has been expanded to include Mass Heal which has opened the door, at least a crack, to other analyses of what else, perhaps, should be on the list but is not.

Mass Heal is not explicitly Heal, actually, it "functions like heal" - but is not the same spell, thus it is an expansion of the list, no matter how common-sensical, obvious and trivial it may be, it is still an expansion of the list.

Now a very fine argument can be made that this is the only permissible expansion other than supplemental material, but that's arguing the degree of non-exclusiveness for the list, not whether it is exclusive or not.

In any case:

*I submit that, given the nature of Dispel Magic (and it's Greater cousin), M's Disjunction and Break Enchament, each of those is always applicable to spells that are within their scopes unless specifically prohibited, as opposed to not included on a list of remedies for the spell in question.*


----------



## PallidPatience (Nov 8, 2006)

Mass Heal "functions like heal", which is to say "does everything heal does", which, according to Feeblemind, includes removing the feeblemind state.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> Mass Heal "functions like heal", which is to say "does everything heal does", which, according to Feeblemind, includes removing the feeblemind state.





Sure, I agree.  That's why the list gets expanded to include Mass Heal.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Sure, I agree.  That's why the list gets expanded to include Mass Heal.




The list doesn't get expanded.  The definition of Heal does.


----------



## Felix (Nov 8, 2006)

> That's why the list gets expanded to include Mass Heal.



Not "expanded". It's already there.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> The list doesn't get expanded.  The definition of Heal does.




Look, it realy does not matter anyhow.  I think this is distracting us from the real point:

I think the real key is whether Break Enchanment is like Dispel Magic and M's Disjunction in that is ought to work in every applicable instance unless clearly and specifically called out to not work.

I think it is like them and that they way it works is that they must be called out specifically as not-applicable or else they can be effectively used.

I know that, for one, glass disagrees with that.


----------



## glass (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> ]_I submit that, given the nature of Dispel Magic (and it's Greater cousin), M's Disjunction and Break Enchament, each of those is always applicable to spells that are within their scopes *unless specifically prohibited*, as opposed to not included on a list of remedies for the spell in question_



(*emphasis* mine).

Actually I agree. And I would contend that in the case of feeblemind they are specifically prohibited.


glass.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I think it is like them and that they way it works is that they must be called out specifically as not-applicable or else they can be effectively used.




You mean, like specifying the only spells that can be used to counter a certain spell's effects?  Seems to me like you just described Feeblemind to a tee.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> (*emphasis* mine).
> 
> Actually I agree. And I would contend that in the case of feeblemind they are specifically prohibited.
> 
> ...




I see.  I contend that, to be specifically prohibited, they must be called out by name.

There are only three spells with this requirement to be called out by name (as I see it):

Dispel Magic, M's Disjunction and Break Enchantment.

Greater Dispel Magic is a further special case as it works as Remove Curse in addition to working as an improved Dispel Magic.


----------



## PallidPatience (Nov 8, 2006)

Is it easier to say "in baseball, the batter cannot use a golf club, car grille, tire, pointy stick, broadsword, femur, monkey skull, orange, etc... to hit the baseball" or to say "in baseball, the batter must use a baseball bat to hit the baseball"? Which way makes more sense?


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Let me pose a hypothetical.  Let's suppose Feeblemind was written precisely as it is but was Permanent, rather than Instananeous.
> 
> Would Dispel Magic work?




Total strawman.

If they wrote it as permanent, it is unlikely that they would have put in the "unless" phrase.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> Is it easier to say "in baseball, the batter cannot use a golf club, car grille, tire, pointy stick, broadsword, femur, monkey skull, orange, etc... to hit the baseball" or to say "in baseball, the batter must use a baseball bat to hit the baseball"? Which way makes more sense?




Given the D&D spell system, I would be uncomfortable with disallowing Dispel Magic or M's Disjunction with any non-instantaneous spell that did not specifically exclude Dispel Magic or M's Disjunction if that was its intent.  The effect of those spells (Dispel and Disjunction) is so universal that it really needs to be stated if they are not to apply.

I feel the same way about Break Enchantment.  I am not comfortable at all with disallowing it the chance to work if the spell is otherwise valid for it but for an "exclusive" list of remedies.  It really needs to be clearly spelled out in the spell description that Break Enchament is not intended to work with that spell for me to feel that it really should not work.

This has to do both with the universal nature of the way it works being similar to Dispel and Disjunction and with the nature of the way it "reveres" instantaneous spells.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Total strawman.
> 
> If they wrote it as permanent, it is unlikely that they would have put in the "unless" phrase.





Maybe so.  But if they did, would M's Disjunction work?

Simple question.

I submit that this is basically the same question as to whether Break Enchament should work with it as written.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Heal is on the list.  Mass Heal is not.  Thats simple enough.
> 
> I agree that Mass Heal works because Heal is on the list, but, nonetheless, the list has been expanded to include Mass Heal which has opened the door, at least a crack, to other analyses of what else, perhaps, should be on the list but is not.
> 
> Mass Heal is not explicitly Heal, actually, it "functions like heal" - but is not the same spell, thus it is an expansion of the list, no matter how common-sensical, obvious and trivial it may be, it is still an expansion of the list.




Expansion or not, Mass Heal is an explicit spell that explicitly states that it overrides the text within Feeblemind (it is a specific spell). How?



> It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the Target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, *feebleminded*




Break Enchantment is an implicit spell. It does not *explicitly* state that it overrides the text within Feeblemind (it is a general spell).

Just because Mass Heal "opens the door a crack" does not mean that Break Enchantment can walk through.

It means that Mass Heal can walk through.

Nothing more. Just because spell A can do something does not give spell B the ability to do so. Your "opens the door a crack" supposition is logically flawed. It is grasping at straws to allow an interpretation that the literal rules do not.


Any spell that explicitly states that it can cure Feebleminded can, even though Feeblemind itself only allows for 4 spells. Any spell that does not *explicitly* state it can do so (with the exceptions of Wish, Limited Wish, Heal, and Miracle) cannot.


My POV is a literal reading of RAW, not a liberal reading of RAW.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I see.  I contend that, to be specifically prohibited, they must be called out by name.
> 
> There are only three spells with this requirement to be called out by name (as I see it):
> 
> ...




Can you sight any rules backing this up?  How did you come up with these three spells, specifically?  I believe you are talking about your feeling of the situation, not what the actual rules state.

Also, to require all spells to specifically prohibit all spells that do not counter said spell would be pretty much impossible when considering that new spells are added all the time through research or splat books.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...Just because Mass Heal "opens the door a crack" does not mean that Break Enchantment can walk through.
> 
> I agree.  It does nto mean that at all.  It does, however, make the question legitimate.
> ...
> ...




First,  a literal reading does not necessarily restrict the spell list that can overcome Feebglmind.  It is just as literal to read that list as the list of spells that are noted as actually being able to overcome Feeblmind - a permsissive list that is not necessarily all-inclusive.

Second, a literal reading of Break Enchament shows that it can reverse Feeblemind - an instaneous fifth level enchantment.

Third, "reverse" is a unique word relative to spell effects (other than revsing effects to thy go back to the caster).  A literal reading of reverse is intersting - there are many defintions.  Some relevant ones are:

To revoke or annul.  (as in "reverse a lower court decision")
To change to the opposite.  (as in "reversed a planned course of action")
The opposite or contrary.  As in "All along we thought Sue was older than Bill, but just the reverse was true.")
Reversed (turned backward) in order or nature or effect [syn: inverse]
Turning in the opposite direction [syn: reversion, reversal, turnabout, turnaround]

If the effects of "Feeblemind" are reversed, then perhaps the it makes no difference what is written in the spell description because the effects cannot exist, thus no restriction on what will end the effects exists either.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Can you sight any rules backing this up?  How did you come up with these three spells, specifically?  I believe you are talking about your feeling of the situation, not what the actual rules state.
> 
> Also, to require all spells to specifically prohibit all spells that do not counter said spell would be pretty much impossible when considering that new spells are added all the time through research or splat books.




Nope, I cannot.  My precedent is that in every other case it seems that the authors went out of thier way to specify if Dispel Magic or Mage's Disjunction would not work (or Anti-Magic Field, for that matter).

The nature of reversing instantaneous spells pretty much makes it along the same lines.

The far stronger argument is actually that the spell text does not matter at all if the instantaneous effect is "reversed " - at that point there is no spell text at all.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Maybe so.  But if they did, would M's Disjunction work?
> 
> Simple question.




No.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> I submit that this is basically the same question as to whether Break Enchament should work with it as written.




MD has the same basic problem that BE has:

Was a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell (or a spell which explicitly states that it can cancel Feeblemind) used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind? No.


The specific language spell still takes precedence over the general language spell.


----------



## PallidPatience (Nov 8, 2006)

Back to the cookie example:

If you somehow get a cookie before your room is clean, you've _broken the rules_.

If you remove the Feeblemind state before you've been subjected to those spells, spells that work like those spells, or spells that specifically state that they remove the state, you have done the same (unless you want to change the rules in your own house).


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I obviously do not agree with you in this instance, but I give you, also, 10,000 points for consistency.

"The points don't matter" (who can tell me the reference for thar line?).


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> Back to the cookie example:
> 
> If you somehow get a cookie before your room is clean, you've _broken the rules_.
> 
> If you remove the Feeblemind state before you've been subjected to those spells, spells that work like those spells, or spells that specifically state that they remove the state, you have done the same (unless you want to change the rules in your own house).




Unless , of course, some other rule says you can.  Like, say, the ability to reverse an instantaneous enchament.  Just for example, of course.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> First,  a literal reading does not necessarily restrict the spell list that can overcome Feebglmind.  It is just as literal to read that list as the list of spells that are noted as actually being able to overcome Feeblmind - a permsissive list that is not necessarily all-inclusive.




Not with the word "unless" in that sentence. That's ignoring the meaning of English words.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Second, a literal reading of Break Enchament shows that it can reverse Feeblemind - an instaneous fifth level enchantment.




If Feeblemind did not have an all inclusive list within it, this would be true.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Third, "reverse" is a unique word relative to spell effects (other than revsing effects to thy go back to the caster).  A literal reading of reverse is intersting - there are many defintions.  Some relevant ones are:
> 
> To revoke or annul.  (as in "reverse a lower court decision")
> To change to the opposite.  (as in "reversed a planned course of action")
> ...




This is grasping at straws. Anytime a person has to dig this deeply into semantics and meaning to illustrate a point, it's a sure bet that most DMs will not dig this deep and the designers did not think it out to that level.

Using Break Enchantment is no different than using Dispel Magic (or Remove Curse or Mage's Disjunction, etc.) on Feeblemind. Neither spell affects Feeblemind because they are not on the inclusionary list of Feeblemind, nor do they explicitly state that they can override that list (like Mass Heal) by explicitly stating that they reverse Feeblemind.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not with the word "unless" in that sentence. That's ignoring the meaning of English words.....




No, it's actualy using the word as it is commonly used.

For example, many web sites use the text:

"We share other types of information with our affiliates unless you tell us not to."

No one thinks that "you tell us not to" is the ONLY condition under which the information will be shared.  There may be government regulations that trump this statement under certain conditions.

In common usage, unless is not truly exclusive.

That's the trouble with statements that purport to be "exclusive" or "all-inclusive" - they rarely actually are.

And that is why spells that do not allow for Dispel Magic or M's Disjunction or even Antimagic Field are very careful to affirmitively spell that out. 

If the intent is to exclude any of those remedies, or, in this case, to exclude Break Enchantment, then it should be so stated.

The plain fact is the use of the word "until" does not, in common usage, really produce a truly complete, exclusionary list.

Indeed, even in this case it cearly did not for eveyone agree that Mass Heal and Panacea both work, yet they are not on the "100% exclusionary list.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> First, a literal reading does not necessarily restrict the spell list that can overcome Feebglmind. It is just as literal to read that list as the list of spells that are noted as actually being able to overcome Feeblmind - a permsissive list that is not necessarily all-inclusive.




As has been pointed out extensively, the list is all inclusive.  And you yourself said earlier of this point "Look, it realy does not matter anyhow." 



> The far stronger argument is actually that the spell text does not matter at all if the instantaneous effect is "reversed " - at that point there is no spell text at all.




Its worth noting that if you ruled in this way, even if a spell stated that BE did not work, BE still would, as that text would not be there at all.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In common usage, unless is not truly exclusive.




Yes, it is.  You are making up additional conditions to the spell that simply are not there.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Uses of "until" that show non-exclusivity:

REVERSE GRAVITY

This spell reverses gravity in an area, ... If an object or creature reaches the top of the area without striking anything, it remains there, oscillating slightly, *until* the spell ends...

Does this prevent any other possible solution?  What about flying out of the area of effect?  Etc,. etc.

SYMBOL OF DEATH

This spell allows you to scribe a potent rune of power... Once triggered, the symbol becomes active and glows, lasting for 10 minutes per caster level or *until* it has affected 150 hit points’ worth of creatures, whichever comes first...

So what about M's Disjunction or Dispel Magic?  They shoud work, but the "until" clause does not include that.

ILLUSION

... After you cease concentration, the illusory double continues to carry out the same activity *until* the duration expires.

But what if M's Disjunction is cast?  That does not cause the spell duration to expire.


Okay, okay, not bullet-proof examples, but they do show how the word, "until" is not really used in an absolute sense.

It's used more like "until this event happens, or some other valid event happens that we did not list."


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> ...Its worth noting that if you ruled in this way, even if a spell stated that BE did not work, BE still would, as that text would not be there at all.




That's true, and in such a case I would rule that BE would not work.  Really, that would be a rules paradox, but it would be clear which way to rule.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In common usage, unless is not truly exclusive.




Actually, the word is "until" (I probably miswrote it earlier).

This is where you and I seem to disagree on a wide variety of DND subjects.

To me, until means until. To you, until means "until for example".


I call this "literal versus liberal" reading of RAW.

You and I disagree so often on these boards because you add meaning to words and phrases that are not explicitly stated. I do not. One example is the "successful hit" in the Trip with a Weapon discussion. To me, a hit is a hit. A hit is not a successful touch attack roll, that is a successful touch attack roll.

I use the words as written, I do not prescribe additional and unlikely meaning to them.

And this is why you and I will continue to disagree on RAW. I will continue to take the narrow most likely meaning of words and you will continue to take the broad whatever possible meaning of words.


Sorry, but until means until (i.e. up to the time that). Remains means remains.

The subject remains in this state "up to the time that" a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 8, 2006)

Using the word "until" applies intended exclusivity to a situation, not rigid exclusivity. Rigid exclusivity is reserved for words like "any", "always," "never," and the like (when used to define exclusions of course). 

However, "until," when used to establish exclusivity, is really being applied to the intent of the author. You intend for the listed condition to change only when a certain set of circumstances are met. 

There are other things that can act to change those circumstances, but not within the letter of your intent. 

Back to one of our cookie examples. Telling my daughter she may not have a cookie until her room is clean. 

That does NOTHING to keep her from stealing a cookie when my eyes are averted. However, it does define the conditions I "intend" to be satisfied in order to receive a cookie. 

When the author uses "until" in the description of feeblemind. The author is clearly and unambiguously defining a set of conditions that the author intends to be met before the effects of feeblemind are cured. 

Had the author intended Break Enchantment to function, it should have been listed along with the others, since they are from the same book. 

If Break Enchantment had been released in PHB2, I would lend merit to your argument, and might agree with you. However, since there is an exclusive intended list of spells from the PHB which can cure the effect, any PHB spell would have to be ON that list to be a valid cure.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Yes, it is.  You are making up additional conditions to the spell that simply are not there.




No, I am saying that most of the time, when the word "until" is is really is used in the sense of "until this trigger event happens or until some other valid trigger event happen that I forget to mention."

That's just real life.  Rarely can an absolute statement be held to be true.  Remember that for your next test that has T/F answers.  Rarely is an "aboslute" statement always true.

That's why, if you have known exceptions that you wish to exclude, they really should be listed to avoid confuision and potential invalidity of your statment.

In this case, Dispel Magic, Anti-Magic Field and M's Disjuntion do not need to be mentioned as none of them apply to an instaneous effect that leaves behind a non-magical long-lasting effect.

By the same token , ANYTHING that would normally reverse that effect MUST work.  Why?  Because what prevents it from working?

The spell?  I don't think so - that's come and gone (instantaneous).

The residual effect (INT and CHA 1)  I don't think so - there is nothing there to prevent BE from working.

I do seem to keep coming back to the key point that this spell is instantaneous and leaves behind no magic (in the condition it leaves its victim) to restrict any potential remedy.

How can BE possibly NOT work?  What prevents it?  Something must, right, because it normally would work.  But nothing is left to stop BE from reversing the instantaneous effect, which removes the state of Feeblmindeneness as if it had never occured.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> ...Had the author intended Break Enchantment to function, it should have been listed along with the others, since they are from the same book...




Earlier some evidence was introduced to confirm that the author indeed did not intend for BE to work.   We do not know if he did not really realize it would.  Maybe it was just an error.

Anyway, it does work.  It has to by the rules as written.  See my next post.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That's why, if you have known exceptions that you wish to exclude, they really should be listed to avoid confuision and potential invalidity of your statment.




Absolutely correct. And you can establish those exclusions in one of two ways. 

1. Exclude, specifically, what doesn't work
2. Include, specifically, what does work

How do you choose which one to use? You do whichever one would be shorter. In this case, that means including, specifically, what does work.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> REVERSE GRAVITY
> 
> This spell reverses gravity in an area, ... If an object or creature reaches the top of the area without striking anything, it remains there, oscillating slightly, *until* the spell ends...
> 
> Does this prevent any other possible solution?  What about flying out of the area of effect?  Etc,. etc




Once you are out of the area of effect the spell is no longer in effect, so the text is irrelevant.




> SYMBOL OF DEATH
> 
> This spell allows you to scribe a potent rune of power... Once triggered, the symbol becomes active and glows, lasting for 10 minutes per caster level or *until* it has affected 150 hit points’ worth of creatures, whichever comes first...
> 
> ...




Actually, Disjunction does cause the spell duration to expire.  Disjunction works "as dispel magic does", which specifically ends a spell "as if its duration had expired".



> It's used more like "until this event happens, or some other valid event happens that we did not list."
> 
> ...
> 
> No, I am saying that most of the time, when the word "until" is is really is used in the sense of "until this trigger event happens or until some other valid trigger event happen that I forget to mention."




Which is exactly what I meant when I said you were making up conditions that were not in the original spell.



> That's just real life.




Discussing a magic spell in a fantasy game is anything but real life.



> By the same token , ANYTHING that would normally reverse that effect MUST work. Why? Because what prevents it from working?




This is an arguement that I can agree with.  I would be happy to further discuss the ramifications of a true "reversal" in a later post (my lunch break is currently ending).


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

*Instantaneous*

*Instantaneous.*  That's the real key.

What happens after the spell is cast - what is left?

For feeblemind, the victim has INT 1 and CHA 1 with some explanation of what that means.

That's it.  Is there any residual magical effect?  No.

Okay, then, what happens when BE is cast?  It should reverse the instantaneous effect.

But what about that "until" text.   Hmmm.. What about it?  The spell itself has been used up - nothing remains but the CHA 1 and INT 1.  Nothing.  There is no magical effect to prevent BE from working, so it must indeed work.

_So what about if, for argument's sake, the spell was permananet?  Would that make a difference?  Most assuradely.

Now we try and cast BE.  Is there anything that could prevent it form working?  Sure,  The spell is permanent, thus still in effect.  That means if the spell says BE won't work, it won't.  Period.  Assuming you think the "until" language actually would prevent BE form working then, in the case of this being permanent rather than instantaneous, it would not work._

This is not even a stetch.   It's just the way instantaneous spells work.  Now it was very nice of the author to provide a list of spells that would remove the Feebleminded state - it's just a shame he did not include Break Enchantment in that list.  He did not need to for it to work, of course, because the spell is "instantaneous," but it certainly has caused much confusion here.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Absolutely correct. And you can establish those exclusions in one of two ways.
> 
> 1. Exclude, specifically, what doesn't work
> 2. Include, specifically, what does work
> ...




In the case of D&D spells you should (must?) do both.  Certainly it is true for all examples where Dispel Magic won't work.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *Instantaneous.*  That's the real key.
> 
> What happens after the spell is cast - what is left?
> 
> ...




I'm not sure why we are back to this, there are numerous examples in the book that flatly disagree with you. 

Imprisonment, very much leaves behind a residual magical effect, despite being instantaneous. 

Just because the "spell energy" passes instantly, doesn't mean the consequence or result of the spell isn't also magical by it's own nature. 

There is nothing to support your supposition that "the magic is gone and no longer can dictate conditions."


----------



## Cedric (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In the case of D&D spells you should (must?) do both.  Certainly it is true for all example where Dispel Magic won't work.




That's your opinion, nothing in the text requires this.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why we are back to this, there are numerous examples in the book that flatly disagree with you.
> 
> Imprisonment, very much leaves behind a residual magical effect, despite being instantaneous.
> 
> ...




In that case, do you go back to your normal INT and CHA in an Anti-Magic Field? 

Is it your opinion that this spell leaves behind some magical condition?  If so, this potentially opens up a HUGE can of worms.

Imprisonment does in fact leave you in a magical prison in a state of suspended animation.  True enough.  I fail to see the relevance to THIS spell, though.

It seems like you want to blur the lines between a permanent spell and an instantaneous one.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Let's keep in mind the difference between:

Instantaneous
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting. 

and

Permanent
The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> That's your opinion, nothing in the text requires this.




You kinda missed my point.

"That's why, if you have known exceptions that you wish to exclude, they really should be listed to avoid confuision and potential invalidity of your statment."

AFTER you list out your complete list of remedies, you should also list those few reemdeis that definately will not work.

Failure to do so causes confusion (at least) - and note the authors seem to agree with me based upon how they have handled Dispel Magic, M's Disjunction and Antimagic Field.  If one or more of those will not work, they are very, very careful to actively point that out.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Oh, wow!  How many agree that, all other things being equal, if the spell was Permanent that M's Disjunction would not work?




If a spell states that Dispel Magic does not work, then Disjunction will not work _unless_ the spell states otherwise.

What does Disjunction do to a spell?  It "ends the effect as a dispel magic spell does".  If a Dispel Magic spell does not end a spell, then neither will Disjunction, _unless otherwise stated_.

Examples include Wall of Force and Prismatic Wall, which are unaffected by Dispel Magic, but which specifically state "A Mordenkainen's Disjunction spell destroys the Wall".

If this line were omitted, then Disjunction would have no effect on a Wall of Force or Prismatic Wall.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If a spell states that Dispel Magic does not work, then Disjunction will not work _unless_ the spell states otherwise.
> 
> What does Disjunction do to a spell?  It "ends the effect as a dispel magic spell does".  If a Dispel Magic spell does not end a spell, then neither will Disjunction, _unless otherwise stated_.
> 
> ...




Hmm.. I am not so sure, but it does not matter for this discussion anyway.  It looks like the end effect is the same but the way it gets there is much different.  Ah, well, different topic.

How do you feel about my argument on Feeblemind as an Instantaneous spell means Break Enchantment works  (see post #269)

For that matter, what does "reverse instantaneous effects" really mean, anyway?


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> REVERSE GRAVITY
> 
> This spell reverses gravity in an area, ... If an object or creature reaches the top of the area without striking anything, it remains there, oscillating slightly, until the spell ends...
> 
> ...




Well, first off, Reverse Gravity explicitly allows flying creatures to ignore the effect.  

But, in answer to your question, it depends on reasonableness.

If it is reasonable to Dimension Door out of a Reverse Gravity, then that is an external valid event. Reverse Gravity does not really change anything except the direction of gravity, so spell effects that can ignore gravity should be able to work and the spell effect itself gives examples.


When given an *explicit* list of spells that will end the instantaneous effect, what is reasonable? 1) Any spell that explicitly states that it ends that effect is reasonable. 2) Any spell on the list is reasonable.

Any other spell is not reasonable precisely because the list exists.

A player could say "Feeblemind is worse than Bestow Curse in power and it does not even do ability damage or drain, hence, it is a curse and Remove Curse can remove it". That is also not reasonable because Remove Curse is not on the list (nor is Feeblemind stated as a curse, even though for all intents and purposes it is).


Is it reasonable for a good night's sleep to get rid of Feeblemind? No because that is not a solution on the list either.


The reason that Fly or Dimension Door can be reasonable for Reverse Gravity is because Reverse Gravity does not give a concise list of solutions (like Feeblemind). It instead states the typical solution (spell expiring) shy of other *unnamed* solutions resolving it.

Feeblemind does not do that. It states specific named spell solutions that are very difficult to acquire and very limited in number. This implies that other solutions will not work and it implies that only spell solutions will work based solely on how it is worded.


It's all about reasonableness and where one draws the line. Is it reasonable for Break Enchantment to kill a creature that had previously been reincarnated?

Is it reasonable for Feeblemind to be listing an exclusive list? I think yes. You think no.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In that case, do you go back to your normal INT and CHA in an Anti-Magic Field?




No, it's not on the list. 



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Is it your opinion that this spell leaves behind some magical condition?  If so, this potentially opens up a HUGE can of worms.




It is my opinion that the spell is Brain Damage, and the spells that can cure it all have some sort of text relating to their ability to specifically remove adverse affects like insanity, etc. 



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Imprisonment does in fact leave you in a magical prison in a state of suspended animation.  True enough.  I fail to see the relevance to THIS spell, though.
> 
> It seems like you want to blur the lines between a permanent spell and an instantaneous one.




My relevance with the imprisonment example is that imprisonment is instantaneous...not permanent. And yet, despite being instantaneous, it VERY clearly leaves behind a residual magical effect. Furthermore, this effect would NOT be suppressed by an anti-magic field, as imprisonment very, very clearly can only be eliminated by Freedom.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You kinda missed my point.
> 
> "That's why, if you have known exceptions that you wish to exclude, they really should be listed to avoid confuision and potential invalidity of your statment."




Agreed, listing everything in every spell would eliminate confusion. Though, the line has to be drawn somewhere to prevent unnecessary redundancy. 



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> AFTER you list out your complete list of remedies, you should also list those few reemdeis that definately will not work.
> 
> Failure to do so causes confusion (at least) - and note the authors seem to agree with me based upon how they have handled Dispel Magic, M's Disjunction and Antimagic Field.  If one or more of those will not work, they are very, very careful to actively point that out.




Sometimes they point this out, sometimes they don't. You can't say the authors agree with you when there are clear examples of both cases, even in our own example. 

Feeblemind can be cured by Limited Wish, it says so in the feeblemind description, but not under limited wish. 

Feeblemind can be cured by Heal, it says so in the description of both spells. 

Feeblemind cannot be cured by Break Enchantment (as I read the spells involved), because neither spell's description specifically references the other spell.


----------



## sirwmholder (Nov 8, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...But, in answer to your question, it depends on reasonableness....



This is precisely the position I take on this entire debate.  To me it is very reasonable to slightly alter Break Enchantment by removing the line... "Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect." This slight alteration could possibly effect only two SRD spells, Unholy Blight and Feeblemind, both of which state possible remedies which, in my mind, means Break Enchantment wouldn't work anyway.  In addition it would eliminate any future problems with Break Enchantment.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Hmm.. I am not so sure, but it does not matter for this discussion anyway.  It looks like the end effect is the same but the way it gets there is much different.




Contrast the effects on a Fly spell of Dispel Magic or Disjunction with an AMF.

If someone casts Dispel Magic on your Fly spell, it behaves as though the duration had expired; you start to slowly descend.

If someone Disjoins your Fly spell, it ends as though Dispel Magic had been used; you start to slowly descend.

If you Fly into an Antimagic Field, your Fly spell is suppressed; you plummet.

Disjunction works on spells like Dispel Magic does; if Dispel Magic explicitly does nothing, then so will Disjunction, unless otherwise specified.



> How do you feel about my argument on Feeblemind as an Instantaneous spell means Break Enchantment works  (see post #269)




I don't like it.

I think Feeblemind is similar to being killed by a Death effect.  The Death effect is instantaneous, but it leaves you in the 'killed by a Death effect' state, which cannot be undone by a Raise Dead spell.

Feeblemind is instantaneous, but it leaves you in the 'feebleminded' state, which can only be undone by a specific list of treatments.  Break Enchantment isn't one of them.

(Break Enchantment has its own problems, of course, given that the spell description lists Flesh to Stone as an example of an instantaneous effect, yet later on gives a rule that prohibits Break Enchantment from actually working on Flesh to Stone...)

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> ...It is my opinion that the spell is Brain Damage...




Okay, that's reasonable.  In that case BE works because that's what it is designed to do and nothing stops it from working.

A list in the spell description simply cannot, from a rules perspective, stop BE from working.

That's because the spell is instanenous.  BE "reverses" such instantaneous effects.

Because the spell is instananeous and leaves behind no enforcement mechanism for any restrictive list of remedies, this list must be a permissive list rather than a restrictive one. 

If someone can point out HOW BE can not work, I might be convinced.  I see nothing along those lines, though.

Mind you, if the spell energy still existed (permanent), that would be different.  *But without the spell energy to prevent some otherwise-valid remedy, how can that remedy not work?*


----------



## Cedric (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Okay, that's reasonable.  In that case BE works because that's what it is designed to do and nothing stops it from working.
> 
> A list in the spell description simply cannot, from a rules perspective, stop BE from working.
> 
> ...




Nothing in the wording of BE leads me to believe it can cure a damaged brain, even a magically damaged brain, at least not of anything except for very minor maladies perhaps. 

Wish, Limited Wish, Heal and Miracle ALL have text that relates to their ability to specifically cure mental maladies. 

Now...on the other hand, if you wanted to argue that Greater Restoration would cure Feeblemind, I would house rule that in a second, it seems to be a very obvious oversight that Greater Restoration isn't on the list...but since it isn't, technically it doesn't work either. 

That needs to be changed though, because it should.


----------



## Felix (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> "We share other types of information with our affiliates unless you tell us not to."



Ok, so let's define terms!

X: Share Info
Y: Tell us not to.

That leaves: *X unless Y*
Which becomes: *If not X, then Y*
Also: *If not Y, then X*

In English: If we arn't sharing info, then it's because you told us not to.
Also: If you don't tell us not to, we are sharing info.

I have no problem with your postulate so far.



> No one thinks that "you tell us not to" is the ONLY condition under which the information will be shared. There may be government regulations that trump this statement under certain conditions.



You then continue by saying that "telling us not to" is a necessary condition for sharing.

In two sentences you have contradicted yourself, and pass this off as an argument!

Artoomis, this is the third time in this thread you have made an error in the language and logic foundations of your arguments, and yet continued to support their conclusions despite the demonstrable unsoundness of the premises. In view of this, how am I to believe that you will be persuaded by even the most rigorous arguments? What point is there in discussing this with you when you distort logic and language either by error or artifice?


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 8, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Feeblemind cannot be cured by Break Enchantment (as I read the spells involved), because neither spell's description specifically references the other spell.




I think this statement boils down the argument for me.

Feeblemind is a serious condition for which only a few listed remedies exist.

Break Enchantment is not listed as one of those remedies.


It's like a virus that only a few select antibiotics work. BE is a general antibiotic that fixes a lot of viruses, just not the Feeblemind one, even though the Feeblemind virus has the basic properties of the type of virus for which BE does work.

The disease nor the cure explicitly specifies that this cure works.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...I don't like it.
> 
> I think Feeblemind is similar to being killed by a Death effect.  The Death effect is instantaneous, but it leaves you in the 'killed by a Death effect' state, which cannot be undone by a Raise Dead spell.
> 
> ...




I don't like the way Death Effects work, but at least there the rule that breaks the normal rule is very, very specific.

I don't like the way this was written.  In EVERY OTHER INSTANCE if WotC did not want the normal remedy to work (Dispel Magic, etc., etc.) they plainly stated such.

Here they did not.

Worse yet, they did not do it in a unique case of an instantaneous spell normally subject to Break Enchantment, which can reverse even instantaneous effects.

All in all, poorly done.

I'd allow it to work for several reasons:

Flavor (seems right - it's very much like a curse)
Balance (one fifth level spell countering another one - and only with a Caster Level check, at that). 
Rules (lot's of arguments on that one)
Utility:  If you don't allow this use, which instantaneous effects do get reversed by Break Enchantment anyway?  Unholy Blight would be the ONLY one in the PHB, and that's questionable - it's not listed as a curse but remove curse works, so maybe...


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 8, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> You then continue by saying that "telling us not to" is a necessary condition for sharing.
> 
> In two sentences you have contradicted yourself, and pass this off as an argument!




Come on, this is lame.

He obviously meant "not sharing" in that sentence. Just because he had a typo does not mean that his logic was faulty. It means he had a typo.

The rest of us read what he wrote, realized he made a mistake, read it as he meant it to be read, and moved on.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> ...Artoomis, this is the third time in this thread you have made an error in the language and logic foundations of your arguments, and yet continued to support their conclusions despite the demonstrable unsoundness of the premises. In view of this, how am I to believe that you will be persuaded by even the most rigorous arguments? What point is there in discussing this with you when you distort logic and language either by error or artifice?




I made a wee error.  Whoops.  I left out the word "not," it appears, though in context it was clear.

The main point is that I keep trying to tell you it is an error to apply strict logic here.  It works well in computer science, but not in normal everyday use.

Why?

Because we are all fallable.  We make lists that are supposedly exclusive and than later realize the exception we should have included.

That's normal life, man.

"This program will run until it detects an error condition."

Someone pulls the plug.

Whoops - the original statement was not complete - That's the NORMAL state for such statements.

Heck, if we were infallable all our computer programs would actually work as they were supposed to.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Utility:  If you don't allow this use, which instantaneous effects do get reversed by Break Enchantment anyway?  Unholy Blight would be the ONLY one in the PHB, and that's questionable - it's not listed as a curse but remove curse works, so maybe...




Someone brought up the example of Reincarnate before.  As far as I can tell, it fits all the criteria - Instantaneous Transmutation below 5th level...

But I see it as being particularly applicable for effects that might not be in the PHB.  Baleful Polymorph is Permanent, but the witch in the forest might have an instantaneous Turn-You-Into-A-Toad effect.  Dispel Magic doesn't work, but Break Enchantment is tailor-made.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mort (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Mind you, if the spell energy still existed (permanent), that would be different.  *But without the spell energy to prevent some otherwise-valid remedy, how can that remedy not work?*




Multitudes of people have already said this - but the simple answer is * because feeblemind says so*. If that's not enough, you have one of the designers saying that that's exactly what was intended, so you *cannot* argue it was an error in wording. 

Even forgetting all of that (which you shouldn't), all of the spells listed to cure feeblemind are pretty hefty (6th level and above), Break Enchantment is 4th-5th level; it's pretty easy to rule BE is simply not powerful enough to affect feeblemind.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Someone brought up the example of Reincarnate before.  As far as I can tell, it fits all the criteria - Instantaneous Transmutation below 5th level...
> 
> But I see it as being particularly applicable for effects that might not be in the PHB.  Baleful Polymorph is Permanent, but the witch in the forest might have an instantaneous Turn-You-Into-A-Toad effect.  Dispel Magic doesn't work, but Break Enchantment is tailor-made.
> 
> -Hyp.




  I brought that up.

Funny enough, the list is:

Reincarnate (does this make Break Enchanment an auto-death spell if you've been Reincarnated?)
Awaken (can make the animal/plant unawakened?)
Mnemonic Enhancer (lose the benefit of the spell?)

Weird, eh?


----------



## Neverwill (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If you don't allow this use, which instantaneous effects do get reversed by Break Enchantment anyway?  Unholy Blight would be the ONLY one in the PHB, and that's questionable - it's not listed as a curse but remove curse works, so maybe...




How about Telekinesis?  Using the Violent Thrust form, you can hurl creatures into walls causing damage.  Would Break Enchantment relocate and heal the damage since it is reversing the instantaneous effect?

You could also use Break Enchantment on Mnemonic Enhancer.  Note, this an an instantaneous effect, yet the spells prepared or retained will fade after 24 hours.  Is there magic keeping these spells in place or do they naturally expire in a day?

You could also possibly undo Power Word Kill unless the instananeous effects fall under a spell that "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic."


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Neverwill said:
			
		

> How about Telekinesis?  Using the Violent Thrust form, you can hurl creatures into walls causing damage.  Would Break Enchantment relocate and heal the damage since it is reversing the instantaneous effect?




I thought of that, but the object tossed are not a valid target for BE.



			
				Neverwill said:
			
		

> You could also use Break Enchantment on Mnemonic Enhancer.  Note, this an an instantaneous effect, yet the spells prepared or retained will fade after 24 hours.  Is there magic keeping these spells in place or do they naturally expire in a day?




Either way, yes you could use BE on that.  It's on my rather short list of ways to use BE offensively.



			
				Neverwill said:
			
		

> You could also possibly undo Power Word Kill unless the instananeous effects fall under a spell that "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic."




I think most folks would lump it there since, well, it can't be dispelled.


----------



## Neverwill (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I thought of that, but the object tossed are not a valid target for BE.




True, but you can also target creatures to toss.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Alternatively, the spell energy can be spent in a single round. You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15)....


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Neverwill said:
			
		

> True, but you can also target creatures to toss.




Hmmm... do you become "untossed?"

Technically, maybe so.   That seems rather... weird.


----------



## Felix (Nov 8, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I made a wee error.  Whoops.  I left out the word "not," it appears, though in context it was clear.



Your point was founded upon an erronious example. What hope left for the point?



> The main point is that I keep trying to tell you it is an error to apply strict logic here.  It works well in computer science, but not in normal everyday use.



I agree that logic will not necessarily help determine what the everyday use _should_ be, but it works darn well at figuring out precicely what things mean, if only to show that what has been said or written is meaningless.

As it happens, _Feeblemind_ has a precise meaning, and no amount of handwaving will dismiss that meaning.



> Because we are all fallable.  We make lists that are supposedly exclusive and than later realize the exception we should have included.
> 
> That's normal life, man.
> 
> ...



You suggest that language can be fallable.

I agree. This is true. It can be.

But because language can be fallable _does not make it so_.

Your argument amounts to, "Humans make mistakes, _Feeblemind_ was written by a human, therefore the spell is a mistake, and Break Enchantment works."

No, logic cannot be applied in all cases. This is a case where it can and has been found to work perfectly well.



> Whoops - the original statement was not complete - That's the NORMAL state for such statements.
> 
> Heck, if we were infallable all our computer programs would actually work as they were supposed to.



Quite wrong. The original statement of yours was not "incomplete", it was False. As in, despite the actual meaning of the premise (which was that there was no other condition under witch information would not be shared besides being told not to) there existed some other condition that would prevent the sharing of informaiton.

Your statement was not True.

You can only add on addendums to statements like yours, or _Feeblemind_'s, if you assume them to be False in the first place. Which is what you've been doing, for no good reason, for 8 pages.

And if you're wlling to assume that the language is False, that because errors _can_ occur they necessarily _have_ occured, then what do you have left to build an argument upon? Turning your own argument upon you, anyone can say that because you have erred multiple times, it means that you necessarily _are_ in error.

But this is not the case; you might err, but are capable of being correct in the same way that language might be unclear, but it is crystal in _Feeblemind_.



			
				Karin'sDad said:
			
		

> Come on, this is lame.



He attempted to produce a logical argument; there was within the argument both a typo and a logical fallacy*: don't dismiss the second because you forgave the first.

*That being that in order for his example of other governmental regulations to prevent sharing, his original statement must necessarily be false. He was attempting to use a false statement to deride a true one, or imply that one must assume that _Feeblemind_'s text to be false.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 8, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> Turning your own argument upon you, anyone can say that because you have erred multiple times, it means that you necessarily _are_ in error.




You are in error. You did not recognize your mistake – you have made two errors. You are flawed and imperfect, and you have not corrected – you have made _three_ errors!

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 8, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You are in error. You did not recognize your mistake – you have made two errors. You are flawed and imperfect, and you have not corrected – you have made _three_ errors!
> 
> -Hyp.




That sounds a lot like an old Star Trek reference.  Is it?


----------



## Felix (Nov 8, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You are in error. You did not recognize your mistake – you have made two errors. You are flawed and imperfect, and you have not corrected – you have made _three_ errors!
> 
> -Hyp.



I agree; that argument doesn't hold water.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That sounds a lot like an old Star Trek reference.  Is it?




_Changeling_.  The first error was in thinking that Kirk was Jackson Roykirk, Nomad's creator.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> ...Quite wrong. The original statement of yours was not "incomplete", it was False. ...




Okay then, the statement in Feeblemind is in error.  As in false.  It leaves out Break Enchantment, which must work for a couple of reasons, and is therefore in error.

It aslo leaves out Mass Heal any any opening for future (post-PHB) spells, and is therefore in error.  Those a minor omissions, I grant, but still, if it is to be a strict True/False anaylsis, then the statement is False.

Satisified?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> It leaves out Break Enchantmen, which MUST work, and is therefore in error.




Why 'must' work?

How can you be certain that whatever you're using to determine that Break Enchantment 'must' work isn't where the error lies, if we're assuming an error exists?

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Why 'must' work?
> 
> How can you be certain that whatever you're using to determine that Break Enchantment 'must' work isn't where the error lies, if we're assuming an error exists?
> 
> -Hyp.




Must because:

1.  It's an instaneous spell.  Break Enchament reverse instaneous spells.  There is no residual spell energy to somehow direct the Break Enchantment to not work.

2.  The Break Enchantment spell is not prohibited specifically from working.  It really needs to be the same way that Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field are ALWAYS metioned if they do not apply.  I submit that a virtual rule has been created by precendence of the treatment of Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field.

So, for *at least those two reasons*, Break Enchantment must work.

Now I am perfectly willing to agree that this is not the only possible valid interpretation and that two correct answers may exists, but I am not willing to state that my answer does not follow the rules.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Okay then, the statement in Feeblemind is in error.  As in false.  It leaves out Break Enchantment, which must work for a couple of reasons, and is therefore in error.




Was this just an example? Or are you now arguing that you're right, because the rules are wrong?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Was this just an example? Or are you now arguing that you're right, because the rules are wrong?




Actually, the argument would not be I am right because the rules are wrong, more like the rules are wrong because they violate other rules.

Since Felix will only allow the "until" statemernt to be true to false, it must be false and in error - if I such a precise approach is followed.

*However, I prefer a less precise approach that recognizes that "until"  is often simply an incomplete (non-exclusive) list and add Break Enchantment to it.  An oversight.*


----------



## Felix (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Okay then, the statement in Feeblemind is in error.  As in false.  It leaves out Break Enchantment, which must work for a couple of reasons, and is therefore in error.
> 
> It aslo leaves out Mass Heal and any opening for future (post-PHB) spells, and is therefore in error.  Those a minor omissions, I grant, but still, if it is to be a strict True/False anaylsis, then the statement is False.
> 
> Satisified?



I am; satisfied that I cannot change your assumption of Falsehood if you insist upon it, no matter the arguments that have been presented against it, which are sound; I am satisfied that you are determined not to change your opinion on the matter; I am satisfied with my participation in this thread.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, the argument would not be I am right because the rules are wrong, more like the rules are wrong because they violate other rules.
> 
> Since Felix will only allow the "until" statemernt to be true to false, it must be false and in error - if I such a precise approach is followed.
> 
> *However, I prefer a less precise approach that recgnizes that "until"  is often simply an incomplete (non-exclusive) list and add Break Enchantment to it.  An oversight.*




So the rules "officially" work the way you think they do because the published rules violate other rules and are imprecise? That's your position?


----------



## Mort (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *However, I prefer a less precise approach that recgnizes that "until"  is often simply an incomplete (non-exclusive) list and add Break Enchantment to it.  An oversight.*




An oversight implies that the designers intended the spell to work but made an error in the wording- way back on page 1 it was stated that designer's intent was for the spell not to work. Since there isn't an error in the wording (you can argue semantics all you like but the plain meaning is clear) it is clearly not an oversight at all.\

So plain language - check
designer intent - check



what else is there?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> There is no residual spell energy to somehow direct the Break Enchantment to not work.




There doesn't need to be, if the intantaneous spell put the subject into an unBreak-Enchantmentable state.



> 2.  The Break Enchantment spell is not prohibited specifically from working.




It's not on the list of things that can restore the subject.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> An oversight implies that the designers intended the spell to work but made an error in the wording- way back on page 1 it was stated that designer's intent was for the spell not to work. Since there isn't an error in the wording (you can argue semantics all you like but the plain meaning is clear) it is clearly not an oversight at all.\
> 
> So plain language - check
> designer intent - check
> ...




The designer's intent for Break Enchantment, plus my analysis of how the rules actually work, as opposed to how we'd like them to work, or how they were intended to work.

In any cases, I have stated, and now re-state, I am perfectly willing to agree that BOTH arguments are legitmate interpretation of the rules.

I think mine is better....


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In any cases, I have stated, and now re-state, I am perfectly willing to agree that BOTH arguments are legitmate interpretation of the rules.
> 
> I think mine is better....




I'm saying this to be honest and frank, so please don't take it with any under or over tones of rudeness. 

But I think your position is groundless, wrong and without validity.


----------



## Mort (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The designer's intent for Break Enchantment, plus my analysis of how the rules actually work, as opposed to how we'd like them to work, or how they were intended to work.
> 
> In any cases, I have stated, and now re-state, I am perfectly willing to agree that BOTH arguments are legitmate interpretation of the rules.
> 
> I think mine is better....




If the two arguments are equally valid (and I still maintain the plain language says they are not, and that the rules are perfectly consistant - but I'm just going here for the sake of argument) - then where do you go?

Well, if you somehow know the intent (not always feasible) - you go there.

Here we know the intent - and it's that BE doesn't work.

Argue all you like, but this is one of the truly rare instances where there is no ambiguity, and even if there was - we have a clear answer!


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> There doesn't need to be, if the intantaneous spell put the subject into an unBreak-Enchantmentable state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It does not need to be.  It needs to be listed on a short list of spells that would otherwise work to remove the effects but don't work in this particular instance.

I might agree if stronger language had been used.   As it is, the language is simply not strong enough to exclude the use of an otherwise-legitimate remedy.

I think that Break Enchament deserves the same treatment as Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field.  EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE when those won't work is clearly and affirmatively stated.

I simply do not buy the argument that Break Enchantment does not work because it's not on "the list" of things that do.  Such lists are almost always flawed to one degree or another which is why, I think, that Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field are always specifically addressed if they are not to work on some spell effect.

Besides that, of course, is the fact that, unlike other spells, the lack of remaining spell energy that can be applied to exclude Break Enchament form working is rather huge burden to overcome for your side.

I know all about the opposing argument and I give them full due and consideration.  I think they are just as valid as mine.

I fail to see why we cannot simply agree that we are ALL CORRECT.

Break Enchantment both does and does not work, per the rules, on Feeblemind.  Each DM must decide how it works in his/her game.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I fail to see why we cannot simply agree that we are ALL CORRECT.




Because most people think that they're correct, and you're wrong, which is why they hold the position they do in the first place.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> ...
> Argue all you like, but this is one of the truly rare instances where there is no ambiguity, and even if there was - we have a clear answer!




  I disagree.  There is plenty of ambiguity, and designer's intent matters not if the rules are against tha tintent.  i think they are.

Of course I am perfectly willing to go compromise and agree there is no real answer here.  Designer's intent and all considered.

Among other things, we do not know the designer's intent for Break Enchantment.  From the spell language itself, it appears to be intended to work - it's just about the ONLY spell in the PHB on which it would work to reverse an instantaneous effect.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Because most people think that they're correct, and you're wrong, which is why they hold the position they do in the first place.
> 
> -Hyp.




ROFL.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 9, 2006)

Mort said:
			
		

> Multitudes of people have already said this - but the simple answer is * because feeblemind says so*. If that's not enough, you have one of the designers saying that that's exactly what was intended, so you *cannot* argue it was an error in wording.




And what does Break Enchantment say?


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 9, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> The language within _Feeblemind_ is not flawed; it is accurate and complete.




Let us accept that for a moment. 

_
Feeblemind
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
*Target: One creature*
_

_The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind. _

From _polymorph any object_:

_Unlike polymorph, polymorph any object does grant the creature the Intelligence score of its new form. _

What happens if a human wizard is feebleminded, then transformed into a gnoll?

What happens if the wizard is killed? A dead body is not a creature. So what happens if a creature is feebleminded, then killed, then raised? What happens if he is killed, his body is transformed into a honey ham, the honey ham is transformed back into his body, and he is then raised?

What happens if a major deity uses Alter Reality to undo feeblemind?

What happens if someone researches a 9th level spell, "Reverse Feeblemind," and casts it on a person afflicted with feeblemind?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> What happens if the wizard is killed? A dead body is not a creature. So what happens if a creature is feebleminded, then killed, then raised? What happens if he is killed, his body is transformed into a honey ham, the honey ham is transformed back into his body, and he is then raised?




Much the same as if you cast Charm Person on a human who then turns into an ogre.  The Charm Person spell is already in effect, so even though you could not cast it on an ogre, the ogre who is already under the effect of a Charm Person spell that was valid at casting time is Charmed.

Remember, Bestow Curse targets a creature, and Raise Dead explicitly states that curses are not undone when a creature is raised.



> What happens if a major deity uses Alter Reality to undo feeblemind?




Presumably, he'd use it to emulate the 9th-level-or-lower spell, Heal, which would work just fine.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Much the same as if you cast Charm Person on a human who then turns into an ogre.  The Charm Person spell is already in effect, so even though you could not cast it on an ogre, the ogre who is already under the effect of a Charm Person spell that was valid at casting time is Charmed.
> 
> Remember, Bestow Curse targets a creature, and Raise Dead explicitly states that curses are not undone when a creature is raised.




Bad examples.  In both of those the spell energy is still in effect.  Not an analogous situation.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Presumably, he'd use it to emulate the 9th-level-or-lower spell, Heal, which would work just fine.
> 
> -Hyp.




Possibly.  But it is another example of a spell not on the list.

For that matter, what if he puts on a item that raises CHA and INT?  Granted, he may still have a base CHA and INT of 1, but now they is raised up enough that the rest of the "state" decsription is not valid.

Trying to keep the list truly "exclusive" and complete is virtually impossible without violating other rules with any true basis for it.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 9, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Much the same as if you cast Charm Person on a human who then turns into an ogre.  The Charm Person spell is already in effect, so even though you could not cast it on an ogre, the ogre who is already under the effect of a Charm Person spell that was valid at casting time is Charmed.




So an ogre can polymorph into a human, cast enlarge person, then use polymorph again to become a storm giant, resulting in his being gargantuan size?  

What if you transformed someone into a greatsword, cast _greater magic weapon_ on them, and allowed them to revert to their human form? Can you cast continual light on someone's body before reanimating them?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> So an ogre can polymorph into a human, cast enlarge person, then use polymorph again to become a storm giant, resulting in his being gargantuan size?




That depends on whether the DM considers an ogre polymorphing into a Storm Giant to be a 'magical effect that increases size'.  I don't, so I'd say yes, Gargantuan.



> What if you transformed someone into a greatsword, cast _greater magic weapon_ on them, and allowed them to revert to their human form?




Anyone using them as a weapon would get a +3 on attack and damage rolls.



> Can you cast continual light on someone's body before reanimating them?




Continual Flame?  Sure.

-Hyp.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *However, I prefer a less precise approach *




From the title, I was under the impression that the purpose of this thead was to find the most precise answer.


----------



## Slaved (Nov 9, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> From the title, I was under the impression that the purpose of this thead was to find the most precise answer.




Wasnt that given earlier? Break enchantment works because it says that it does and feeblemind does not say that break enchantment does not work. Seems simple enough


----------



## glass (Nov 9, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Wasnt that given earlier? Break enchantment works because it says that it does and feeblemind does not say that break enchantment does not work. Seems simple enough



Several very smart people (plus me ) have been arguing for the last nine pages that feeblemind does indeed say that BE does not work.


glass.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Possibly. But it is another example of a spell not on the list.




Why does _Alter Reality_ need to be on the list? When a deity duplicates a _Heal_ spell with _Alter Reality_ then for all intents and purposes it is a _Heal_ that is being cast to remove the _feeblemind_ effect.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> For that matter, what if he puts on a item that raises CHA and INT?  Granted, he may still have a base CHA and INT of 1, but now they is raised up enough that the rest of the "state" decsription is not valid.
> 
> Trying to keep the list truly "exclusive" and complete is virtually impossible without violating other rules with any true basis for it.




This is already covered in the FAQ.



			
				Main35FAQv10182006 said:
			
		

> A _feeblemind_ spells reduces the subject’s Intelligence and Charisma scores to 1 (not just Intelligence). Of course, if the subject already has a score of 0, _feeblemind_ doesn’t increase the score. The subject’s Intelligence and Charisma become 1 (or stay at 0) regardless of any enhancements or other increases to those scores.
> 
> A _feeblemind_ effect remains until the subject receives a _heal_, _limited wish_, _miracle_, or _wish_ spell. The subject cannot benefit from any effect that increases Intelligence or Charisma until the _feeblemind_ effect is removed.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

I would just like to summarize my position by explaining my thoughts on the hierarchy of rules. This applies to all rules based activities, not just D&D. These are presented in order of ascending priority in relation to one another. 

1. Generic, or generically stated rules. They can even be broad, sweeping rules that affect numerous aspects of the activity. 
2. Specific rules. They are rules related to a particular aspect or aspects of the activity being governed, and take precedent over generic rules with regard to the particular aspect(s) in question. 
3. More specific rules. They follow all of the guidelines of specific rules, however, they address a narrow scope of the specific rule they follow and alter its use in some fashion. These take precedent over Generic or Specific rules. 

That's the way rules are used in just about any activity I can think of...example.

1. Generic Rule - In NCAA College Football, using bodily force to reposition, move, overcome or evade other players is completely acceptable. 

2. Specific Rule - At no time may you place your hands upon the facemask of another player and certainly may not grasp or pull on the facemask of another player. Doing so will result in one of several penalties. 

3. More specific rule - If you are the ball carrier and are running with the football, you may outstretch one arm (called a stiff arm) and use that arm to maintain distance from other players. While using the stiff arm maneuver as a ball carrier, you may contact or briefly grasp the facemask of another player without penalty. 

Now...I'm sure I could come up with dozens of examples. But, in the end, that's just the way a rules based system is meant to function. And that's the way I am applying the rules in this case.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Much the same as if you cast Charm Person on a human who then turns into an ogre



So what would you say is the intelligence score of the corpse?

Is someone under the effects of Feeblemind immune to the effects of intelligence-damaging poisons?

Daniel


----------



## glass (Nov 9, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Is someone under the effects of Feeblemind immune to the effects of intelligence-damaging poisons?



Not unless they somehow tried to raise Int (or Cha) above 1.


glass.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Not unless they somehow tried to raise Int (or Cha) above 1.



Why is that?
Daniel


----------



## sirwmholder (Nov 9, 2006)

"Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." ~ Terry Goodkind

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## glass (Nov 9, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Why is that?



Because feeblemnind _lowers_ Int and Cha to 1, it doesn't raise them. It doesn't care if they are already 0, 1, or -, as long as they are not 2+.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Mephistopheles said:
			
		

> ...This is already covered in the FAQ.






			
				Main35FAQv10182006 said:
			
		

> A feeblemind spells reduces the subject’s Intelligence and Charisma scores to 1 (not just Intelligence). Of course, if the subject already has a score of 0, feeblemind doesn’t increase the score. The subject’s Intelligence and Charisma become 1 (or stay at 0) regardless of any enhancements or other increases to those scores.
> 
> A feeblemind effect remains until the subject receives a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell. The subject cannot benefit from any effect that increases Intelligence or Charisma until the feeblemind effect is removed.




What a bizarre ruling.  That's treating Feeblemind as it if created a permanent effect rather than an instaneous one.  How odd.

It even says you cannot increase the scores to 1 if they are at 0.  Bizarre.

I think someone was asleep at the switch to allow this ruling to go forward into the FAQ.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Because feeblemnind _lowers_ Int and Cha to 1, it doesn't raise them. It doesn't care if they are already 0, 1, or -, as long as they are not 2+.



Lowers them to 1 or below, or just lowers them to 1?  As I read it, it lowers them exactly to 1, and then you remain in that state until....

If your score goes below 1, you're not remaining in that state.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> What a bizarre ruling.  That's treating Feeblemind as it if created a permanent effect rather than an instaneous one.  How odd.



Again, look at imprisonment. I don't think "instantaneous" means what you're suggesting it means.

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Again, look at imprisonment. I don't think "instantaneous" means what you're suggesting it means.
> 
> Daniel




I have.  Imprisonment leaves you isolated in a state suspended animation.

Feeblemind leaves you with a 1 int and Cha.  The FAQ ruling treats it like a permanent spell that KEEPS you at a 1 Int and Cha.

It's bizarre.

With this treatment of Feeblemind, it would be better described as a permanent spell upon which Dispel Magic has no effect.

The way the FAQ has it, the "state" must be magical and therefore one should consider whether Dispel Magic, M;s Disjunction or even an Antimagic Field (or a magic dead zone for certain worlds) should have eny effect.

It just keep getting worse.

All they needed to do was state that you Int and Cha are reduced to "1."  Certain things may remove that condition, and most of them are listed in the "until" clause.  Anythinf that raises Int and Cha in any way can raise it up from the reduced state of "1."

That the simplest way to veiw this.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I have.  Imprisonment leaves you isolated in a state suspended animation.
> 
> Feeblemind leaves you with a 1 int and Cha.  The FAQ ruling treats it like a permanent spell that KEEPS you at a 1 Int and Cha.
> 
> ...



Doesn't Imprisonment have an ongoing magical effect as well, though?  I don't think Instantaneous effects dissipate with no magic left over, necessarily.

Daniel


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> What a bizarre ruling.  That's treating Feeblemind as it if created a permanent effect rather than an instaneous one.  How odd.




The effect of feeblemind is permanent. The spell energy that creates the effect is instantaneous. This is true of most instantaneous spells. 



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Instantaneous
> 
> The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.




Spell energy comes and goes...consequences long-lasting (in this case, permanent until one of 4 spells is used). 



			
				srd said:
			
		

> Permanent
> 
> The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic.




The effect is permanent ONLY because the spell energy remains and sustains the effect. 

If I created an "instantaneous" 5th level spell transmutation that hacked your left pinky finger off...it's GONE! There is no residual magic (in this case) that is keeping your pinky finger missing, it's just cut off, hacked off, sliced off, gone...just as if I'd used a meat cleaver, only I used a spell. 

Break Enchantment should not be able to grow back your left pinky finger. Because nothing in the text for Break Enchantment indicates that it can grow back severed body parts. 

Now...if I created a "permanent" 5th level transmutation that made your left pinky finger magically disappear...you could get rid of that transmutation with Break Enchantment and your finger would suddenly reappear. 

Now, before you say it, I realize that break enchantment says that it can defeat 5th level instantaneous transmutations...but regardless. If I used the instantaneous version of the finger hacking spell, it won't work. Your left pinky finger isn't magically suppressed, it's laying on the table in front of, having just been cut off (by my spell). It's as cut off as if I used my belt knife on it.  

Until you cast a spell that restores missing limbs or fingers, your finger isn't growing back. Break Enchantment won't make your finger grow back.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Doesn't Imprisonment have an ongoing magical effect as well, though?  I don't think Instantaneous effects dissipate with no magic left over, necessarily.
> 
> Daniel




"The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting. "

Sure.  Note that all the spell energy is gone, by defintion.

The long-lasting consequences could have a magical nature, sure.  In this case they do not appear to be magical.

If they are, then other solutions may exist.

Indeed, in the case of Imprisonment other solutions may exist, though they would be nearly impossible to implement.

"When you cast imprisonment and touch a creature, it is entombed in a state of suspended animation (see the temporal stasis spell) in a small sphere far beneath the surface of the earth. The subject remains there unless a freedom spell is cast at the locale where the imprisonment took place. Magical search by a crystal ball, a locate object spell, or some other similar divination does not reveal the fact that a creature is imprisoned, but discern location does. A wish or miracle spell will not free the recipient, but will reveal where it is entombed."

Nothing prevents you from using Discern Location and then some mundane means of recovering the body and using Dispel Magic to remove the suspended animation (per the temporal stasis spell).

Actually Imprisonment is kind of odd for an instaneous spell because it leaves you with a "permanent" effect.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Several people have brought up Break Enchantment, instantaneous effects it would work on and Reincarnate. 

So, here's a possible theorem. 

I'm a human ranger with a favored enemy of orcs. I die and am reincarnated, I come back as an orc. 

Upset by this, I seek a cleric who can cast True Resurrection. I then have my Sorcerer friend cast Break Enchantment on me to "undo" the Reincarnate. 

I go back to being a dead guy at the foot of the cleric (and since Reincarnate was undone, my lost level is restored). 

The cleric then True Resurrects me, and I come back as a human, precisely as I was when I died. 

Would that even work? Sounds plausible, but almost worth of its own thread? Would my lost level actually be restored (it seems it would)? Would I keep any of the XP I gained in the time I spent as an Orc? 

Weird...


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> ...Until you cast a spell that restores missing limbs or fingers, your finger isn't growing back. Break Enchantment won't make your finger grow back.




Oddly enough, if it was a fifth level instantaneous transmutation spell, yes, it would.  Wierd as that may be.

That's the way Break Enchament is written.  It's very clear.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Several people have brought up Break Enchantment, instantaneous effects it would work on and Reincarnate.
> 
> So, here's a possible theorem.
> 
> ...




With the way BE is written, this would work.  In fact, from the Ranger's point of view, the Reincarnate might view himself as a "victim" of a curse.

It's bizarre, but works as written.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually Imprisonment is kind of odd for an instaneous spell because it leaves you with a "permanent" effect.




If I get hit by a fireball, fail my save and take 34 hit points of damage. That is a permanent effect. You can't "dispel" my hp loss. 

Now, thankfully there are mundane and magical rules for HEALING the damage. But otherwise, the effect is as permanent as if I had lost 34 hit points to an axe blow.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> If I get hit by a fireball, fail my save and take 34 hit points of damage. That is a permanent effect. You can't "dispel" my hp loss.
> 
> Now, thankfully there are mundane and magical rules for HEALING the damage. But otherwise, the effect is as permanent as if I had lost 34 hit points to an axe blow.




No that's not a "permanent" effect in the sense of D&D magic.  That's an instantaneous effect.  Not the same thing.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, if it was a fifth level instantaneous transmutation spell, yes, it would.  Wierd as that may be.
> 
> That's the way Break Enchament is written.  It's very clear.




Since (in my example) I added nothing to my pinky finger hacking spell to prevent Break Enchantment from working or described what could fix it...then I agree. 

However, now let's say that when I write my spell, Cedric's Pinky Finger Hacker, I add the blurb, that the finger remains gone until a Regenerate spell is used...now Break Enchantment won't work. 

It's clearly my intention that only a spell which could restore severed limbs would work. There is no need for me to list the multitude of spells that won't work (limited wish, heal, greater restoration, break enchantment, dispel magic, etc. etc. etc.).


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> What a bizarre ruling.  That's treating Feeblemind as it if created a permanent effect rather than an instaneous one.  How odd.
> 
> It even says you cannot increase the scores to 1 if they are at 0.  Bizarre.
> 
> I think someone was asleep at the switch to allow this ruling to go forward into the FAQ.




I think this FAQ ruling is based on the phrase:



> The subject remains in this state until




The wording of the spell does make it sound like a permanent non-mutable effect. Ruling this way is perfectly reasonable because the creature is modified in such a way that stat boosting and draining magic does not affect those two ability scores.


However, the wording in Feeblemind on stat boosting items and spells is not explicitly called out. Nor is there a Feeblemind Condition in the game (like Stunned, Dazed, etc.). So personally, I probably would rule that since it is Instantaneous, stat boosting items can increase the Int and Cha.

Feeblemind might put the Int and Cha stats at 1, but it does not prevent death (lowering them to 0). So, should it prevent Ability Drain or Damage (lowering them to 0) or Ability Boost (raising them)? Not in my opinion.

If the effect was Permanent, then sure, I would not allow stat increasing magic to affect the target. But with it being Instantaneous, I have a hard time justifying such a ruling. Does Reincarnation prevent a creature from Polymorphing?


Another equally interesting question is: Does Feebleminded PCs get Experience? Experience is based on learning. If ones Int is one, can he truly learn anything significant?


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No that's not a "permanent" effect in the sense of D&D magic.  That's an instantaneous effect.  Not the same thing.




The consequences of an instantaneous effect are typically permanent.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> However, the wording in Feeblemind on stat boosting items and spells is not explicitly called out. Nor is there a Feeblemind Condition in the game (like Stunned, Dazed, etc.). So personally, I probably would rule that since it is Instantaneous, stat boosting items can increase the Int and Cha.




See, I disagree, but I think this may just come down to how we view the spell. 

I view it as something that instantaneously damages the brain in a manner which almost completely disables the subjects. The neural pathways that allow cognitive thought, speech, memory, spellcasting...those are all gone. 

A headband of intellect won't work because the parts of the brain it would boost are damaged beyond the ability to be usable. 

Now mind you, that's just the way I see the spell working. I can see other points of view on this aspect of it.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> The consequences of an instantaneous effect are typically permanent.




But not in the sense of "magically" permanent.  In sense of "you took damage" permanent.

In other words, permanent vs, temporary as opposed to permanent vs. instantaneous.

Oddly enough, permanent effects typically last until dispelled (that's not really all that permanent, is it?).

An instanenous effect is not typically dispellable, but often fixable (healing, etc.).


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> The consequences of an instantaneous effect are typically permanent.




True, but they are not typically non-mutable via magic.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> See, I disagree, but I think this may just come down to how we view the spell.
> 
> I view it as something that instantaneously damages the brain in a manner which almost completely disables the subjects. The neural pathways that allow cognitive thought, speech, memory, spellcasting...those are all gone.
> 
> ...




I don't agree, but that is not unreasonable.

It would be nice if the spell did a better job in its decsription.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 9, 2006)

Many wizards enjoy hefty bonuses to their intelligence.  If _feeblemind_ only affected the base score but not inherent or enhancement bonuses it wouldn't have anywhere near as dramatic effect.  So I'm agreeable to the notion that the feebleminded state can't be mitigated by bonuses to intelligence or charisma.  I'm inclined to say that the new stats count for the purpose of ability damage or drain; a single point of damage will reduce them to 0, and thus incapacitate them.  

My general heuristic is that one spell trumps a lower level one in the absence of specific wording.  And that defensive spells trump offensive spells.  If a 5th level _irresistible force_ meets a 5th level _immovable object_ then the _immovable object_ wins.  If an 8th level divination spell is written so that it "ignores magical protections" I wouldn't allow it to trump a _mind blank_ unless it said "ignores magical protections such as _mind blank_".  If it were 9th level that said it "ignores magical protections" I would allow it to do so, even in the absence of a specific mention of _mind blank_.

I consider healing/curing/removing to be defensive, and so should trump offensive spells of the same level, unless mentioned by name or description.  A spell that afflicts or curses a subject is offensive, of course.  

If _break enchantment_ said it didn't cure _feeblemind_, that would be the end of the matter.  Similarly if _break enchantment_ mentioned _feeblemind_ by name (instead of by description) there would be no rules question to explore in this thread.  As it is, the literal meaning of "until" seems to conflict with the description of _break enchantment_.

The question of designer intent was raised.  Did the same person who designed _feeblemind_ also design _break enchantment_?  Were these spells revised or reviewed by someone with a different set of intentions?  I don't think this is a profitable line of inquiry.  You have to go down to the principle that the spell means what it says.  If I as a designer didn't want _feeblemind_ to be broken by _break enchantment_ I would either have to raise the level of _feeblemind_ so that the description of _break enchantment_ wouldn't apply, or change the description of _break enchantment_ so that it didn't apply to fifth level instantaneous enchantments.  Or call out _break enchantment_ either by name or description ("cannot be reversed by spells of fifth level or less," maybe with additional text like "such as _remove curse_ or _dispel magic_." Actually, this wording would make the conflict more explicit; each would say that it trumps the other.  In the absence of this wording, I think the position of _feeblemind_ is weaker.)  If I don't do this, then I am like someone who puts both an _irresistible force_ and an _immovable object_ in the same book; I create an interpretive puzzle for DMs.

I accept that "feebleminded" is a state (like "slain by death magic") and that a creature "remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind".  However this language is trumped by the _break enchantment_ spell description, which says it can reverse an instantaneous enchantment of 5th level or lower.  I take "reverse" to be equivalent to "cancel" - is there any dispute on this?  In the case of a conflict between two spells of equal level I would resolve the conflict in terms of the spell which is curative or restorative, in accordance with my general policy of how to break ties of this sort.

The question, for me, boils down to how to resolve the question of what happens when an _irresistible force_ meets an _immovable object_.  I don't think designer intent is the best approach.  I assign precedence to defensive/curative over offensive, but there may be a better way to approach such a question.

Can we agree that this is the question?  Can we agree that _feeblemind_ imposes a state that remains "until a heal, limited wish, miracle or wish spell is used"?  Can we agree that _break enchantment_ can reverse a 5th level instantaneous enchantment?  Can we agree that _feeblemind_ is a 5th level instantaneous enchantment?  Can we agree that these statements are inconsistent, and that a procedure needs to be developed that resolves these inconsistencies?

If so, then I submit that the procedure of giving precedence to defensive/curative over offensive is worthy of consideration, and I invite people to suggest other ways in which conflicts between spells may be resolved.  I am sure there are lots of alternatives.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Many wizards enjoy hefty bonuses to their intelligence.  If _feeblemind_ only affected the base score but not inherent or enhancement bonuses it wouldn't have anywhere near as dramatic effect.  So I'm agreeable to the notion that the feebleminded state can't be mitigated by bonuses to intelligence or charisma.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



_

I can pretty much agree with that approach, I think._


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

Me too, although my heuristic is slightly different from *Cheiromancer's*.  Essentially, I imagine the acting character asking me, "Can I do this?"  and if in doubt, I answer, "Yes!"

Daniel


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> An instanenous effect is not typically dispellable, but often fixable (healing, etc.).




Precisely, that's why Break Enchantment doesn't work to cure Feeblemind. It requires a spell that can specifically reverse brain damage. Something all four of the listed cures can do.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Precisely, that's why Break Enchantment doesn't work to cure Feeblemind. It requires a spell that can specifically reverse brain damage. Something all four of the listed cures can do.




Or a spell that can reverse even instantaneous effects.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

Well!  I'm glad we got that settled!

Daniel


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> If so, then I submit that the procedure of giving precedence to defensive/curative over offensive is worthy of consideration, and I invite people to suggest other ways in which conflicts between spells may be resolved.  I am sure there are lots of alternatives.




For the most part I agree with the rest of what you had to say, so I won't bother quoting it and going point by point. 

I can see the reasoning behind a precedent for defensive/curative over offensive if the spells are of equal level (in fact, many other games use versions of this). 

*However, I still have to stipulate that the best procedure is that specific takes precedent over generic.* 

If there are no specifics involved (by specifics I mean spells named precisely, not just described vaguely) and two generic spells are in conflict, then I would resolve them based upon the defensive/curative over offensive. 

I have posted my thoughts (a few times now) on how I think rules work in general, in pretty much all rule based activities, and no one has commented, so let me quote myself now. 



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> I would just like to summarize my position by explaining my thoughts on the hierarchy of rules. This applies to all rules based activities, not just D&D. These are presented in order of ascending priority in relation to one another.
> 
> 1. Generic, or generically stated rules. They can even be broad, sweeping rules that affect numerous aspects of the activity.
> 2. Specific rules. They are rules related to a particular aspect or aspects of the activity being governed, and take precedent over generic rules with regard to the particular aspect(s) in question.
> ...


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> If so, then I submit that the procedure of giving precedence to defensive/curative over offensive is worthy of consideration, and I invite people to suggest other ways in which conflicts between spells may be resolved.




That is a fine way to resolve conflict between spells. Unfortunately, I also believe that there is no conflict here due to the list of spells in Feeblemind. For people who do not believe that the wording there makes that list restrictive, they would have a conflict. I do not.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Well!  I'm glad we got that settled!
> 
> Daniel




Did it?

Well, in any case, I am convinced that a very reasonable approach is:

1.  Int and Cha stay at "1" regardless of enhancements, etc.

2.  Break Enchantment can "reverse" the instantaneous effect of Feeblemind.

This may be the best approach,  Trying to read the rules with more precision than is generally contained in normal English, in this case as with a few others, simply leads to an impasse for rules interpretation.  (For another good example of this, think about Monks and INA.)

For our group, it means do NOT let the Bard get "Feebleminded."    He's the only one that can do "Break Enchantment" on our group, and no other remedy is readily available.  Not that this has come up - and maybe it never will.  One can only hope.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Well!  I'm glad we got that settled!
> 
> Daniel




Hah, the only thing that is settled is that we all disagree.

For what it's worth though, and I said this 8 pages ago, if you wanted to house rule that Break Enchantment would cure feeblemind in your game, then I would both:

Support your decision completely, and...
Agree with your logic for thinking it's a viable solution. 

However, I wouldn't agree that the rules as written function that way.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Hah, the only thing that is settled is that we all disagree.



Yeah--I was joking, but I think if we can agree to disagree, we're doing good.



> For what it's worth though, and I said this 8 pages ago, if you wanted to house rule that Break Enchantment would cure feeblemind in your game



A very quick reminder that, due to its tendency to inflame tempers, we frown on referring to other folks' sincerely-held rules interpretations as "house rules" in this forum.  There's a sticky at the top of the forum that explains our reasoning.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> That is a fine way to resolve conflict between spells. Unfortunately, I also believe that there is no conflict here due to the list of spells in Feeblemind. For people who do not believe that the wording there makes that list restrictive, they would have a conflict.



I'm assuming that last sentence is not restrictive .  For example, I believe that the list in Feeblemind is restrictive--AND I believe there is a conflict.  The conflict doesn't arise because of any nonrestrictive nature in Feeblemind; it arises because of the nonrestrictive nature of Break Enchantment.

Break Enchantment, as I read it, clearly reverses Feeblemind.  Feeblemind, as I read it, clearly is not changed by Break Enchantment.  That's why I see a conflict.

Daniel


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> A very quick reminder that, due to its tendency to inflame tempers, we frown on referring to other folks' sincerely-held rules interpretations as "house rules" in this forum.  There's a sticky at the top of the forum that explains our reasoning.
> 
> Daniel




I'm sorry if I crossed over a line, I wasn't trying to refer to house rules as a pejorative (that would be hypocritical of me, since I use so many house rules). I was trying to support the decision to house rule this particular issue, if one so chooses. 

Again though, if I crossed over a line, I apologize.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Break Enchantment, as I read it, clearly reverses Feeblemind.  Feeblemind, as I read it, clearly is not changed by Break Enchantment.  That's why I see a conflict.
> 
> Daniel




I agree in essence that this conflict exists. What I don't understand is why anyone would choose to err on the side of the broad, generic rule, instead of erring on the side of the one that explicitly states intended usage and cures.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 9, 2006)

Originally posted by *KarinsDad*


> That is a fine way to resolve conflict between spells. Unfortunately, I also believe that there is no conflict here due to the list of spells in Feeblemind. For people who *do not *believe that the wording there makes that list restrictive, they would have a conflict. I do not.



The interpretation that the list is restrictive is what creates the conflict, isn't it?  If you look at the list as being exhaustive, then the only way a spell that is not on the list can reverse _feeblemind_ is if it duplicates the effect of a spell on the list.  That's what I understand the restrictive reading to be; that the silence of _feeblemind_ excludes _break enchantment_ from being a potential cure. Did you include the bolded text by accident, or am I totally misunderstanding something?


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I agree in essence that this conflict exists. What I don't understand is why anyone would choose to err on the side of the broad, generic rule, instead of erring on the side of the one that explicitly states intended usage and cures.



My reason for it is that, as a player, it's more fun to be told "yes" by the DM than to be told "no."  I'd rather have my enemies quickly cured of feeblemind than be doomed as a PC because nobody in our party has the necessary magic to get rid of the spell.

(And you didn't really cross over a line--I just wanted to remind everyone that the line was there .  Sorry if it came across too strong).

Daniel


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I agree in essence that this conflict exists. What I don't understand is why anyone would choose to err on the side of the broad, generic rule, instead of erring on the side of the one that explicitly states intended usage and cures.




I think you have this turned around.  If I understand you correctly, you are wondering why someone would follow "reverses 5th level instantaneous enchantments" instead of "only reversed by _heal, limited wish, miracle_ and _wish_."  Am I right?

The first refers to _feeblemind_ by description in terms of positive features, features which _feeblemind_ actually has; _feeblemind_ is, in fact, a 5th level instantaneous enchantment.  The second refers to _feeblemind_ in purely negative terms; as neither _heal_ nor _limited wish_ nor _miracle_ nor _wish_.  Which is also an accurate description; _break enchantment_ is not any of those spells, nor is it described as duplicating one of their effects (e.g., the way that _mage's disjunction_ refers to _dispel magic_). 

It seems to me that, generally, positive designations are much more explicit than negative designations.  Saying that something is a 5th level spell narrows the number of candidates down much more than saying it is not a 4th level spell.  Saying that something is an enchantment narrows down the number of candidates more than saying it is not an evocation.  Saying that something is neither _heal_ nor _limited wish_ nor _miracle_ nor _wish_ doesn't narrow down the list of candidates by much at all.  So the description of _feeblemind_ is not at all explicit in its exclusion of _break enchantment_.

It is true that _feeblemind_ is very explicit about what will cure it; designating the spells by name is more explicit than describing them.  But _feeblemind_ is not explicit about what will not cure it;  "only reversed by _heal, limited wish, miracle_ and _wish_" is really quite broad.  Unambiguous, perhaps, but not explicit.

So if you really believe that the more explicit rule should be followed, you should be on the "BE works" side.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 9, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that last sentence is not restrictive .  For example, I believe that the list in Feeblemind is restrictive--AND I believe there is a conflict.  The conflict doesn't arise because of any nonrestrictive nature in Feeblemind; it arises because of the nonrestrictive nature of Break Enchantment.
> 
> Break Enchantment, as I read it, clearly reverses Feeblemind.  Feeblemind, as I read it, clearly is not changed by Break Enchantment.  That's why I see a conflict.




That's avoided by the specific versus general rules interpretation.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *KarinsDad*
> The interpretation that the list is restrictive is what creates the conflict, isn't it?  If you look at the list as being exhaustive, then the only way a spell that is not on the list can reverse _feeblemind_ is if it duplicates the effect of a spell on the list.  That's what I understand the restrictive reading to be; that the silence of _feeblemind_ excludes _break enchantment_ from being a potential cure. Did you include the bolded text by accident, or am I totally misunderstanding something?




No. I just wrote that incorrectly.

The real conflict comes from thinking that the list is restrictive and also thinking that BE is not a general spell that can be overridden by a specific spell.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 9, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> That's avoided by the specific versus general rules interpretation.



I think that "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is more specific than "neither heal nor limited wish nor miracle nor wish".  The former refers to much smaller pool of spells than the latter.  How would you argue that the latter description is more specific than the former?


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I think that "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is more specific than "neither heal nor limited wish nor miracle nor wish".  The former refers to much smaller pool of spells than the latter.  How would you argue that the latter description is more specific than the former?




Because one is spell a, b, c, and d whereas the other is spell types.

A rule concerning spell types can have exceptions since it is a general rule. It is still a rule, but it is a more general rule than a specific list which is a more specific rule.

Magic Missile always hits its target. Except when it does not.

Break Enchantment always gets a chance to reverse 5th level or lower Instantaneous Enchantment or Transmuation spells on creatures. Except when it does not.


And even the Feeblemind spell is a general rule when compared to Mass Heal. Only those 4 spells heal Feeblemind. Except when another more specific spell takes precedence.

But, the spell has to explicitly be more specific than the spell rule people are trying to have it overcome. If BE explicitly stated that it reversed Feeblemind, then it would take precedence over the wording in Feeblemind.

Feeblemind in this case has the more specific explicit information on which spells can reverse it.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> "5th level instantaneous enchantment"




Just to restate, this is not a limitation, by which BE operates.

It can cancel instantaneous enchantments and transmutations and curses of _*any*_ level.

(Check out the full text in the PHB, then you will most likely see this as well.)

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> So if you really believe that the more explicit rule should be followed, you should be on the "BE works" side.




Ok, so let me make sure I understand your contention...

"This spell works on any spells that satisfy the following criteria (type of spell, duration of spell, etc."

Is, according to you, *more specific* than: 

"Remains in effect *until* one of the following four spells listed by name is used."

That is your contention, correct? That's what you are claiming, I am not misunderstanding you?

Also...



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I think that "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is more specific than "neither heal nor limited wish nor miracle nor wish".  The former refers to much smaller pool of spells than the latter.  How would you argue that the latter description is more specific than the former?




On the contrary, "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is potentially infinite. Every new publication could add more of those. But the original list of four spells is finite. While more spells may be added that "act like Heal" ...in the end, there is only one Heal spell.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Just to restate, this is not a limitation, by which BE operates.
> 
> It can cancel instantaneous enchantments and transmutations and curses of _*any*_ level.




How many instantaneous enchantments, transmutations, and curses can be dispelled by Dispel Magic?

I agree that Flesh to Stone is an example of an instantaneous effect, and serves to demonstrate the sorts of things that Break Enchantment might be effective against.

But unless you have a class or creature that casts Flesh to Stone as a 5th level spell (rather than 6th), Break Enchantment won't be able to reverse the specific instantaneous effect Flesh to Stone.  It's an instantaneous effect (and serves as an example of such), but it's not one that Break Enchantment will work on, because "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower" forbids it.

"Hobgoblins will eat fruit (such as apples).  They will not eat anything that is red."

If the only apples you have are red, hobgoblins won't eat them, even though apples are an example of fruit.  If you can find a green apple, they'll eat that quite happily.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> ...On the contrary, "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is potentially infinite. Every new publication could add more of those. But the original list of four spells is finite. While more spells may be added that "act like Heal" ...in the end, there is only one Heal spell.




So then you think that NO OTHER SPELLS can work?  That would include Mass Heal and Panacea, then.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So then you think that NO OTHER SPELLS can work?  That would include Mass Heal and Panacea, then.




Mass Heal precisely duplicates Heal (as well as adding additional functionality), so it's even more specific, and the most specific rule wins. As for Panacea, you have to allow for additions to the rules, otherwise the rules fail to function at all, no one would ever buy a supplement. 

Panacea works because it was released in a supplemental version of the rules *and* it is more specific. Once again, the most specific wins.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Mass Heal precisely duplicates Heal (as well as adding additional functionality), so it's even more specific, and the most specific rule wins. As for Panacea, you have to allow for additions to the rules, otherwise the rules fail to function at all, no one would ever buy a supplement.
> 
> Panacea works because it was released in a supplemental version of the rules *and* it is more specific. Once again, the most specific wins.




But the list is infinite.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> But the list is infinite.




Theoretically there are an infinite number of spells that could add that specifically clear the effects of feeblemind, either by saying so precisely or by stating that they work exactly like heal, limited wish, wish or miracle. 

I'm not sure I understand what your point is though.

There is no question with Panacea, it came out after the PHB and specifically says it cures Feeblemind. Zero ambiguity, perfectly clear. Do you disagree?

As to Mass Heal, because it exactly duplicates the abilities of Heal (which is on the list), as well as adding targets and hit points effected, I believe it works. 

However, I would come a LOT closer to agreeing that Mass Heal doesn't work, than I ever would to agreeing that Break Enchantment does work. 

Short of an Errata or FAQ entry stating that Break Enchantment works, I will never believe that it does, by the rules.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 9, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Ok, so let me make sure I understand your contention...
> 
> "This spell works on any spells that satisfy the following criteria (type of spell, duration of spell, etc."
> 
> ...



We're talking apples and oranges here.  Or rather, apples and non-oranges.

If the specific designation is "apples", a somewhat less specific designation would be a unique description like "the fruit from which cider is made."  It's less specific because cider might be made from something else. But you could also refer to the fruit very non-specifically as "non-oranges".  All these terms are accurate (you make cider from apples, and apples are non-oranges), but the different designations are not equally specific.

The text of feeblemind rules out break enchantment in a very non-specific manner, since it refers to it as not-(four named spells).  The number of spells that are not those four is potentially infinite; even if you just consider the spells in the PHB it is very large.  The text of break enchantment includes feeblemind in a quite specific manner; true, it doesn't refer to it by name, but there is only one 5th level instantaneous enchantment in the PHB.  Of the thousands of 3rd-party spells in existence, how many of them are 5th level instantaneous enchantments?  Not many.  Far fewer than there are spells that are not (four named spells).

And so break enchantment refers to feeblemind in quite a specific fashion, while feeblemind refers to break enchantment in a very non-specific fashion.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> The text of feeblemind rules out break enchantment in a very non-specific manner, since it refers to it as not-(four named spells).



I actually disagree.  It says nothing about what *Break Enchantment* does; all it says it was the spell itself does.  The spell itself makes you remain in that state, until one of four specific things happen.  These four specific things cancel the effects of the state.

That seems highly specific to me.  I see how you're looking at those four things as a negative list, but I think they're a positive list, because we know exactly what happens re: Feeblemind prior to one of those four occurrences:  the state continues.  Are you disintegrated?  The state continues.  Are you poisoned?  The state continues.  Are you turned to stone?  The state continues.

I think its wording leads to absurdities, but I think it's pretty specific.

Daniel


----------



## Thanee (Nov 9, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...but it's not one that Break Enchantment will work on, because "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower" forbids it.




This is wrong. It's certainly something one can read out of that sentence, but it's not what is meant there.

While instantaneous spell effects cannot be targeted with a dispel effect, they cannot _specifically_ not be dispelled (AFAIK there is no rule, that states, that instantaneous effects cannot be dispelled, there is a rule, that states the opposite, that permanent effects can be dispelled). They could, technically, be dispelled, if there ever was a time at which you could target them. There is not, which is why it doesn't work. And as said somewhere above, in a colloquial way, you could certainly say, that instantaneous spells thus cannot be dispelled.

But that's not meant with 'cannot be dispelled' there. It's a more specific term in this context.

Yes, it's a bit screwed up for sure, but through the examples they made it clear, that instantaneous is not what they meant with 'cannot be dispelled', but only effects, where dispelling is specifically prevented from working, like _Bestow Curse_.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Cedric (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> The text of feeblemind rules out break enchantment in a very non-specific manner, since it refers to it as not-(four named spells).  The number of spells that are not those four is potentially infinite; even if you just consider the spells in the PHB it is very large.  The text of break enchantment includes feeblemind in a quite specific manner; true, it doesn't refer to it by name, but there is only one 5th level instantaneous enchantment in the PHB.  Of the thousands of 3rd-party spells in existence, how many of them are 5th level instantaneous enchantments?  Not many.  Far fewer than there are spells that are not (four named spells).




It's not ruling things out, it's ruling things in. Regardless, either is value depending on whichever list is shorter. 

Someone gave a baseball analogy earlier that fits this argument. 

You may only, legally, come to the plate to bat if you are using a regulation baseball bat. The includes only one thing you may bat with, a regulation baseball bat (with those regulations being defined elsewhere in regards to length, width, weight, density, material of construction, etc...but those are defined into one term, Regulation Baseball Bat). 

That's a LOT easier than try to list the things you may NOT come to bat with...you can't legally come to bat with a golf club, hammer, iron spike, tennis racquet, etc. etc. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> And so break enchantment refers to feeblemind in quite a specific fashion, while feeblemind refers to break enchantment in a very non-specific fashion.




Break Enchantment refers to a general description of spells...and Feeblemind falls into that description. However, I fail to see how that is specific. ...Until a, b, c or d...that's very specific.


----------



## Felix (Nov 9, 2006)

It seems I was not satisfied...



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> We're talking apples and oranges here. Or rather, apples and non-oranges.
> 
> <snip>



Alan can hit curve balls.
Bill throws curve balls that nobody can it, except Carl.

Is it the case that Alan can hit Bill's curve balls?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yes, it's a bit screwed up for sure, but through the examples they made it clear, that instantaneous is not what they meant with 'cannot be dispelled', but only effects, where dispelling is specifically prevented from working, like _Bestow Curse_.




So do you feel that Break Enchantment will work to reverse Power Word Kill, for example?

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 9, 2006)

If there was a lasting effect, sure. But there isn't, the effect is instantaneous in the most direct sense of the word (unlike, for example, _Flesh to Stone_, which is basically a permanent effect, just without any lasting magic).

_Break Enchantment_ frees the subject of an enchantment, a transmutation, or a curse. There is nothing to free you from, if you die, because there is no lasting effect remaining in place, which could be removed.

As I said, it's not a very well-defined spell effect, but it's still clear enough, what the spell is meant to do, when you put all the pieces together.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 9, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So do you feel that Break Enchantment will work to reverse Power Word Kill, for example?
> 
> -Hyp.




I disagree with Thanee on this point, but even if he was right, BE would not be able to reverse PWK because it can only target creatures.  Once a person is killed, their body becomes an object.

Unless you're going to pull that discussion about how nothing can really die in D+D...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> _Break Enchantment_ frees the subject of an enchantment, a transmutation, or a curse. There is nothing to free you from, if you die, because there is no lasting effect remaining in place, which could be removed.




Desert Gled makes a good point about BE being unable to target a corpse.

But apart from that, I don't understand how you can claim that making someone a statue is different to making someone a corpse.  Both are instantaneous effects.  What is the lasting effect of Flesh to Stone?  How is it different to the lasting effect of Power Word Kill?



> While instantaneous spell effects cannot be targeted with a dispel effect, they cannot specifically not be dispelled (AFAIK there is no rule, that states, that instantaneous effects cannot be dispelled...




Apart from this one, in the description of Dispel Magic:

_Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled_...?

Dispel Magic explicitly states that it cannot dispel instantaneous effects.  Flesh to Stone is an instantaneous effect.  Therefore Flesh to Stone cannot be dispelled by Dispel Magic.  Therefore Break Enchantment will only work on Flesh to Stone if it is 5th level or lower.

-Hyp.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 9, 2006)

Just for the sake of conciseness, let's pretend that the text _feeblemind_ said that it could only be reversed by _heal_.  We'd read it with the understanding that anything that could duplicate _heal_ would also work- and that means _miracle_, _wish_ and (using the adept list) _limited wish_.  I'm saying this so that I don't have to keep typing the names of those four spells over and over again.

Then when _feeblemind_ says "can only be reversed by _heal_" it is specifying two categories of spells; spells that can reverse _feeblemind_ and spells that cannot reverse _feeblemind_.  The first list is very short; it only contains _heal_ (and the spells that can duplicate _heal_).  The second list is quite long; it includes everything else, and includes _break enchantment_.

The first list is quite specific; it gives the spells by name.  The second list (implicitly defined as the spells not on the first list) isn't.  It is less specific than the text of _break enchantment_ that says that the spell can reverse a 5th level instantaneous enchantment.  So if you are saying that the most specific rule takes precedence, then you have to say it is _break enchantment_ that applies.

Maybe the example of 20 questions will help illustrate what I am saying about specificity.  What would require fewer questions to correctly guess?

This spell is not _heal_, nor can it duplicate _heal_.
This spell is a 5th level instantaneous enchantment.
I hope it is obvious that 2 is a more specific description than 1.  So the part of _feeblemind_ that says that _break enchantment_ doesn't work is much less specific than the part of _break enchantment_ that says it does.  If your criterion is that the more specific rule takes precedence, you have to say that _break enchantment_ works.

I would also argue that even if both spells were equally specific, the defensive/curative spell would take precedence.  But that's not the case; the defensive/curative spell is the more specific spell.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 10, 2006)

Felix said:
			
		

> Alan can hit curve balls.
> Bill throws curve balls that nobody can hit, except Carl.
> 
> Is it the case that Alan can hit Bill's curve balls?



There are several possible ways of interpreting the word "can".  "Alan can hit curve balls" could mean, for instance, that 

On lucky days Alan hits any pitch that is 90 mph or slower.​(I'm trying to strengthen the parallel between Alan and _break enchantment_; with BE you have to be lucky with your opposed caster level check, and if you are trying to reverse an instantaneous enchantment it must be 5th level or less).  Now let's add some detail to the description of Bill's pitch:

On lucky days Alan hits any pitch that is 90 mph or slower.
Bill throws 75 mph curve balls that nobody can hit, except Carl.​What happens if Bill pitches Alan one of his 75 mph curve balls on one of Alan's lucky days?

This is more like the case of _break enchantment_ versus _feeblemind_.  There is an inconsistency between the rules, and we'd have to find a procedure to resolve the inconsistency.  What would you say would happen?


----------



## Cedric (Nov 10, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Then when _feeblemind_ says "can only be reversed by _heal_" it is specifying two categories of spells; spells that can reverse _feeblemind_ and spells that cannot reverse _feeblemind_.  The first list is very short; it only contains _heal_ (and the spells that can duplicate _heal_).  The second list is quite long; it includes everything else, and includes _break enchantment_.
> 
> *The first list is quite specific; it gives the spells by name.*  The second list (implicitly defined as the spells not on the first list) isn't.  It is less specific than the text of _break enchantment_ that says that the spell can reverse a 5th level instantaneous enchantment.  So if you are saying that the most specific rule takes precedence, then you have to say it is _break enchantment_ that applies.




And it's the first list, the one you agree is quite specific that we are talking about. Because that's the list used in the spell text. This second "implicit" list you discuss is not referred to in the spell text. If it were, we'd be talking about it, but it isn't, so we aren't. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Maybe the example of 20 questions will help illustrate what I am saying about specificity.  What would require fewer questions to correctly guess?
> 
> This spell is not _heal_, nor can it duplicate _heal_.
> This spell is a 5th level instantaneous enchantment.
> I hope it is obvious that 2 is a more specific description than 1.  So the part of _feeblemind_ that says that _break enchantment_ doesn't work is much less specific than the part of _break enchantment_ that says it does.  If your criterion is that the more specific rule takes precedence, you have to say that _break enchantment_ works.




So how about...


This spell is _heal_, or spells that can duplicate _heal_.
This spell is an enchantment, transmutation, or curse. If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

Now...that's the list we're talking about. And I hope you can agree that number 1 is more specific. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I would also argue that even if both spells were equally specific, the defensive/curative spell would take precedence.  But that's not the case; the defensive/curative spell is the more specific spell.




I'll give you that....if they were equally specific and neither excluded or included the other.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 10, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> This spell is _heal_, or spells that can duplicate _heal_.
> This spell is an enchantment, transmutation, or curse. If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.
> Now...that's the list we're talking about. And I hope you can agree that number 1 is more specific.



Number 1 says that _heal_ will work, or spells that can duplicate _heal_.  No argument from me.  Number 2 says that _break enchantment_ will work.  Again, no argument from me.  I grant both of those statements; I will even grant that the first is more specific.  

I look forward to seeing how, given the truth of number 2, you can validly argue that number 2 is false.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 10, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Number 1 says that _heal_ will work, or spells that can duplicate _heal_.  No argument from me.  Number 2 says that _break enchantment_ will work.  Again, no argument from me.  I grant both of those statements; I will even grant that the first is more specific.
> 
> I look forward to seeing how, given the truth of number 2, you can validly argue that number 2 is false.




Easy...Break Enchantment isn't Heal and doesn't duplicate Heal.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 10, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I will even grant that the first is more specific.
> 
> I look forward to seeing how, given the truth of number 2, you can validly argue that number 2 is false.




1. The lance (a two-handed weapon) can be wielded in one hand by a mounted wielder.
2. A two-handed weapon requires two hands to wield.

Number 2 is true.  Number 1 is true, and more specific.  Number 1 is contradicted by number 2.  However, in the case of the lance, number 1 applies, _because_ it is more specific... despite the truth of number 2 in the general case.

-Hyp.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 10, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Easy...Break Enchantment isn't Heal and doesn't duplicate Heal.



So #1 doesn't apply; #2 does.


			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 1. The lance (a two-handed weapon) can be wielded in one hand by a mounted wielder.
> 2. A two-handed weapon requires two hands to wield.
> 
> Number 2 is true. Number 1 is true, and more specific. Number 1 is contradicted by number 2. However, in the case of the lance, number 1 applies, because it is more specific... despite the truth of number 2 in the general case.



Right.  And I'm saying that _break enchantment_'s permission is more specific than _feeblemind's_ prohibition.  They contradict each other, but _break enchantment_ carries the day.

I am having great trouble explaining my central thesis: "_heal_" is specific.  "not-_heal_" is not specific.  "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is not as specific as "_heal_", but more specific than "not-_heal_".  

The "5th level instantaneous enchantment" part means that _break enchantment_ applies.  The "not-_heal_" part means that _break enchantment_ does not apply.  This is a contradiction.  To resolve the contradiction, follow the rule that is more specific; the one that says that _break enchantment_ applies.


----------



## Cedric (Nov 10, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> So #1 doesn't apply; #2 does.
> Right.  And I'm saying that _break enchantment_'s permission is more specific than _feeblemind's_ prohibition.  They contradict each other, but _break enchantment_ carries the day.
> 
> I am having great trouble explaining my central thesis: "_heal_" is specific.  "not-_heal_" is not specific.  "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is not as specific as "_heal_", but more specific than "not-_heal_".
> ...




I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. I think I'm done here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 10, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I am having great trouble explaining my central thesis: "_heal_" is specific.  "not-_heal_" is not specific.




But we're not referencing Not-Heal.  We're referencing Heal.

Is Break Enchantment Heal?  No.  This is a more specific exclusion than the inclusion of "Is Feeblemind an enchantment, transmutation, or curse of 5th level or lower?"

You could also ask the question "Is Break Enchantment _not_ Heal?" and "Is Feeblemind _not_ an enchantment, transmutation, or curse of 5th level or lower?"... but that leaves us with four questions, and the most specific of the four is still "Is Break Enchantment Heal?"

-Hyp.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 10, 2006)

The statement "only Heal reverses Feeblemind" does not specifically exclude Break Enchantment.  To specifically exclude Break Enchantment you'd need wording like "Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind".  The only way that Break Enchantment is excluded by the statement "only Heal reverses Feeblemind" is by being not-Heal.  And that is a very non-specific exclusion.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. I think I'm done here.



I don't think anyone's views are changed after page 2, maybe even page 1.  Certainly not at page 10.  I'm gonna try to make the will save against posting some more.  I don't think I can explain my point any better than I have already.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 10, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'm gonna try to make the will save against posting some more.



So you're not going to post again in this thread?

Daniel


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 10, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> The statement "only Heal reverses Feeblemind" does not specifically exclude Break Enchantment.  To specifically exclude Break Enchantment you'd need wording like "Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind".  The only way that Break Enchantment is excluded by the statement "only Heal reverses Feeblemind" is by being not-Heal.  And that is a very non-specific exclusion.




If you wrote Feeblemind, and wrote "Only Heal reverses Feeblemind.  Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind."... could you honestly look at that pair of sentences and not feel that the second one is completely and utterly redundant?

-Hyp.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 10, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you wrote Feeblemind, and wrote "Only Heal reverses Feeblemind.  Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind."... could you honestly look at that pair of sentences and not feel that the second one is completely and utterly redundant?
> 
> -Hyp.



Will save failed.

I am not suggesting that as possible wording.  I am saying that "Only Heal reverses Feeblemind" refers to Break Enchantment in a non-specific (but still unambiguous) fashion, while "Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind" refers to it in a specific fashion.

Frankly, the spell doesn't have to list its removal conditions at all; Heal already says that it will work, and the other three spells listed can all replicate Heal.  So the current text is redundant. (Something is either redundant or it isn't; "completely and utterly redundant" is, well, redundant. )

If a designer wished Feeblemind to be irreversible by Break Enchantment, they should fix the wording of Break Enchantment.  And while they are at it, they can either remove the reference to _stone to flesh_ or change the wording so the spell can actually do something about it; as it is, the "of 5th level or lower" makes this application impossible.  Actually, I don't understand why it reverses instantaneous effects at all.  It is just bizarre that it can remove the effect of Reincarnate or Awaken, and if the designer intent is that it not affect Feeblemind... well, what instantaneous effects are left?


----------



## Felix (Nov 10, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> On lucky days Alan hits any pitch that is 90 mph or slower.
> Bill throws 75 mph curve balls that nobody can hit, except Carl.
> 
> 
> What happens if Bill pitches Alan one of his 75 mph curve balls on one of Alan's lucky days?



Your amendment is unacceptable, because the language of _Break Enchantment_ does not say the equivalent of "hits any pitch", it merely says "can hit curve balls". It then goes on to refine which curves he _can_ hit, instead of specifying which curves he _will_ hit.

_Feeblemind_ would have been a curve Alan could have hit, were it not for the clause that specifies, "only Carl can hit these curves".

With these two conditions:


> On lucky days Alan hits any pitch that is 90 mph or slower.
> Bill throws 75 mph curve balls that nobody can hit, except Carl.



And assuming a lucky day, these two statements cannot both be true. Either Alan hits the curve, in which case the second is false, or he does not hit the curve, in which case the first is false. Happily, this is not the language used in the two spells under discussion.

It is possible for the clauses in both spells to be true, but only if _Break Enchantment_ does not cure _Feeblemind_. Similarly, it is possible for Alan to hit curves, and yet not be able to hit Bill's curve. The truth of _Feeblemind_'s clause does not prevent the clause in _Break Enchantment_ from also being true.

However, were _Break Enchantment_ to cure _Feeblemind_, then it is the case that the clause in _Feeblemind_ must be false.

---

I responded to your Apples and Non-apples post (#381) meaning to make clear that the prohibition in _Feeblemind_ is indeed specific, and not general, as you had claimed. This is why I posed the curveball question the way I did; that Alan can hit curve balls is a general truth, and not trespassed upon by the specific truth of only Carl being able to hit Bill's curve balls.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 10, 2006)

Feeblemind is not a more specific case of Break Enchantment. It is a more specific case than magic spells in general. so is Break Enchantment.

What happens if someone researches a 9th level spell, "Reverse Feeblemind," and casts it on a person afflicted with feeblemind?


----------



## Felix (Nov 10, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Feeblemind is not a more specific case of Break Enchantment. It is a more specific case than magic spells in general. so is Break Enchantment.



I assume you mean to say that BE is more specific than Feeblemind. If that is the case, what are the particulars of your argument? 



> What happens if someone researches a 9th level spell, "Reverse Feeblemind," and casts it on a person afflicted with feeblemind?



If the DM allowed that spell, it would change the rules of the game much like allowing _Panacea_ would. But simply because the rules can be changed by the DM does not change the meaning of the rules as they stand. Were the spell "Reverse Feeblemind" allowed, it would perforce be included in the list of allowable spells. But that would only happen after an alteration of the rules, and are we not discussing what the rules _are_ instead of what they _might be_?


----------



## glass (Nov 10, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So then you think that NO OTHER SPELLS can work?  That would include Mass Heal and Panacea, then.



Mass Heal works for reasons that have already been discussed at length.

Panacea doesn't work, by default. Like anything in a supplement, it is an optional variant, which if you choose to use it in your game, can also remove feeblmind. Becuase _you_ have given it the power to do so.


glass.


----------



## glass (Nov 10, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> What happens if someone researches a 9th level spell, "Reverse Feeblemind," and casts it on a person afflicted with feeblemind?



It could be worded something like, 't_his spell acts like heal, except as above and that it only reverses feeblmind. It does not have any of the other beneficial effects of heal_'. In which case it would work for the same reason as mass heal.

Alternatively, it could just say, '_this spell reverses feeblemind_', and by allowing the spell in his game the DM is effectively modifying feeblemenind to allow it to work, just like with Panacea.

In either case though, it seems a little weak for a 9th level spell. 


glass.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 10, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But apart from that, I don't understand how you can claim that making someone a statue is different to making someone a corpse.  Both are instantaneous effects.  What is the lasting effect of Flesh to Stone?  How is it different to the lasting effect of Power Word Kill?




One is an actual transformation, the other is not. Turning someone into a corpse is not a lasting effect, like turning someone into stone. It's not what the spell does, the spell 'only' kills you. Becoming a corpse is a result from dying, not the direct effect of the spell, unlike being turned to stone.



> Apart from this one, in the description of Dispel Magic: _Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled_...?
> 
> Dispel Magic explicitly states that it cannot dispel instantaneous effects.  Flesh to Stone is an instantaneous effect.  Therefore Flesh to Stone cannot be dispelled by Dispel Magic.




Of course, all of that is correct from the text, but it doesn't apply.
The problem is, that they used a term, which isn't really accurate.

The note is pretty much what I have written above... there is no way to use dispel, hence it cannot be dispelled (<- colloquial, not game term). It's a trait of instantaneous rather than the spell itself. The 'cannot be dispelled' (<- game term) from BE is meant as a trait of the spell itself only, however.

It's not possible to get to this conclusion by looking at the pure game texts. It only becomes clear within the context. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Nov 10, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> So you're not going to post again in this thread?




Trying to... not doing. 

He didn't train with a Jedi Master, apparantly. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 10, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> It's not possible to get to this conclusion by looking at the pure game texts.




Well, we agree there!

It's not possible to reach that conclusion by looking at the rules.



> It's a trait of instantaneous rather than the spell itself.




And the spell, being instantaneous, inherits that trait.

You're actually contending that when something "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic", it doesn't mean the same as "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic", because it's a different kind of "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic"?

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 10, 2006)

Pretty much, yep. 

There are two kinds of 'cannot be dispelled', one is the actual rule specific to a spell (_Bestow Curse_ cannot be dispelled), the other is a realization of a more general nature (_Dispel Magic_ cannot dispel instantaneous spells).

Two different (yet very similar) things with the same name.

And I'm reasonably sure, that they only speak of the first one in the _Break Enchantment_ description.



> It's not possible to reach that conclusion by looking at the rules.




BTW, I don't agree with this. The examples are part of the rules and are sometimes necessary to actually understand the rules, because they are not written in a precise-enough fashion to make sense by themselves. 

This is one such case.

By RAW alone, the game doesn't work at all, anyways.
Without some interpretation you will often run into terms, which are completely undefined and thus impossible to use.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 10, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Mass Heal works for reasons that have already been discussed at length.
> 
> Panacea doesn't work, by default. Like anything in a supplement, it is an optional variant, which if you choose to use it in your game, can also remove feeblmind. Becuase _you_ have given it the power to do so.
> 
> ...




I was making a point - I agree Mass Heal works.

However, you were bending over backwards to assert the list as absolutely, positively the ONLY possible remedies.

And now you say the list REALLY means spells on the PLUS things that work like spells on the list.

That's an expansion of the list right there.  No matter how small or insignificant, it is an expansion of the list.

It may be implied in the original list, but since it is not stated, it's still an expansion.

.
.
.

Further, the unless clause is really permissive rather than restrictive.  That it, is is not complete (unless you disallow Mass Heal). 

The list already includes redundant spells, and thus either it is intended to be the totally complete list or it is not.

I say it is not.  It lists remedies, but it is possible there may be others.  Break Enchantment is one such other.

I also claim that Break Enchantment works unless *specifically* prohibited *by name*.  That is the same restriction I place upon Dispel Magic.  Because of the extreme difficulty of listing all possible magical remedies, those which are universal (within there qualifying set of spells) remedies (like Dispel Magic and Break Enchantment and Antimagic Field) must be excluded if they are to have no effect.  This is done in every other spell in the PHB, so I see no reason not to do that here as well.

I also contend, of course, that Break Enchantment is *unique* in that it can reverse any qualifying instantaneous effects (though only those that have a "victim," per the BE spell description.)

There are EXACTLY two such spell in the PHB, and one of those is questionable as to whether it qualifies (Unholy Blight is remoc3ed with Remove Curse but is not labeled as a "curse"), leaving only one clearly qualify spell:  Feeblemind.

If you do not allow Feeblemind to work than, short of optional rules, the reversing of instantaneous effects has absolutely no meaning as it can never happen, except from optional rules or situations the DM creates not contained within the core rules.

That is completely unacceptable to me, so I would, without hesitation, rule that Break Enchantment reverses Feeblemind (provided you are successful with the Caster Level check, of course).

So, for at least three good reasons, I submit that Break Enchantment works by a valid rules interpretation.  Not necessarily the ONLY valid rule interpretation, mind you.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 10, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Pretty much, yep. ...Bye
> Thanee




Thanee, I see where you are coming from.  I think it is a stretch, but justifiable. given the way the spell was written.  The becomes spell potentially and oddly much more powerful as ANY level of instantaneous effect could be reversed but NOT any level of other effects, like permanent ones.

I do not think that was intended, and I think the "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic" really does include instantaneous spells (because it really means exactly what it says).

Your interpretation is justified by the example of Flesh to Stone, which has not be errata'd out.

I think it is a position that very, very few agree with, but is, nonetheless, justifiable by the rules as written - even if a bit of a stretch.

*As I like to say, more than one correct answer is often possible given that the rules were not written with the level of precision that many would like to assume is present.*


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 10, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you wrote Feeblemind, and wrote "Only Heal reverses Feeblemind.  Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind."... could you honestly look at that pair of sentences and not feel that the second one is completely and utterly redundant?
> 
> -Hyp.




I could.  Or perhaps, more to the point, redundant but necessarily so.

Given the way all the rest of the PHB spells are written, it seems that WotC feels that to exclude unversally applicable spells (such as Dispel Magic) one lists them by name.

The "unversally applicable" spells are:

Dispel Magic for all non-instantaneous spells
Greater Dispel Magic (covered by Dispel Magic, except is does reproduce "Remove Curse" effects)
M's Disjunction (maybe, it's arguable whether Dispel Magic covers it)
Antimagic Field
Break Enchament (for all spells within the defintion in BE)

I view the treatment of Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field in the PHB spell descriptions as precedent for allowing BE to be effective unless prohibited by name.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 10, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> And now you say the list REALLY means spells on the PLUS things that work like spells on the list.
> 
> That's an expansion of the list right there.  No matter how small or insignificant, it is an expansion of the list.
> 
> ...




As has been stated before, allowing Mass Heal to work in place of Heal is not an expansion of the spell list.  It is a modification to the definition of Heal.  Also, your last arguement seems to be entirely motivated by balance and intent, which I would not accept to be an arguement about how the rules work (rather, how they _should _ work).

This leaves you with one reason, not three.  

I am still contemplating how an instantaneous spell truly functions.  One of the major issues I am currently wrestling with is whether an instantaneous enchantment (like feeblemind) works the same as other instantaneous spells (such as Animate Dead, an abjuration).


----------



## Thanee (Nov 10, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The becomes spell potentially and oddly much more powerful as ANY level of instantaneous effect could be reversed but NOT any level of other effects, like permanent ones.




Considering, that many people thought the spell was rather weak, that can't be such a bad thing, I guess. 



> I do not think that was intended, and I think the "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic" really does include instantaneous spells (because it really means exactly what it says).




Always hard to say, but the example surely implies, that the intent lies there... it has also been exactly that way in 3.0, and they made a lot of changes to the spells in the transition (they also made some changes to the BE text, but only by removing redundant text from it).

Of course, it could simply be an oversight, but I would rather think, that they did not realize, that the 'cannot be dispelled' would technically include all instantaneous spells, not just those that I am talking about above.

Either way, only the original author of the spell could actually say how it is. 



> *As I like to say, more than one correct answer is often possible given that the rules were not written with the level of precision that many would like to assume is present.*




Very true! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 10, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> As has been stated before, allowing Mass Heal to work in place of Heal is not an expansion of the spell list.  It is a modification to the definition of Heal.  Also, your last arguement seems to be entirely motivated by balance and intent, which I would not accept to be an arguement about how the rules work (rather, how they _should _ work).
> 
> This leaves you with one reason, not three.
> 
> I am still contemplating how an instantaneous spell truly functions.  One of the major issues I am currently wrestling with is whether an instantaneous enchantment (like feeblemind) works the same as other instantaneous spells (such as Animate Dead, an abjuration).




There can be no doubt whatsosever that Mass Heal is not on the list, can there?

The list is not Heal "and spells that act like Heal"... It is Heal, ...

In fact one could even argue that Mass Heal does NOT work because it was left off the list (I woudn't, as it would be a ludicrously weak argument).

You have to do SOMETHING to the list to have Mass Heal work.  Mass Heal is unquestionably NOT the same spell as Heal.

Sure it "functions like heal," but it is clearly it's own spell with it's own entry in the PHB spell list.

Again, I do not argue that Mass Heal does not work - I think it does, of course,  But, one must expand the list to allow it if one is to call the list truly exclusionary.

That, of course, is the problem with attempting to have a 100% exclusionary list.  It's too easy to have an oversight.

That's why BE needs to be excluded by name for the exclusion to be valid.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 10, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> ...Either way, only the original author of the spell could actually say how it is. ...Bye
> Thanee




Actually, no... Once it is published the orginal author no longer has any say, except to possibly explain that person's intent.

It needs to be fixed in errata or explained in the FAQ for there to be any real weight in the orginal author's remarks.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 10, 2006)

That's what I meant... what the _intent_ actually is (or was).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Nov 10, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Again, I do not argue that Mass Heal does not work - I think it does, of course,  But, one must expand the list to allow it if one is to call the list truly exclusionary.
> 
> That, of course, is the problem with attempting to have a 100% exclusionary list.  It's too easy to have an oversight.
> 
> That's why BE needs to be excluded by name for the exclusion to be valid.




You surely do not want to argue, that the inclusion of _Mass Heal_ and the inclusion of _Break Enchantment_ are somewhere even nearly on the same level, or do you?



> The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.




Is _Mass Heal_ (or more correctly: _Heal, Mass_) a heal spell?

Quite certainly it is. It's not _the_ _Heal_ spell, though.

For comparison...


> (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name)




Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 10, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> You surely do not want to argue, that the inclusion of _Mass Heal_ and the inclusion of _Break Enchantment_ are somewhere even nearly on the same level, or do you?




Nope.  I only argue that the list is incomplete as presented in the book.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Is _Mass Heal_ (or more correctly: _Heal, Mass_) a heal spell?
> 
> Quite certainly it is. It's not _the_ _Heal_ spell, though.
> 
> ...




The list clearly refers to the spells named "heal, limited wish, wish and miracle."

I guess Heal Mount in included, too.  Missed that earlier

If you go with the somewhat vague notion of "heal" spells in general, potentially the whole list of "Cure" spells will work as they are Conjuration (Healing).

D&D generally does not use capital letters for spell like we do on this site.  They use lower case, adn you can tell it is a spell name form context.


----------



## sirwmholder (Nov 10, 2006)

Maybe we are looking at this from the wrong angle or too literally... Break Enchantment states: "This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses..." Enchantments and Transmutations are schools of magic within the confines of D&D but Curses are not.  Therefore one could assume that the intent of this general spell is to aid in freeing victims of general enchantments, transmutations and curses not every spell within the Enchantment school or the Transmutation school.  So we are left with what's a general enchantment, transmutation or curse?  Enchantments are compulsions that bend the will of the victim to fulfill your desires... Transmutations are the transforming of the victim into a toad, chair, or stone... Curses are a bit more variable but they usually hold the person back from doing something they want to do or force the person to do something they wouldn't normally do.  I content Feeblemind does not fit any of those perimeters and therefore not subject to Break Enchantment.

Feeblemind is not an enchantment because you are not charmed. You are not anything other than you therefore no transmutation.  It is not a curse because the victim most likely will not have the intelligence to understand that he is not in a natural state and would act as any Int 1 creature would.

However your brain is broken therefore you need to have your brain Healed by either the spell or a wish or miracle.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## Thanee (Nov 10, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> D&D generally does not use capital letters for spell like we do on this site.  They use lower case, adn you can tell it is a spell name form context.




Yeah, most likely, though even in that context, I would consider _Heal, Mass_ as a spell of the _Heal_ line, which should be included when you say _Heal_ works.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 10, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, most likely, though even in that context, I would consider _Heal, Mass_ as a spell of the _Heal_ line, which should be included when you say _Heal_ works.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




I'm not saying it should not be.

I am saying that if one considers the list to be a truly 100% exclusive, no exceptions, list than Mass Heal is not included.

I agree Mass Heal works.

Therefore the list is not truly 100% exclusive.

That's all I am saying.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 10, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, most likely, though even in that context, I would consider _Heal, Mass_ as a spell of the _Heal_ line, which should be included when you say _Heal_ works.




Exactly.  The fact that Mass Heal works is not adding anything to the list of spells that breaks Feeblemind.  It is simply expanding upon what is meant by Heal.

It would be the same as saying "John only likes apples."  The fact that John can like green apples, and red apples, and crab apples is not contradictory to the statement in any way, and does not require any additions to the list, just different definitions of what is meant by "apple".  The list is still exclusive.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 10, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> ...However your brain is broken therefore you need to have your brain Healed by either the spell or a wish or miracle.
> 
> Thank you for your time,
> Wm. Holder




Nothing inherently wrong with that analysis.  It's not what the rules say, but I would not have any trouble if that's the way you put it in a game you were running for me.

Still, it does leave you with only one spell left for which an instantaneous effect may be reversed, and that's Unholy Blight, which actually is not an enchantmetn or transmutataion or even called a "curse" so it might not even apply either.

If you allow Unholy Blight to be reversed, than at least that's one instantaneous effect that can be reversed by BE.


----------



## Neverwill (Nov 10, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I also contend, of course, that Break Enchantment is *unique* in that it can reverse any qualifying instantaneous effects (though only those that have a "victim," per the BE spell description.)
> 
> There are EXACTLY two such spell in the PHB, and one of those is questionable as to whether it qualifies (Unholy Blight is remoc3ed with Remove Curse but is not labeled as a "curse"), leaving only one clearly qualify spell:  Feeblemind.
> 
> ...




Spell-wise, people have brought up others that have instananeous effects - Awaken, Mnemonic Enhancer, Reincarnate, and Telekinesis.

Regardless, why does BE have to reverse instantaneous effects that only derive from spells?  There are many other kinds of effects in the core rules that may apply, such as inflicted lycanthropy or the Sea Hag's Evil Eye.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 11, 2006)

Neverwill said:
			
		

> Spell-wise, people have brought up others that have instananeous effects - Awaken, Mnemonic Enhancer, Reincarnate, and Telekinesis.
> 
> Regardless, why does BE have to reverse instantaneous effects that only derive from spells?  There are many other kinds of effects in the core rules that may apply, such as inflicted lycanthropy or the Sea Hag's Evil Eye.




*I* brought most of those up.     Telekinesis is a but much (so do they actually get "un-tossed" if they have been tossed by telekinesis.  How?  What really happens when this is done no sooner than one minute later (casting time of BE).  Besides, the effect is getting tossed, not getting damaged, so what gets reversed?  The others do not generate "victims" of the effect, so likely BE does not really apply anyway.

Lycanthropy can be cured with Break Enchantment, if cast at the time.  But it is not defined as a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect, it simply states in Lycanthropy that Break Henchmen works.

The Sea Hag's Evil Eye may or may not be cues by BE.  IT is not defined as an "Instantaneous" effect of fifth level or lower, but it can be cured by Remove Curse, so likely BE will work.

In either case BE does not apply by virtue of the effect being a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect.

This still leave EXACTLY ONE clear case of a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect that could be reversed by BE.  Feeblemind.

That's it.  Everything else defined as a fifth-level or lower instantaneous effect that would be reversed with BE has issues with applying BE, and even Feeblemind has that troublesome "until" list.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 11, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> This still leave EXACTLY ONE clear case of a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect that could be reversed by BE.  Feeblemind.
> 
> That's it.  Everything else defined as a fifth-level or lower instantaneous effect that would be reversed with BE has issues with applying BE, and even Feeblemind has that troublesome "until" list.




The "until" list makes it not a particularly clear case of a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect that could be reversed by BE, don't you think?  

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 11, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The "until" list makes it not a particularly clear case of a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect that could be reversed by BE, don't you think?
> 
> -Hyp.




Correct. 

It is my contention that, as written, there is more than one reasonble way to interpret whether BE applies to Feeblemind or not. 

There is good evidence it does (and/or should) and good evidence it does not.


----------



## glass (Nov 13, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I guess Heal Mount in included, too.  Missed that earlier
> 
> If you go with the somewhat vague notion of "heal" spells in general, potentially the whole list of "Cure" spells will work as they are Conjuration (Healing).



Does heal mount say that it 'works likle heal'? If so then it would certainly remove feeblemind from your mount.

The various cure X wounds spells most certainly do not say that they workl like heal, regardless of which subschool they happen to be in.


glass.


----------



## glass (Nov 13, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it should not be.
> 
> I am saying that if one considers the list to be a truly 100% exclusive, no exceptions, list than Mass Heal is not included.
> 
> I agree Mass Heal works. Therefore the list is not truly 100% exclusive.



The _language_ of the list is truly 100% exclusive.

Therefore the list is 100% exclusive unless specific language elsewhere decrees otherwise. Mass heal has specific language otherwise, panacea has specific language otherwise, break enchantment does not.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 13, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> The _language_ of the list is truly 100% exclusive.
> 
> Therefore the list is 100% exclusive unless specific language elsewhere decrees otherwise. Mass heal has specific language otherwise, panacea has specific language otherwise, break enchantment does not.
> 
> ...




Yes and no....

If the list is as specific as it seems (and is claimed) to be, inlcuding listing redundant spells, then it does not, strictly speaking, include Mass Heal.

Mass Heal is NOT Heal.  It works LIKE Heal, true, but it is clearly NOT Heal.

Now I do agree that the list should be expanded to include those spells that work like those on the list, but, not matter how trivial and obviously implied, that's still an expansion of the list.

Because of that, the list cannot said to be*truly* 100% exclusive.  

At a minimum, to be 100% exclusive requires adding the (reasonably) implied language of "and those spells like these" or "and those spells that duplicate the effects of these," or something like that.

Of course, it does not matter anyway, as Break Enchantment shoudl have been excluded * by name* if that was the intent.


----------



## glass (Nov 13, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Yes and no....
> 
> If the list is as specific as it seems (and is claimed) to be, inlcuding listing redundant spells, then it does not, strictly speaking, include Mass Heal.
> 
> Mass Heal is NOT Heal.  It works LIKE Heal, true, but it is clearly NOT Heal.



It 'works like heal except...'. Unless you fall within the boundaries of the 'except', as far as the rest of the game is concerned, mass heal _is_ heal.

[SBLOCK=Heal, Mass]Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 9, Healing 9 Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Targets: One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart

This spell functions like heal, except as noted above. The maximum number of hit points restored to each creature is 250.[/SBLOCK]The level, the range, the number of targets, and the cap; those are the differences. No mention of feeblemind, so that is not one of the differences. Therefore, for the purposes of feeblemind, mass heal is heal.


glass.


----------



## Neverwill (Nov 13, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In either case BE does not apply by virtue of the effect being a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect.




There is no such thing as a "fifth level instantaneous effect."  This limitation is only if the effect is derived from a spell.  Below are the relevant snippets.



			
				SRD - Break Enchantment said:
			
		

> ...Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous *effect*...If the *spell* is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that *spell* is 5th level or lower.




Emphasis mine.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 13, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> It 'works like heal except...'. Unless you fall within the boundaries of the 'except', as far as the rest of the game is concerned, mass heal _is_ heal.
> 
> [SBLOCK=Heal, Mass]Conjuration (Healing)
> Level: Clr 9, Healing 9 Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Targets: One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
> ...




While I pretty much agree, it is still true that they are different spells and Mass Heal works LIKE Heal.  IT is NOT Heal, it works LIKE Heal.

In most instances if you say Heal you really mean to include spells that act like Heal, such as Mass Heal and Heal Mount.

However, that's only in most instances, not all.  For example, a PC is not a legal target for Heal Mount.

Thus, to be 100% complete, the list should have included Mass Heal.  After all, it included Wish when that was 100% redundant.

Mind you, I may be splitting hairs, but that makes it no less true.


----------



## glass (Nov 13, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Of course, it does not matter anyway, as Break Enchantment shoudl have been excluded * by name* if that was the intent.



No it shouldn't. The list of things that do remove feeblemind is shorter than the list of things that don't, so that is what they should have printed (and what they did print).

Under no circumstances should the print a list of things that do remove it and a list of things that don't. That is about as confusing as you can get. Which takes priority?


glass.


----------



## glass (Nov 13, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> While I pretty much agree, it is still true that they are different spells and Mass Heal works LIKE Heal.  IT is NOT Heal, it works LIKE Heal.



In the abstract sense, it is like heal but not heal. But we are not talking about the abstract general case, we are talking about the specific case of how it affects feeblemind.

Feeblemind cannot tell the difference. In fact, for the purposes of  of feeblemind, there is no difference to tell: it is heal.

And even if it wasn't, mass heal (by reference to heal) specifically says it removes feeblemind. As I have said all along, the list is exclusive unless _specifically_ overruled.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 13, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> No it shouldn't. The list of things that do remove feeblemind is shorter than the list of things that don't, so that is what they should have printed (and what they did print).
> 
> Under no circumstances should the print a list of things that do remove it and a list of things that don't. That is about as confusing as you can get. Which takes priority?
> 
> glass.




Both.  Why do you think Dispel Magic is listed every time it does not apply to a non-instantaneous spell?  Because it is universal, and thus ALWAYS applies unless prohibited by name.

In the same way, every time Break Enchantment should work but does not it should be listed. 

In the PHB that comes down to one spell:  Feeblemind.

Of course, keep in mond that for BE to apply to an instantaneous spell, the spell must:

1.  Be fifth level or lower.
2.  Be an Enchantment, Transmutation and/or a Curse.
3.  Have a "victim" of its effects (be harmful in some way).

In the entire Core Rules, only one effect fits all those criteria clearly:  Feeblemind.

Given that, do you not think it was required to eliminate Beak Enchantment by name if it were to not reverse the effect of the spell?

Of course, in this case there was no reason to list anything in the first place.  All it has done is create confusion.

If you disallow BE to work, there there is NO fifth level or lower instantanous effect left for it to reverse.   The only possibility is Unholy Blight, and only if you consider it a "curse" based solely on the fact that Remove Curse can "cure" it - a reasonable ruling, if not totally clear-cut.

By the way, it terms of listing spells that should work but don't work to reverse Feeblemind how many are there?  Hardly an infinite list.  If you do not allow BE to work, the list comes down to one:  Break Enchantment.

If BE was truly meant to NOT work, it would have been far easier to simply state that "not even Break Enchantment can reverse the effects of Feeblemind, though Heal and the like will do so."

That's the sort of language that ALL the other spells use when trying to eliminate a normally universal solution like Dispel Magic, for example.  Based upon that example, I submit that precedent has been set that unversally applicable solutions will work to counter spells unless specifically, by name, eliminated form working.

"Universally Applicable" solutions are very limited.  Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, Remove Curse and Break Enchantment come to mind.  That's about it.

In ALL the rest of the core rules:

If an effect (non-instantaneous) cannot be affacted by Dispel Magic, it says so specifcally.
If a curse cannot be removed by "Remove Curse" it says so specifically.
If a spell's non-instantaneous effects remain in a Antimagic Field, it says so specifically (generally, a instantaneous spell leaves behind a non-magical effect).

By precendent, if a spell meets all the criteria for Break Enchantment (that is, Feeblemind), thatn it must exclude Break Enchantment by name if the exclusion is truly valid.

Now this last bit is not a true rule, but if Feeblemind is the ONLY example where, arguably, this was not done.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 13, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> ...Under no circumstances should the print a list of things that do remove it and a list of things that don't. That is about as confusing as you can get. Which takes priority?
> 
> 
> glass.




On the contrary:

*Many* spells already do this, and do so with little or no confusion.


----------



## gnfnrf (Nov 13, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If an effect (non-instantaneous) cannot be affacted by Dispel Magic, it says so specifcally.
> If a curse cannot be removed by "Remove Curse" it says so specifically.
> If a spell's non-instantaneous effects remain in a Antimagic Field, it says so specifically (generally, a instantaneous spell leaves behind a non-magical effect).
> 
> By precendent, if a spell meets all the criteria for Break Enchantment (that is, Feeblemind), thatn it must exclude Break Enchantment by name if the exclusion is truly valid.




Do any non-instantaneous effects (that presumably can be dispelled, since they don't mention it) but with other means of removal, use the "effect remains until xyz" wording?

For example, stoneskin doesn't say "stoneskin remains until the duration expires or it absorbs x damage", it says "Once the spell has prevented x damage, it is discharged."

I'm not trying to take the other side here, I just think that if there were another spell worded like Feeblemind, it would help to sort the situation out.

EDIT:

The closest I've found is Glitterdust.  Glitterdust "cannot be removed."  If BE doesn't work on feeblemind, than Dispel Magic doesn't work on Glitterdust, which seems a little wierder, but isn't the end of the world.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 13, 2006)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> Do any non-instantaneous effects (that presumably can be dispelled, since they don't mention it) but with other means of removal, use the "effect remains until xyz" wording?
> 
> For example, stoneskin doesn't say "stoneskin remains until the duration expires or it absorbs x damage", it says "Once the spell has prevented x damage, it is discharged."
> 
> ...




As far as I know, no.  Makes one wonder why they chose not to use the clear language contained in many other spells.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 13, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> But the list is infiniti.



 Good God, don't drag me into this mess.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 13, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Good God, don't drag me into this mess.




My apologies for any misperception.   I did not say "Infinti2000" or even use upper case, so I clearly was talking about some OTHER "infiniti," right?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 13, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> My apologies for any misperception.   I did not say "Infinti2000" or even use upper case, so I clearly was talking about some OTHER "infiniti," right?



 S'okay.  I actually misquoted you on purpose for humor value.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 13, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> S'okay.  I actually misquoted you on purpose for humor value.





Of course.  That's also why I responded.    Things do get a little too serious from time to time.


----------



## glass (Nov 14, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> On the contrary: *Many* spells already do this, and do so with little or no confusion.



Such as?


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 14, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Such as?
> 
> 
> glass.




For starters:

Antmagic Field, Prismatic Wall, Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser, Sysmbol of Death, Geas, Lesser, Wall of Force, Forcecage, Geas/Quest

Note especially these lines from Geas, Lesser andGeas/Quest:

"A lesser geas (and all ability score penalties) can be ended by break enchantment, limited wish, remove curse, miracle, or wish. Dispel magic does not affect a lesser geas"

"A remove curse spell ends a geas/quest spell only if its caster level is at least two higher than your caster level. Break enchantment does not end a geas/quest, but limited wish, miracle, and wish do."


----------



## gnfnrf (Nov 14, 2006)

Spells that apparently cannot be removed by Dispel Magic:

Sepia Snake Sigil (after triggered)

"If the target fails its save, it is engulfed in a shimmering amber field of force and immobilized until released, either at your command or when 1d4 days + one day per caster level have elapsed."

Protection From Energy (with resist energy as well)

"If a character is warded by protection from energy and resist energy, the protection spell absorbs damage until its power is exhausted."

Animal Shapes

"Recipients remain in the animal form until the spell expires or until you dismiss it for all recipients. In addition, an individual subject may choose to resume its normal form as a full-round action; doing so ends the spell for that subject alone."

Control Winds

"The new wind direction and strength persist until the spell ends or until you choose to alter your handiwork, which requires concentration."

Glitterdust (mentioned in edit above)

"All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades."


Now, many of these are silly.  But I remind you, the wording in them is substantially the same as feeblemind.

Feeblemind

"The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind."

The point of all of this is to say that I believe the "until" construction is not intended to be strictly read.  It is simply a way of stating means of removing the effect, not an exhaustive way.  If you read it strictly in one spell, you have to read it strictly in many spells, and the game becomes less playable.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 14, 2006)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> Spells that apparently cannot be removed by Dispel Magic:




I assume you mant "...if you take the "until" clauses to be 100% exlusionary."



			
				gnfnrf said:
			
		

> ...The point of all of this is to say that I believe the "until" construction is not intended to be strictly read.  It is simply a way of stating means of removing the effect, not an exhaustive way.  If you read it strictly in one spell, you have to read it strictly in many spells, and the game becomes less playable.
> 
> --
> gnfnrf




Thanks.  That's pretty much my point.  Especially ..."If you read it strictly in one spell, you have to read it strictly in many spells, and the game becomes less playable"


----------



## glass (Nov 14, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> For starters:



Lets check the SRD:


> Antmagic Field



No.


> Prismatic Wall



No.


> Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser



No.


> Sysmbol of Death



No.


> Geas, Lesser



No.


> Wall of Force



No.


> Forcecage



No.


> Geas/Quest



No.

None of those spells have anything even resembling exculsive language on both lists.


glass.


----------



## PallidPatience (Nov 14, 2006)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> Spells that apparently cannot be removed by Dispel Magic:
> 
> Sepia Snake Sigil (after triggered)
> 
> "If the target fails its save, it is engulfed in a shimmering amber field of force and immobilized until released, either at your command or when 1d4 days + one day per caster level have elapsed."




This is the secondary effect of the spell. Later, there is a line that states "A dispel magic can remove the sigil". Still, I would contend that Dispel Magic would free the victim as though 1d4+1 day/caster level had elapsed. As mentioned, "a dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired". Also, "Dispel magic can dispel (but not counter) spell-like effects just as it does spells." So if you want to take the paralyzation caused by sepia snake sigil as a spell-like effect, it's covered, too.



> Protection From Energy (with resist energy as well)
> 
> "If a character is warded by protection from energy and resist energy, the protection spell absorbs damage until its power is exhausted."




If the spell is successfully dispelled, is the character still "warded by protection from energy and resist energy"? If so, then was the spell successfully dispelled at all? If not, then this line is entirely irrelevant. Before it has been dispelled, however, this line defines how the spell behaves. Until the power is exhausted, it absorbs damage.



> Animal Shapes
> 
> "Recipients remain in the animal form until the spell expires or until you dismiss it for all recipients. In addition, an individual subject may choose to resume its normal form as a full-round action; doing so ends the spell for that subject alone."




Dispel Magic ends a spell as though it had expired. Therefore, a successfully dispelled Animal Shapes has the characters on which the effect was ended returning to their original forms, just as it says in the spell.



> Control Winds
> 
> "The new wind direction and strength persist until the spell ends or until you choose to alter your handiwork, which requires concentration."




See my reply to Animal Shapes.



> Glitterdust (mentioned in edit above)
> 
> "All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades."




I agree with you, on this one. Except that I believe that the end of the line means that when the spell ends, the dust fades. Otherwise, it would make no sense to me. However, I think this is just a matter of interpretation. Therefore, according to my interpretation of the spell, Dispel Magic would cause the blindness to end and the outlining to end, at least, and the sparklies to go away at most. Probably all of the above.



> Now, many of these are silly.  But I remind you, the wording in them is substantially the same as feeblemind.
> 
> Feeblemind
> 
> "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind."




I contend that "until the spell ends due to the end of its duration" is very different than "until these four, specific spells are used".  After all, Dispel Magic specifically states that it causes a spell to end as though its duration was over, which fits within the "until" clause used in those spells. Actually, it fits in the same way that Mass Heal being allowed on Feeblemind does. 



> The point of all of this is to say that I believe the "until" construction is not intended to be strictly read.  It is simply a way of stating means of removing the effect, not an exhaustive way.  If you read it strictly in one spell, you have to read it strictly in many spells, and the game becomes less playable.
> 
> --
> gnfnrf




Using my above interpretations, which are often just due to careful readings of the spells and to which I can only see easy variation within the RAW under Glitterdust, and not even then, it's easy to strictly read the "until" clauses in every spell and play the game using the RAW.


----------



## sirwmholder (Nov 14, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If you allow Unholy Blight to be reversed, than at least that's one instantaneous effect that can be reversed by BE.



I don't hold that Unholy Blight could be reversed by Break Enchantment either.

Thanks for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## gnfnrf (Nov 15, 2006)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> I contend that "until the spell ends due to the end of its duration" is very different than "until these four, specific spells are used".  After all, Dispel Magic specifically states that it causes a spell to end as though its duration was over, which fits within the "until" clause used in those spells. Actually, it fits in the same way that Mass Heal being allowed on Feeblemind does.




I disagree with your assertion here.  Dispel Magic's function (as if the duration expired) explains what happens after you dispel, it doesn't determine what you can dispel.  Otherwise, you couldn't dispel any permanent effects.  However, I'm not going to stress this point, because it strikes me as inarguable one way or the other.

Instead, I will present another case from the SRD of potentially exclusive until clauses.  The last batch was by no means complete.

Imbue With Spell Ability

"Once you cast imbue with spell ability, you cannot prepare a new 4th-level spell to replace it until the recipient uses the imbued spells or is slain, or until you dismiss the imbue with spell ability spell."

This isn't a dispelling problem, the problem here is if the spell is dispelled, you can never use that 4th level slot again.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## PallidPatience (Nov 15, 2006)

While troublesome, I don't believe that this clause is at all relevant to the Feeblemind debate. It has nothing to do with ending conditions of the spell, but instead has to do with the return of a "component" of the spell. Whether or not Imbue with Spell Ability is dispellable isn't called into question by that statement. However, I'd rule that Dispel would cause Imbue to end as though discharged, since the duration is "Permanent until discharged". 



			
				gnfnrf said:
			
		

> I disagree with your assertion here. Dispel Magic's function (as if the duration expired) explains what happens after you dispel, it doesn't determine what you can dispel. Otherwise, you couldn't dispel any permanent effects. However, I'm not going to stress this point, because it strikes me as inarguable one way or the other.




I believe it's arguable. 

Dispel Magic reads that Instantaneous effects cannot be dispelled. Nor, it says, does it defeat some spells, as detailed in their descriptions.

Permanent spells are, by definition, not instantaneous. Nor does Imbue with Spell Ability state that it cannot be dispelled, or list a specific, exclusive set of ways to end the spell's effect. Therefore, it is defeatable by Dispel Magic.

What happens when a duration of Permanent expires? The same thing that happens when any duration expires: the spell ends. Without specific wording otherwise, this merely means that the effects of the spell poof out of existence with no warning. Whether or not the duration could expire on its own is no factor. Dispel Magic causes the duration to expire. "Ends as if its duration has expired" is different from "ends as though its duration has expired normally". The second is problematic, since permanent durations DON'T expire normally. If the spell said that, I'd agree with you.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 15, 2006)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> While troublesome, I don't believe that this clause is at all relevant to the Feeblemind debate. ...




Of *course* it is relevant.  It demonstrates the fallacy of  applying absolute precision to the word "until."

It is clear from the above examples that WotC editors did not intend the word "until" to be taken as a absolute qualifier.  It many cases the rules break down if you do so.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 15, 2006)

sirwmholder said:
			
		

> I don't hold that Unholy Blight could be reversed by Break Enchantment either.
> 
> Thanks for your time,
> Wm. Holder




Leaving exactly zero instantaneous effects that can be reversed by Break Enchantment.

And you are okay with that, right?


----------



## sirwmholder (Nov 15, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Leaving exactly zero instantaneous effects that can be reversed by Break Enchantment.
> 
> And you are okay with that, right?



I'm perfectly fine with that... I think the line... Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect... is an error.  Just remove it and everything works fine.  Break Enchantment was never meant to reverse Feeblemind or Unholy Blight the only two instantaneous effects that it could arguably 'cure'. 

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder


----------



## gnfnrf (Nov 16, 2006)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> Whether or not Imbue with Spell Ability is dispellable isn't called into question by that statement. However, I'd rule that Dispel would cause Imbue to end as though discharged, since the duration is "Permanent until discharged".




Maybe I didn't make it clear.  Imbue with Spell Ability is clearly dispellable.  The question is, what happens to the spell slot?  The spell text gives an exclusive list of conditions when it comes back, and the spell being dispelled is not on it.  So therefore, if Imbue with Spell Ability is dispelled, the slot does not become available for use again until the creature is killed.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 16, 2006)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> Maybe I didn't make it clear.  Imbue with Spell Ability is clearly dispellable.  The question is, what happens to the spell slot?  The spell text gives an exclusive list of conditions when it comes back, and the spell being dispelled is not on it.  So therefore, if Imbue with Spell Ability is dispelled, the slot does not become available for use again until the creature is killed.
> 
> --
> gnfnrf




Right.  This is exactly what happens when you try and put too much precision into what is obviously imprecise use of the language.

Which is also what is happenig when one disallows Feeblemind to be reversed with Break Enchantment


----------



## PallidPatience (Nov 16, 2006)

When Imbue with Spell Ability is discharged, the spell slot is returned. When Dispel Magic is applied to Imbue with Spell Ability, it ends as though discharged (as far as I can tell). Therefore, when Dispel Magic is applied to Imbue with Spell Ability, the spell slot is returned.

THAT language is imprecise through omission of such a vital detail. Feeblemind's is not imprecise at all. As far as arguing Feeblemind is concerned, though, I'm not arguing any further. It's been made clear that we're using different dictionaries.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 16, 2006)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> ...It's been made clear that we're using different dictionaries.



No, I do not think that is the problem.  The fact (that is seemingly ignored from the "until" side of this  debate) is that WotC repeatedly uses the word "only " in a very loose, non-exclusive way in many other spell descriptions.  What indication is there that this is *the one place* we should take it seriously and exclude everything not on "the list?"


----------



## glass (Nov 16, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> It is clear from the above examples that WotC editors did not *intend* the word "until" to be taken as a absolute qualifier.  It many cases the rules break down if you do so.



Ah, so you are talking about intent? I thought we'd been discussing the RAW for the last 10 pages!   


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 16, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Ah, so you are talking about intent? I thought we'd been discussing the RAW for the last 10 pages!
> 
> 
> glass.




Q.  Is the word "until" as a precise term in the PHB?
A.  No.  Many, examples when above make this clear.

Q.  Is the "until" list in Feeblemind an "exclusive" list of all possible remedies for the state of "Feeblemindedness?"
A.  No, it cannot be.  The word "until" has no precedent within the rules for being used in such a precise manner.  There is no valid reason to assume it is being used that way here.  

Further, of course, the list is not even complete, leaving out at least Mass Heal, Heal Mount and any possibility for expansion material.  Of course, one can logically assume such an expansion of the list is implied, I suppose, but that opens the door to other possible expansions of the list.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 16, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Q. Is the word "until" as a precise term in the PHB?
> A. No. Many, examples when above make this clear.
> ...
> There is no valid reason to assume it is being used that way here.




Let's do the time warp  again!


----------



## glass (Nov 17, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> glass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You didn't answer the question. 

So are you talking about the RAW now, and disavowing post No 456?

Or are you talking about the intent, in which case do you conceed that your position is not RAW?


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 17, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> So are you talking about the RAW now, and disavowing post No 456?
> 
> ...




ROFL. One cannot discuss core rules  RAW without discussing the meaning of the words, as evidenced by how they are used in the core rules.

Quite a few examples have been presented that demonstrate, as used in the PHB, the word "until" is not used as a fully exclusive term.

Therefore the defintion of "until," *as used in the PHB*, does not include it's use to define 100% exclusivity.

I submit that this is generally true outside of the PHB as well.  Generally, in common usage, the word "until" does not define a truly exclusive condition.  One normally uses stronger language for that.


----------



## glass (Nov 17, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> ROFL. One cannot discuss core rules  RAW without discussing the meaning of the words, as evidenced by how they are used in the core rules.



One cannot discuss the RAW while making up our own definitions of words to suit our position.

Absent any definition of 'until' in the rules making it a term of art, it means what it means in plain english. And in plain english, the language of feeblemind is exclusive.


glass.


----------



## glass (Nov 17, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Therefore the defintion of "until," *as used in the PHB*, does not include it's use to define 100% exclusivity.



You are still going to intent (and begging the question while you are at it). I ask you again, are you arguing RAW or intent?



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> I submit that this is generally true outside of the PHB as well.  Generally, in common usage, the word "until" does not define a truly exclusive condition.  One normally uses stronger language for that.



Well in everyday life, we don't always say exactly what we mean. But we are talking about a rule book. A rulebook by definition means what it says (even if its designers didn't mean it to mean that ).



glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 17, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> You are still going to intent (and begging the question while you are at it). I ask you again, are you arguing RAW or intent?



 Those are not mutually exclusive in this case.  The intent of using the word "until" in all of the rules is not the same as the intent of the feeblemind spell.  He can be arguing the intent of the use of the word until, in general, within the rules and still argue the RAW of feeblemind.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 17, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Those are not mutually exclusive in this case.  The intent of using the word "until" in all of the rules is not the same as the intent of the feeblemind spell.  He can be arguing the intent of the use of the word until, in general, within the rules and still argue the RAW of feeblemind.




Exactly.  Well stated.  Thank you.


----------



## glass (Nov 17, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Those are not mutually exclusive in this case.  The intent of using the word "until" in all of the rules is not the same as the intent of the feeblemind spell.  He can be arguing the intent of the use of the word until, in general, within the rules and still argue the RAW of feeblemind.



Yes they are.

You are either talking about what the rules say, or what you think the designers meant them to say. They may of course be the same thing, they may be different, but they are entirely separate debates.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 17, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Yes they are.
> 
> You are either talking about what the rules say, or what you think the designers meant them to say. They may of course be the same thing, they may be different, but they are entirely separate debates.
> 
> ...




No, actually there are a couple an different analyses that need to take place:

1.  What words are used, and what do they mean IN THE CONTEXT of WotC rules. 

2.  What was the intent of the rules?  What did the designers mean to have happen here.

The first is a RAW analysis, where one is looking at the words themselves only, plus evidence throughout the rules to discern the meaning of the words.  A pure dictionary definition is only used if the rules do not help us decide what the word(s) mean in a WotC core rules context.  Using a pure dictionary definition is not the best way to go, usually.  There are often many defintions, and it varies according to which dictionary one uses, etc.

The second is where we look at all evidence on intent - how sentences are structured, interviews with designers, history of how the rules developed, etc., etc. to attempt ti divine the orginal intent of the rule.

Frankly, where you draw the line between "RAW" and intent is far from crystal clear and an especially value-added debate.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 17, 2006)

P.S. to my last post:

In this case, that means:

What does the word "until" mean in the context of WotC Spell Descriptions? (RAW)

Whether or not that analysis shows absolute exclusion of Break Enchantment, did the designers intend to allow Break Enchantment to work to reverse the effects of Feeblemind?  

To answer that last question, you really have to ask two questions:

1.  Did the designer of Feeblemind intend to exclude Break Enchament?

2.  Did the designer of Break Enchantment intend the caster to be able to reverse the effects of Feeblemind? (Intent)

Now, if one looks to the review of statutes in the law, a most reasonable parallel, one discovers that neither RAW nor intent trumps the other, which one wins is entirely situation-dependent and usually both are argued in a case whose outcome depends upon how one sees the law.

In D&D, of course, none of that really matters except as in intellectual excercise to help ward off Alzeimer's Disease.  

What matter is how you DM rules for your game.


----------



## Nail (Nov 17, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In D&D, of course, none of that really matters except as in intellectual excercise to help ward off Alzeimer's Disease.



Which is closer for some us than for others.

Go Rules Forum!


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 17, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> Which is closer for some us than for others.
> 
> Go Rules Forum!





Hee hee.  Yep.  I am sure these well-nigh pointless intellectual debates are at least good brain exercise.


----------



## Nail (Nov 17, 2006)

...and I (for one) need all the brain exercise I can get.


----------

