Get pedantic on Feeblemind

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."

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Artoomis said:

In common usage, unless is not truly exclusive.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Deset Gled said:

Yes, it is. You are making up additional conditions to the spell that simply are not there.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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...

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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).

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.