Search results

The effect of feeblemind is permanent. The spell energy that creates the effect is instantaneous. This is true of most instantaneous spells. Spell energy comes and goes...consequences long-lasting (in this case, permanent until one of 4 spells is used). The effect is permanent ONLY because...

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...

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.

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?

Was this just an example? Or are you now arguing that you're right, because the rules are wrong?

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...

Agreed, listing everything in every spell would eliminate confusion. Though, the line has to be drawn somewhere to prevent unnecessary redundancy. 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...

No, it's not on the list. 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. My relevance with the imprisonment example is that imprisonment is...

That's your opinion, nothing in the text requires this.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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 agree. If you just read Break Enchantment and...

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...

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.

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...

I think that was the point...

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...

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...