Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magus Coeruleus" data-source="post: 1082909" data-attributes="member: 1704">My interpretation of "This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect..." is that BE can reverse the types of effects listed in the first sentence, even if they are instantaneous effects.  To me, the connotation comes from the word "even."  If it also worked on instantaneous effects that were not of those types, I would expect something more like "BE can also reverse an instantaneous effect."I am not claiming to have definitive proof, but I believe that is the most appropriate interpretation given the grammar, the absurdity of the spell affecting all instantaneous effects (such as cures), etc.Far less clear to me is the whole deal with petrification.  The spell list summary includes "petrification" on the list of types of effects, but the spell description itself does not.  3.5 is notorious for having failed to revise those spell list summaries when spells change (e.g. Shillelagh, Color Spray), so it could be that.And of course there's the glaring inconsistency of citing Flesh to Stone as a spell that can be reversed, while also saying that 6th+ level spells cannot be reversed if the cannot be dispelled.  Note that the singling out of Stone to Flesh is in both the 3.0 and the 3.5 PHB, but in neither the 3.0 nor 3.5 SRD.Perhaps when they decided to give Wizards access to Break Enchantment, they decided not to have it reverse petrification anymore, since they already had Stone to Flesh.  On the other hand, doing this would mean Clerics would lose their ability to reverse petrification just because Wizards now have BE (clerics don't have Stone to Flesh).Just as feasible is the idea that they decided petrification did not deserve specific mention in the spell description, since it is just another type of transmutation,.  Perhaps they felt that to single it out would confuse people and make them wonder whether other transmutations can be affected.I sent an email to customer service a couple of days ago.  I know their responses are often not terribly useful or highly-regarded, but since this involves a blatant contradiction (in the Stone to Flesh vs. no 6th-level spells case), they can't just tell me that it's not a situation covered in the rules so the DM makes the call (they like saying that for most things that aren't obvious with a careful reading).</blockquote>

Verification