Break Enchantment question....

[Ruvion]

No, I think you should read the 3.5e SRD and 3.5e PHB page 207 carefully yourself. It does not say "If the spell is one that, as a special property, cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower."
...It may for 3.0e PHB...I do not know.
But in both the 3.5e SRD and the PHB v3.5, it says "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 in this case the wording is a perfect mirror of each other (in SRD and PHB). No mention of this "as a special property" clause you keep touting in your defense.

 

[tarchon]

No, I think you should read the 3.5e SRD and 3.5e PHB page 207 carefully yourself. It does not say "If the spell is one that, as a special property, cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower."
...It may for 3.0e PHB...I do not know.
But in both the 3.5e SRD and the PHB v3.5, it says "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 in this case the wording is a perfect mirror of each other (in SRD and PHB). No mention of this "as a special property" clause you keep touting in your defense.

F to S isn't noted to be non-dispellable (it could be countered by dispel magic) - it's only instantaneous, so it looks like it can be broken by BE. Geas and Lesser Geas are two in the non-dispellable category, and they explicity explain that only Lesser can be broken by BE.

 

[Arksorn]

I do not believe that break enchantment will reverse the petrification inflicted by a Basilisk as it is not an enchantment, transmutation, or curse. Also if I am wrong, what is the caster level of the Basilisk?

I concede that this could be argued both ways by intelligent people due to the rather vague nature of the spell description for break enchantment.

 

[Vrecknidj]

So Break Enchantment works against Baleful Polymorph?

 

[dcollins]

No, I think you should read the 3.5e SRD and 3.5e PHB page 207 carefully yourself. It does not say "If the spell is one that, as a special property, cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower."
...It may for 3.0e PHB...I do not know.

You're right about that, I am quoting the 3.0 PHB. Looks like you may have a legitimte gripe about the change in 3.5.

 

[tarchon]

So Break Enchantment works against Baleful Polymorph?

Dunno - what's Baleful Polymorph?

It does look like BE doesn't work to reverse basilisk gaze petrification under the current rules.

The omission of the "special property" language in 3.5 doesn't seem to be significant though. All spells are assumed to be dispellable unless the desc. says otherwise. Their effects on the other hand may not be reversible.

 

[Ruvion]

F to S isn't noted to be non-dispellable (it could be countered by dispel magic) - it's only instantaneous, so it looks like it can be broken by BE. Geas and Lesser Geas are two in the non-dispellable category, and they explicity explain that only Lesser can be broken by BE.

...By the way if you read the section on Dispel Magic (page 223 on 3.5e PHB), it says that you can not dispel an instantaneous effect and it goes on to specifically cite an example regarding petrification (the very issue we are discussing right now).

It is very likely that Gary Gygax et al. created a separate system of "breaking enchantment" via the break enchantment spell simply because of the greatest limitation of dispel magic, namely of its ineffectualness against instantaneous effects (which break enchanment counters up to 5th level and lower).

 

[Ruvion]

I do not believe that break enchantment will reverse the petrification inflicted by a Basilisk as it is not an enchantment, transmutation, or curse. Also if I am wrong, what is the caster level of the Basilisk?

I concede that this could be argued both ways by intelligent people due to the rather vague nature of the spell description for break enchantment.

You are right that break enchantment has a vague as well as a faulty description of what it can do. However, since the 3.5e PHB description of break enchantment does state that it can "break" instantaneous spells, curses, and effects (effects such as supernatural ability to petrify a foe) such as petrification by flesh to stone spell*, it is not a huge leap of fate to believe that break enchantment can restore you from a petrified state back to your fleshy self.

*The faultiness comes in the fact that the description contradicts itself on the second paragraph, clearly denoting that it can not reverse an instantaneous effects of 6th level or higher spells, one of which is flesh to stone.

I can only conclude that the clause regarding the flesh to stone spell on the first paragraph was a glitchy carry over from 2nd edition that the design team forgot to "iron out".

 

[Ruvion]

So Break Enchantment works against Baleful Polymorph?

It would, since baleful polymorph is a transmutation effect that is lower than 6th level, which fit right in with the description of what break enchantment can get rid of.

 

[tarchon]

...By the way if you read the section on Dispel Magic (page 223 on 3.5e PHB), it says that you can not dispel an instantaneous effect and it goes on to specifically cite an example regarding petrification (the very issue we are discussing right now).

Yeah, I read it. It says "effect" not "spell". A successful disp magic by default ends any spell currently running, unless the spell desc. says otherwise - the reason why it can't undo effects of instantaneous spells (F to S, Fireball, etc.) is that the spell isn't ongoing. The counterspelling section is pretty clear that DM can dispel instantaneous spells when it's cast simultaneously (unless it's noted to be non dispellable like Geas), the one time when the target spell is actually running. Break Enchantment is more of an effect-undoing spell whereas Dispel Magic just turns spells off.