Break Enchantment question....

[Ruvion]

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.

ah...by "countering" you mean counterspelling. My bad...
Still, counterspelling seems a little misplaced since our discussion (so I thought) was about reversing, thus effectively countering, instantaneous effects such as petrification.

 

[tarchon]

ah...by "countering" you mean counterspelling. My bad...
Still, counterspelling seems a little misplaced since our discussion (so I thought) was about reversing, thus effectively countering, instantaneous effects such as petrification.

The reason it's relevant is that it shows that dispel magic is inherently effective on instantaneous spells. Therefore, the reason DM doesn't work on inst. spell effects is most likely just the timing of the spell, not any special dispel resistance of inst. spell effects. Flesh to Stone can't be dispelled because the result is simply regular non-magical stone, not an ongoing magical effect. If you catch it while the spell is working - with DM as a counterspell - it can be shut down.

 

[dcollins]

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...

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".

Not to be overly argumentative, but break enchantment was a new addition to the 3rd Ed. ruleset. It didn't exist either in 1st Ed. (Gygax-era) or 2nd Ed.

 

[Ruvion]

Not to be overly argumentative, but break enchantment was a new addition to the 3rd Ed. ruleset. It didn't exist either in 1st Ed. (Gygax-era) or 2nd Ed.

Thanks for the info...I wasn't sure about that one.

And Tarchon, I still think we were talking about two different animals since beginning of this interesting discussion. Oh well.

 

[tarchon]

And Tarchon, I still think we were talking about two different animals since beginning of this interesting discussion. Oh well.

No, really, it's the same animal - if you use the interpretation I'm talking about (I won't say it's "my" interpretation, since I've heard it for years), the apparent contradiction in Break Enchantment vanishes completely. It's really very simple to apply to spells - there are only a few weird ones that fall under the "non-dispellable over 5th level" category (Geas and Binding, I can think of) and as far as I know the descs of those handily make explicit statements about what spells can counteract them and what can't. Supernatural abilities are a more difficult question, since they can't normally be dispelled and they don't generally say what school they belong to. My gut feeling is that BE should undo at least some Su effects, but I can't think of any good rules arguments why it should, given the way it's written.
And yeah, this is all in the 3.X magic system - in AD&D, figuring out what dispel magic actually did to magic effects was often... extremely challenging.

 

[Someone]

It's really very simple to apply to spells - there are only a few weird ones that fall under the "non-dispellable over 5th level" category (Geas and Binding, I can think of)

And Heightened Bestow Curse and Lesser Geas...

 

[Ruvion]

No, really, it's the same animal - if you use the interpretation I'm talking about (I won't say it's "my" interpretation, since I've heard it for years), the apparent contradiction in Break Enchantment vanishes completely. It's really very simple to apply to spells - there are only a few weird ones that fall under the "non-dispellable over 5th level" category (Geas and Binding, I can think of) and as far as I know the descs of those handily make explicit statements about what spells can counteract them and what can't. Supernatural abilities are a more difficult question, since they can't normally be dispelled and they don't generally say what school they belong to. My gut feeling is that BE should undo at least some Su effects, but I can't think of any good rules arguments why it should, given the way it's written.
And yeah, this is all in the 3.X magic system - in AD&D, figuring out what dispel magic actually did to magic effects was often... extremely challenging.

I've always taken the term "non-dispellable" meaning not dispellable after the effect has taken place (such as instantaneous effects and certain ongoing effects) and never equated to "not-counterspellable". Which I still think it's a different beast and the spell description does not clearly support the counterspell argument.

For example in the 3.5e SRD under dispel magic it says:

Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.

they seem use the term "dispelled" here to mean something uniquely specific from the overal usage of dispel magic, which includes counterspell usage, and such seem to support my theory that dispelling and using dispel magic to counterspell are two differing things.

But nevertheless, even if counterspelling is included in the meaning of "dispelling" when disputing the term as we are now, this leaves the stone to flesh spell as an obsolete spell (because of the possible death penalty) that has been left behind probably due to the oversight of the designers during the transition from 2nd edition to 3rd.

 

[Capellan]

this leaves the stone to flesh spell as an obsolete spell (because of the possible death penalty)

Not entirely. Stone to Flesh has characteristics that make it still useful: it explicitly works on any form of petrification (which break enchantment does not), it can be used on objects that were always stone (a great way to start cave-ins) and it has specific value against stone golems.

Whether it is still justifiably 6th level, OTOH ...

 

[Ruvion]

Not entirely. Stone to Flesh has characteristics that make it still useful: it explicitly works on any form of petrification (which break enchantment does not), it can be used on objects that were always stone (a great way to start cave-ins) and it has specific value against stone golems.

Whether it is still justifiably 6th level, OTOH ...

We have no solid proof that break enchantment, excluding flesh to stone, does not work against all forms of petrification. I like to think that it works on all forms of petrification except for those petrified via flesh to stone spell. Anyways, if stone to flesh, a 6th level spell, has only useful application against stone golems and starting cave-ins, then it is for all intentions and purposes an "obsolete" spell in my book (becomes an exotic and rarely used utility spell that wizard may bother to write in their books should they ever happen to find it).

 

[tarchon]

I've always taken the term "non-dispellable" meaning not dispellable after the effect has taken place (such as instantaneous effects and certain ongoing effects) and never equated to "not-counterspellable". Which I still think it's a different beast and the spell description does not clearly support the counterspell argument.

For example in the 3.5e SRD under dispel magic it says:

Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.

I noted this earlier in the thread - it doesn't say "a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled" - it says rather "the effect of a spell...". In the very next clause, they explain that this due to the the timing of the spell, which is what I've been saying all along. Instantaneous duration in no way implies that a spell is non-dispellable, only that the effect of the spell, which remains after the spell has terminated, is non-dispellable. You can't dispel the charring left by a Fireball spell, and similarly you can't dispel the petrification left by Flesh to Stone.

Your interpretation only holds if "effect of the spell" and "spell" mean exactly the same thing, which they obviously don't, and if the spell description of BE is self contradictory. My interpretation has "effect of the spell" referring, quite logically, to the effect of the spell, and it has the description of BE making perfect sense. Your interpretation thus requires two statements in the rules to be absurd, while mine does not, therefore logic suggests that my interpretation is more likely to be the correct one.

The reason Stone to Flesh is there at all, aside from simple historical reasons, is probably because BE apparently doesn't function with all petrification effects. I wasn't sure about that at first, but now that I look at the 3.5 StoF description

This spell restores a petrified creature to its normal state, restoring life and goods. The creature must make a DC 15 Fortitude save to survive the process. Any petrified creature, regardless of size, can be restored.

alongside the BE description

This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses.

it seems probable that they intended for BE not to work with forms of petrification that aren't explicitly transmutation spell effects. StoF of course also is renowned as the really gross way of getting past a stone wall...