Break Enchantment vs. Insanity

[0-hr]

Can Break Enchantment be used to remove Insanity? It looks like another case of author intent at odds with rules as written, so I'm wondering if there has been a clarification or something I am missing.

Break Enchantment

This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect.

Insanity

Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
...
Duration: Instantaneous

The affected creature suffers from a continuous confusion effect, as the spell.

Remove curse does not remove insanity. Greater restoration, heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish can restore the creature.

Break Enchantment :: d20srd.org
Insanity :: d20srd.org

 

[stonegod]

Break enchantment trumps insanity in this case: Insanity is an enchantment spell. If Insanity said it could not be dispelled as per dispel magic, then break enchantment wouldn't work; it does not say this, so break enchantment is fair game.

 

[frankthedm]

Break enchantment trumps insanity in this case: Insanity is an enchantment spell. If Insanity said it could not be dispelled as per dispel magic, then break enchantment wouldn't work; it does not say this, so break enchantment is fair game.

IMO i think the text is such that there is plenty of reason to argue the spell does not need to say "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic", it just to be a spell that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic.


This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.

 

[prospero63]

Break enchantment trumps insanity in this case: Insanity is an enchantment spell. If Insanity said it could not be dispelled as per dispel magic, then break enchantment wouldn't work; it does not say this, so break enchantment is fair game.

Per the SRD I believe this is absolutely and unequivocally incorrect.

NOTE: Please see the rest of this discussion. Leaving the above sentence in for the sake of historical note, but it's not an absolute or unequivocal thing as subsequent discussion illustrates.

Per Dispel Magic:

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.

Per Insanity:

Level: Sor/Wiz 7
Duration: Instantaneous

Per Break Enchantment:

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

Dispel magic doesn't work on instantaneous spells, which insanity is. Break enchantment only works on spells that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic if the spell is 5th level or lower. Insanity is 7th level, ergo break enchantment does not work.

Insanity can be removed, as the spell description cites, by Greater restoration, heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish.

This actually came up in our last game session. Bottom line, insanity is one hell of a spell if you don't have access to one of the aforementioned spells. In the case last session, it pretty much forced the party to retreat via teleport to a location where they could get a heal slapped on them.

 

[0-hr]

Yikes, I missed that Dispel Magic bit. Thanks for the help.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Dispel magic doesn't work on instantaneous spells, which insanity is. Break enchantment only works on spells that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic if the spell is 5th level or lower. Insanity is 7th level, ergo break enchantment does not work.

What you're saying is that break enchantment doesn't work on any instantaneous spell above 5th level.

The problem is, break enchantment specifically calls out that it can reverse flesh to stone (an instantaneous 6th-level spell).

Thus, your conclusion that "cannot be dispelled" means "cannot be dispelled for whatever reason" must be incorrect. The more reasonable interpretation, given the spell's reference to flesh to stone, is that "cannot be dispelled" means "explicitly calls out that it cannot be dispelled" (as in the case of bestow curse, another explicit example provided in the spell's description).

Stonegod had it right the first time.

 

[prospero63]

What you're saying is that break enchantment doesn't work on any instantaneous spell above 5th level.

If that is what the results are, then that's what the results are, but I'm not saying that. I explained how the spell works per the SRD citing the examples from the appropriate parts of the SRD.

The problem is, break enchantment specifically calls out that it can reverse flesh to stone (an instantaneous 6th-level spell).

The SRD makes no reference to flesh to stone. The PHB may (and does) but the SRD does not:

Flesh to Stone :: d20srd.org
http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/SpellsA-B.rtf

Break Enchantment
Abjuration
Level: Brd 4, Clr 5, Luck 5, Pal 4, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: Up to one creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No
This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.
If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.
If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.

For that matter, the actual PHB says "Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone". It doesn't say it can reverse flesh to stone, end of story (as you imply), rather is uses flesh to stone to illustrate an example of an instantaneous effect spell.

Thus, your conclusion that "cannot be dispelled" means "cannot be dispelled for whatever reason" must be incorrect. The more reasonable interpretation, given the spell's reference to flesh to stone, is that "cannot be dispelled" means "explicitly calls out that it cannot be dispelled" (as in the case of bestow curse, another explicit example provided in the spell's description).

Stonegod had it right the first time.

That's hardly "more reasonable", it's simply a more liberal interpretation that requires one insert language into the spell that doesn't exist.

Now, one can certain try to interpret into the spell that dispel magic has to explicitly be called out as not working (which means they are taking the 3.0 language that was removed in 3.5 and putting it back in), or one can use the SRD language which leaves no question. The SRD doesn't reference any spell, and the SRD clearly stipulates the dispel magic situation. It's easier for me to accept the SRD than to insert language in the spell that doesn't exist. Indeed, I think that is a "more reasonable" interpretation.

Now, if one wants to insert the 3.0 language into the spell description, I can completely agree with what you say. Barring that though, I stand by my original statement (and it is how I personally handle the spell and how I have seen the rest of the DM's in our group handle it, not that that really matters one way or the other).

 

[Vegepygmy]

If that is what the results are, then that's what the results are, but I'm not saying that.

Are you trying to distance yourself from the consequences of your theorem? If only instantaneous spells of 5th level or lower can be reversed by break enchantment, as you claim, then it is an unavoidable corollary that no instantaneous spell above 5th level can be reversed by break enchantment. There's no "if" about it.

I explained how the spell works per the SRD citing the examples from the appropriate parts of the SRD.

And I used the more informative PHB to show that you have misinterpreted the SRD.

The SRD makes no reference to flesh to stone. The PHB may (and does) but the SRD does not:

That's why the PHB is a better source to rely on. It has more information about how the game is intended to work.

For that matter, the actual PHB says "Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone". It doesn't say it can reverse flesh to stone, end of story (as you imply), rather is uses flesh to stone to illustrate an example of an instantaneous effect spell.

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating it directly: the spell description says break enchantment can reverse flesh to stone, among other instantaneous effects.

It does not use flesh to stone as an example of an instantaneous effect. It uses flesh to stone as an example of an instantaneous effect that can be reversed by break enchantment.

That's hardly "more reasonable", it's simply a more liberal interpretation that requires one insert language into the spell that doesn't exist.

On the contrary, it requires that one not ignore the language that does exist. The spell description doesn't simply say "cannot be dispelled," it says "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic." Since no instantaneous effect can be dispelled, period, without an explicit exception (such as that called out by break enchantment), the additional words "by dispel magic" must add some meaning to the text. Your interpretation would treat "by dispel magic" as a meaningless redundancy.

One of the fundamental tenets of statutory interpretation is that whenever possible, rules should be read so as to give meaning to all of the words used in them. My interpretation does so; yours does not. (Of course, the PHB authors are not legislators and we are not judges, but when debating what is "RAW," the goal is identical and the same principles can be applied to achieve consistent results.)

Now, I don't expect that anything I've said is going to change your mind about this, and that was never my purpose. I really just wanted to disprove your statement that Stonegod was "absolutely and unequivocally incorrect." And (since there's at least one other reasonable interpretation besides yours) I've done that, so unless anyone else cares to weigh in on the subject, this will be my last word on it. <tips hat>

 

[prospero63]

And (since there's at least one other reasonable interpretation besides yours) I've done that, so unless anyone else cares to weigh in on the subject, this will be my last word on it. <tips hat>

If you insert language from 3.0 and ignore the SRD, yes you are correct. Congrats. If you don't and use the SRD, I stand by my original statement, as I did the last post. I'll edit my original post to include the SRD qualifier and to soften the harshness of the "you're a dumbass" tone that clearly came though, and was most certainly not my intent.

 

[Jhaelen]

Do you think Break Enchantment can be used to turn petrified victims of a cockatrice back to flesh?