Break Enchantment vs. Insanity

[Vegepygmy]

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

My ruling would be yes, it can. The FAQ seems to support this interpretation, as well.

However, there is a convoluted counterargument that can be made, so I'm not arrogant enough to claim that my ruling is absolutely and unequivocally correct.

 

[stonegod]

Weird, didn't notice the PHB and SRD versions were different (the SRD is missing the flesh to stone example). I'm with Vegepygmy with his statement that the former trumps the latter as authoritative text. I'm not sure if I understand propsero63 though: Is he saying that, per the PHB, that flesh to stone would not be affected? I believe it is (and the PHB seems clear to me on that point and the latest FAQ backs that up).

I agree w/ frankthedm in the fact that the spell doesn't have to specifically say it cannot be dispelled by dispel magic to be effective. However, we do have a diagreement on the instaneneous part. Again, if flesh to stone is our example, it is clear that is is instantaneous, and thus dispel wouldn't work. Its also greater than 5th level. So, we ignore the PHB example, that would mean it could be affected by break enchantment. However, it seems clear from the FAQ and the PHB example that break enchantment can break flesh-to-stone. Thus, my reading is as follows:
- If the spell to be "broken" specifically says dispel magic cannot affect it, break enchantment only works if it is 5th level or lower.
- If the spell doesn't say so, but is not valid target due to *only* the fact that is it instantaneous, than it can be broken.
Essentially, the "instantaneous" factor not long applies. Thus, insanity could be "broken"

That'd be my ruling baring something more official. Is it game breaking? Not really. By the time something can cast insanity on you, you (should) have access to heal.

 

[frankthedm]

What gets me is the SRD Spell description list reads:

• Break Enchantment: Frees subjects from enchantments, alterations, curses, and petrification.

Also, for those who feel precedence is important, the 3.0 SRD reads

Break Enchantment
Abjuration
Level: Brd 4, Clr 5, Luck 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target or 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 creatures from enchantments, transmutations, curses, and petrification (as well as other magical transformations). Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, the character makes a check of 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 cursed magic items, the DC is 25.

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.

If the effect comes from some permanent magic item, such as a cursed sword, break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item but merely frees the victim from the item's effects, leaving the item cursed.

 

[Vegepygmy]

It bothers me, too, that 3.5 deleted the words "as a special property." Unfortunately, we don't know why the authors did so. Perhaps they felt it was simply redundant (see my comments above regarding "cannot be dispelled" vs. "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic").

 

[prospero63]

It bothers me, too, that 3.5 deleted the words "as a special property." Unfortunately, we don't know why the authors did so. Perhaps they felt it was simply redundant (see my comments above regarding "cannot be dispelled" vs. "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic").

To answer how I read it, with the removal of the "as a special property" language as well as the removal of "flesh to stone" from the SRD description, I interpret that to mean they realized their mistake and fixed it between the printing and the SRD. I can totally see how others wouldn't view it the same way, given the discrepancies between printings, versions, etc.

 

[irdeggman]

To answer how I read it, with the removal of the "as a special property" language as well as the removal of "flesh to stone" from the SRD description, I interpret that to mean they realized their mistake and fixed it between the printing and the SRD. I can totally see how others wouldn't view it the same way, given the discrepancies between printings, versions, etc.

Except that the text is the same in the collector's edition of the PHB - which contains errata and was written much after the SRD.

The printed version contains much more information than the SRD in almost all cases. It is the "official" rules source and not the SRD. The SRD was never intended to be a rules source - we have just have used it as such over the years.