Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

Tahnee and sirwmholder, you are doing a great job of illustrating why it is somtimes better to just state the rule without examples. This whole thread is a great exa,mple of why rules whould only be stated in one place, with no uneedded repitition.

Focusing on the example instead of the rule can lead one down the wrong path.

Re-stating rules when not needed can lead to oversights and errors.

Bottom line:


1. Break Enchantment works on enchantments, transumatations and curses.
2. It even works on them if they are instantaneous effects.
3. It even works on cursed items.
4. If there is no save to a spell, then the spell must be fifth level or lower for Break Enchantment to work.
5. It cannot remove curse from items, but can lift the cursed effect temporarily so one can remove the item from one's person and no longer be cursed by the item.
6. It works using a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect, with cusrd magic items having a fixed DC of 25.

That's it Nothing more, nothing less. It's very, very clear.

If you take the two PHB example as being anything more than illustrative examples, then you are adding in rules where none exist. They are only examples. They do not say anything about how the spell does or does not work.

 

[Artoomis]

...With 'instantaneous' they meant spells like Flesh to Stone (a 6th level instantaneous transmutation spell).

So, from that one example, you choose to think they do not mean to cover other instantaneous spells?

With 'cannot be dispelled' they meant something like Bestow Curse (a non-instantaneous spell, that specifically cannot be dispelled; the 5th-level limit only applies to spells, that specifically list such a restriction; instanteneous spells of *any* level can be countered by Break Enchanted, as long as they fit the general pattern of what can be affected, and there is no other rule, that prevents this, as in the case of Feeblemind, for example).

Wow, that's an interesting interpretation. If that were true, than ANY instantaneous enchantmemt, transumation or cusre may be countered with Break Enchantment. Nothing in those two examples suggests that they were meant as defining examples, they are each merely one example.

Sorry, but without clear, convincing language to the contrary I am pretty much foced to believe that "instananeous" means "instantaneous" - not "instantnenous kind, sorta like Flesh to Stone.

I also must beleive that the phrase "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic" includes instantaneous effects, because, well, it does.

In niether case does one example override the clear rules text.

 

[Thanee]

So, from that one example, you choose to think they do not mean to cover other instantaneous spells?

Sure, all instanteneous enchantments, transmutations or curses can get removed with the spell, as long as no other rule prevents this in a specific case.

Wow, that's an interesting interpretation.

I wouldn't even call that an interpretation, it's what the spell says, as long as we assume, that there is no error, which seems like a reasonable approach, as long as it works, and it does here.

If that were true, than ANY instananeous enchantmemt, transumation or cusre may be countered with Break Enchantment.

Correct, and that's exactly how I think it is.

Nothing in those two example suggests that they were meant as defining examples, they are each merely one example.

Of course. But the specific nature of the Flesh to Stone example gives some additional hints towards the intention.

And really, while Dispel Magic is of no use against instantaneous effects, which in a colloquial fashion can certainly be described as 'cannot be dispelled', it isn't quite the same as actual 'cannot be dispelled' as a rule (as in Bestow Curse), It's just that there is no target for a dispel attempt. It also doesn't really say, that instanteneous effects cannot be dispelled in the magic overview, it only says, that permanent effects are vulnerable to dispelling, because there is still active magic around.

'Cannot be dispelled' is a stronger term than that, it is meant as something, that actively prevents dispelling (like the 'cannot be dispelled' text in Bestow Curse). The example makes this clear. The rule text alone is ambiguous, so the example is necessary to actually understand in what direction it is meant to go.

And really, saying the examples are all wrong, just because they don't fit into your picture, is just cheap!

(no offense meant )

The examples work perfectly fine within the context of the rules, and they do not contradict any rules. It just doesn't work the way you think it should work. That's all. You certainly realize that, since otherwise you wouldn't claim, that the examples must be all wrong.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Felix]

Yep. Break Enchantment is a little misnamed.

I think you’re forgetting that Break Enchantment also works on Enchantments and Transmutations that aren’t Duration: Instantaneous. The spell name works fine, and there are plenty of spells it counters, so to say Break Enchantment is useless because it doesn’t fix Feeblemind isn’t a terribly robust argument. Not that you’ve used that argument, but I believe I did run over a post using that argument somewhere upthread.

If not, the whole logic above must have a fatal flaw somewhere (please point it out to me) and, to top it off, the “fifth level or lower instantaneous enchantment” portion of Break Enchantment must have no meaning, at least as far as the PHB is concerned, and that is not really acceptable to me.

Look at the relevant texts of both spells:

Break Enchantment:

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

Feeblemind:

The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.

A lot of people have been saying that the list in Feeblemind is merely permissive, and not exclusive. This is not the case.

Feeblemind: If not [Unless] X, then Y.
X is the set of spells [heal, limited wish, miracle, wish].
Y is the Feebleminded state.

The only spells that are heal, limited wish, miracle and wish are heal, limited wish, miracle and wish. This list is indeed exclusive of other spells. No other spells will result in “not Y”; no other spells will cure the victim (except, of course "works as" spells, like Mass Heal).

But what about the apparent contradiction with Break Enchantment? It says, “Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect.” Can it? Sure. Does it mean that it must reverse an instantaneous effect? No. Because it can does not mean that it necessarily will. I can jump out of open windows. This does not mean that every time I encounter a window I will jump out of it.

So between the two, Feeblemind is specific and exclusive, Break Enchantment generalizes and is permissive. So I believe the RAW to be that Break Enchantment is ineffective in curing the Feebleminded state.

---

That being the case, however, a look through the SRD came up with exactly zero targeted Enchantments or Transmutations below 5th level that are instantaneous [Artoomis has since found some, but they are rather useless as spells you’d want to counter]; as Bestow Curse is Duration: Permanent, it doesn’t provide any either.

This leaves some possibilities: those writing the Break Enchantment description either wanted it to be able to cure Feeblemind, or they wanted it to be able to affect any future spells that were Duration: Instantaneous, or both. Artoomis mentioned that the only explanation for “can break instantaneous effects” was Feeblemind; leaving the spell open to countering future spells is also a possible reason, and perfectly plausible. However, the dearth of Duration: Instantaneous spells Break Enchantment can cure in the PHB is strong enough support for me to House Rule that Break Enchantment cures Feeblemind, but I do believe the RAW to be otherwise.

After all, Feeblemind hoses Wizards and Sorcerers more than anyone else; there is an incredible incentive to research an equivalent-level spell that defeats Feeblemind.

With 'cannot be dispelled' they meant something like Bestow Curse (a non-instantaneous spell, that specifically cannot be dispelled; the 5th-level limit only applies to spells, that specifically list such a restriction; instanteneous spells of *any* level can be countered by Break Enchanted, as long as they fit the general pattern of what can be affected, and there is no other rule, that prevents this, as in the case of Feeblemind, for example).

This is a compelling argument. The PHB text is:

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment only works if that spell is 5th level or lower. For instance, bestow curse cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, but break enchantment can dispel it.

Bestow Curse cannot be dispelled by Dispel Magic by virtue of the fact that it says: “The curse bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell.” [PHB, p 203] So any time you run into a spell that says, “Cannot be dispelled”, Break Enchantment may be able to remove the effect, as long as the spell is 5th level or lower.

---

So, I would see two options to this spell were I ruling it.

First, rule with Thanee, Feeblemind is unaffected by Break Enchantment, but Break Enchantment can cure Duration: Instantaneous effects higher than 5th level because that clause in the spell description refers to spells that specifically have a “can’t be dispelled” clause, like Bestow Curse.

Or, rule with Artoomis, Feeblemind is cured by [/i]Break Enchantment[/i] on the grounds that it is one of the only 5th level or lower Duration: Instantaneous Enchantments or Transmutations that can’t be dispelled [and can’t be dispelled because of Dispel Magic’s inability to affect Duration: Instantaneous spells], and so the Break Enchantment clause allowing it to affect Instantaneous spells becomes useless. With this ruling, Break Enchantment would not be able to reverse Flesh to Stone because that spell cannot be affected by Dispel Magic, and is 6th level.

Because the PHB description specifically mentions Flesh to Stone, I would hesitate to rule as Artoomis, and would likely rule as Thanee.

But then, I might allow Break Enchantment to work, just out of spite for the amount of time I sat here writing this.

 

[Felix]

Bottom line:

1. Break Enchantment works on enchantments, transumatations and curses.
2. It even works on them if they are can reverse even an instantaneous effects.

Fixed it for you.

Because something can do something, is able to do it, does not necessitate that it will do it.

 

[Umbran]

The only spells that are heal, limited wish, miracle and wish are heal, limited wish, miracle and wish. This list is indeed exclusive of other spells.

The problem is that there's an assumption - The spell is not explicitly exclusive. The exclusivity must be inferred by the lack of modifiers saying it isn't.

So you're left with two options:
The spell is exclusive, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.
The spell is merely demonstrative, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.

And the arguements for each position is equally strong, because they are both inferences.

To apply your mathematical logic - the spell would be clear if it read, "Y if and only if X," but it stops short of that. In a mathematical sense, the fact that X -> Y is true does not mean that W -> Y cannot also be true.

 

[evilbob]

So you're left with two options:
The spell is exclusive, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.
The spell is merely demonstrative, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.

And the arguements for each position is equally strong, because they are both inferences.

Seconded.

 

[Artoomis]

Fixed it for you.

Because something can do something, is able to do it, does not necessitate that it will do it.

Thanks, but no fix was required. On that list was also:

"6. It works using a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect, with cusrd magic items having a fixed DC of 25."

That makes it clear when it works and when it does not.

 

[Artoomis]

The problem is that there's an assumption - The spell is not explicitly exclusive. The exclusivity must be inferred by the lack of modifiers saying it isn't.

So you're left with two options:
The spell is exclusive, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.
The spell is merely demonstrative, because it doesn't explicitly say it isn't.

And the arguements for each position is equally strong, because they are both inferences.

To apply your mathematical logic - the spell would be clear if it read, "Y if and only if X," but it stops short of that. In a mathematical sense, the fact that X -> Y is true does not mean that W -> Y cannot also be true.

Actually, they are not equally strong, but only because there are other independent arguments around instantaneous spells that indicate such lists can ONLY be permissive, not restrictive.

 

[Umbran]

Actually, they are not equally strong, but only because there are other independent arguments around instantaneous spells that indicate such lists can ONLY be permissive, not restrictive.

Mathematical logic is digital - the thing is true or it is not. If you have an argument, the logic remains unimpressed. Proof, or nothing. Blame Spock, if you must

The mere presence of arguments is nothing. One can construct arguments for anything. The presence of arguments that the audience accepts may serve to support, I suppose. But I haven't explicitly accepted any - and not being an instantaneous spell, I get to say when I'm permissive or restrictive However, those arguments may include similar inferences, in which case we're thoroughly up the river Styx without a paddle.