Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Felix]

the spell would be clear if it read, "Y if and only if X," but it stops short of that.

I translate this:

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

Into this: Remains in state until [spells].

This also means: No [cure] until [spells].

Are we agreed so far?

----

No [cure] until [spells]
X: [cure]
Y: [spells]
No X unless Y.

This is an exact translation into the following forms:

If X, then Y

If the subject is cured, then those spells were present.

All X are Y

All cures are these spells.

If NOT Y, then NOT X

If you don't have these spells, then you don't get a cure.

Only Y are X

Only these spells are cures.

X only if Y

Cured only if you used these spells.

As long as you allow the transformation of this:

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

Into this:

Remains in state until [spells]

And thence into this:

No [cure] until [spells]

Then acutally, the spell description does not stop short of saying Y if and only if X; it does indeed say it explicitly.

 

[Thanee]

The problem is that there's an assumption - The spell is not explicitly exclusive.

While the rules are not written with mathematical precision, which they really should be sometimes (), the way they wrote up the list of spells there really is as exclusive as it gets.

Feeblemind can be removed by the means of Heal, Limited Wish, Miracle, or Wish.

-> non-exclusive list of options.

If it was worded like this (and enough things are), one could easily say, that this is just a list of possible options. But it isn't worded like this.

The subject remains in this state until a Heal, Limited Wish, Miracle, or Wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the Feeblemind.

-> exclusive list of the only possible means to remove the state.

It remains in this state... until...

Whatever you do, unless it is one of the things listed there, the subject remains in this state.

That's really as exclusive as it gets.

(...and silly arguments like immunity to death because you cannot become a corpse with an Int of 1 and such, do not really change that! And regardless of what else you stack on top of it, the state feebleminded doesn't get removed by that. A creature that is poisoned and feebleminded is certainly in the feebleminded state.)

Bye
Thanee

 

[Felix]

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.

So because there is one restriction on when it might work, there must necessairly be no other restrictions?

Why?

 

[Artoomis]

I translate this:

Into this: Remains in state until [spells].

This also means: No [cure] until [spells].

Are we agreed so far?

Sort of. Remains Y until X is the same as "If X then Y," that's true, but...

After this your logic is faulty.

IF X then Y does not mean that IF Z then Y cannot also exist.

No exclusivity.

IFF (If and only if) X then Y does that, but that's not present here.

 

[Artoomis]

So because there is one restriction on when it might work, there must necessairly be no other restrictions?

Why?

Actually, there are two other restrictions. They are in that some post.

"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."

Number (5), though, is not really so much of a restriction as it is making it clear what happens with items.

 

[Thanee]

"Remains Y until X" is the same as "If X then Y"

Bye
Thanee

 

[Felix]

IF X then Y does not mean that IF Z then Y cannot also exist.

Would you please define your terms. If you do not it becomes frustrating arguing with you because we might have different definitions on what X is and what Y is. Please.

Like in my previous post:
X: [cure]
Y: [spells]

Let us add:
Z: Break Enchantment.

Let us also specify that Z is not an element of Y.

So, let's pick up here:

No X unless Y.

This transforms into:

If not Y, then no X.

Z, being not an element of Y, is substitutable for "Not Y". So we have:

If Z, then no X.

Or, in English, "If Break Enchantment, then no cure".

There's no logical breakdown Artoomis. This is how the logic transforms. You cannot argue that it doesn't, you can only argue that the text of the spell doesn't translate into "No X unless Y" assuming the terms are defined as I have.

 

[Artoomis]

...Whatever you do, unless it is one of the things listed there, the subject remains in this state.

That's really as exclusive as it gets.

(...and silly arguments like immunity to death because you cannot become a corpse with an Int of 1 and such, do not really change that! And regardless of what else you stack on top of it, the state feebleminded doesn't get removed by that. A creature that is poisoned and feebleminded is certainly in the feebleminded state.)

Bye
Thanee

If it was really meant to be that strongly exclusive, Mass Heal would not work, nor would any remedy in any supplemental material, regardles of any specifc langauge contained within that remedy.

Really, the nails in the coffin of exclusivity are:

1. The langauge is pretty strong, granted, but does not indicate that these are [the only possible solutions.

2. An instaneous spell has no residual magic to restrict what can undo it's effects. Thus ANY list of what can undo its effects is, by its very nature, permissive and other remedies may exist if they are defined as a remedy for that type of instaneous effect.

Number two is the really big deal here. There is no way to publish a totally complete list of remedies for an instantaneous effect because there is no magic left to restrict any solutions from working. On the other hand, you can (and need to) publish a list (somewhere) of spells than CAN reverse the effects because otherwise well nigh nothing could reverse the effects.

 

[Umbran]

While the rules are not written with mathematical precision, which they really should be sometimes (), the way they wrote up the list of spells there really is as exclusive as it gets.

Perhaps, but even if so, "as exclusive as it gets" does not mean it really is exclusive. Clearly it isn't absolutely and irrovocably exclusive, as later texts explicitly revoke the exclusivity. And once exclusivity is broken once, the question arises for all time...

You note the rules weren't written with mathematical precision, and I agree. I wasn't the one who started the mathematical logic argument, I was merely noting the fault. Natural language does not generally fit mathematical logic without some asumptions on the author's intent. Since the rules were not written with such rigor, I submit that there is no one concrete answer present in the rules directly.

I personally feel a discussion on whether BE should deal with Feeblemind (in terms of balance and desired difficulty in dealing with the challenge) would be far more constructive than one on whether the rules say it does or doesn't, given the ambiguity. Which was why I tried to get to the "it is open to interpretation" point, so that folks could perhaps move on. Silly me

 

[Pielorinho]

Sort of. Remains Y until X is the same as "If X then Y," that's true, but...

After this your logic is faulty.

IF X then Y does not mean that IF Z then Y cannot also exist.

No exclusivity.

IFF (If and only if) X then Y does that, but that's not present here.

Okay, but X=cure, and Y=spells in his equation. "IF X, then Y" means, "If [a cure is effected], then [one of these spells is cast]". We may change X to Z, as in, "If [I am to have 10 hit points restored], then [one of these spells is cast]." We may also change X to ~X, as in, "If [a cure is not effected], then [one of these spells is cast]"--for example, a Heal spell may be cast on a creature not under a Feeblemind.

What we may not do, using formal logic*, is to replace Y with ~Y, as in, "If [a cure is to be effected], then [none of these spells are cast]".

Daniel

* Which, I remind folks, I think is inadequate for examining rules--I think this case demonstrates its inadequacy well.