Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

...What exceptions am I listing?

• Spells listed in the Feeblemind spell description

• Future spells that explicitly say they remove the Feeblemind condition

And as long as I stick to the core rules, then the only "exceptions" are those cures listed in the spell description, and those hardly qualify as "exceptions".

Well, let's see.

There is Mass Heal, which is not the same spell as Heal, and yet I think we all agree that should work. But it most definately was left off the list.

Is Wish needed to be there as well as Limited Wish, doesn't Mass Heal need to be there as well as Heal?

I say it does if the list is truly an exclusive list.

This means the list is not truly all-inclusive.

Now once you poke one small hole, the "exclusive list" argument falls apart and Break Enchantment is indeed allowed to work.

Let's face it, the list of spells is:

1. Incomplete and
2. Was not even needed.

Of course it's relatively easy to see that with hindsight. Who knows, I might have written it the same way!

 

[Artoomis]

[ASIDE]

I'd just like to say that the OP must be pleased with himself, because we have done nothing if not gotten Pedantic on Feeblemind!



[/ASIDE]

True enough.

 

[pawsplay]

Until you clean your room, you cannot have a cookie.

How do you get a cookie?

Impossible to say. However, as a precondition, you must clean your room.

 

[pawsplay]

This is obviously wrong, since many spells list other spells, that do not work against them. They thereby do not define how other spells, but only how other spells work in context with themselves, thus defining themselves.

Try Prismatic Wall, for example. You don't want to tell us, that it can be brought down by thousands of spells, and not only by the ones listed, or do you? Well, I guess you do.

Bye
Thanee

What if I created a spell, Destroy Prismatic Wall? Is there a problem there?

 

[pawsplay]

Absolutely agreed. Again, I am not arguing that, per the rules, Break Enchantment doesn't work. I am arguing that, according to a strict reading of the rules, Break Enchantment removes the effect of Feeblemind, AND that someone under the effect of Feeblemind remains under this effect after the Break Enchantment is cast. Fatal Exception Error.

Thanee, the spell is unworkable in play because it makes someone under the effect of Feeblemind immortal. A dead creature, IIRC, is an inanimate object, and inanimate objects have no intelligence score. You cannot remove the intelligence score of a person under the effect of Feeblemind, however: they continue to have an Int of 1 until they're affected by one of the four listed effects. You therefore cannot turn them into an inanimate object, which means you can't kill them.

I suppose you could work that into play,but the spell becomes far more powerful in that case. Armies of immortal animals FTW!

Daniel

Actually, it can only reduce Int to 1, it cannot raise it to 1. To be perfectly pedantic.

 

[Felix]

Well, let's see.

There is Mass Heal, which is not the same spell as Heal, and yet I think we all agree that should work. But it most definately was left off the list.

Is Wish needed to be there as well as Limited Wish, doesn't Mass Heal need to be there as well as Heal?

I say it does if the list is truly an exclusive list.

This means the list is not truly all-inclusive.

Now once you poke one small hole, the "exclusive list" argument falls apart and Break Enchantment is indeed allowed to work.

When you cast Mass Heal, you cast Heal on multiple different targets; someone Feebleminded will be targeted by a Heal effect. It's the same spell effect. Similarly, when you cast Mass Cure Light Wounds, each individual target is targeted by a Cure Light Wounds effect.

Limited Wish and Wish do not have that kind of relationship; they have much different effects than simply an increased number of targets. They are different spells in a way that Heal and Mass Heal are not.

So the presence of both Wish and Limited Wish on the list of spells that cure Feeblemind and the lack of Mass Heal does absolutely nothing to poke any kind of hole in the exclusivity of the list, nor does it disallow Mass Heal from curing the Feeblemind condition.

Let's face it, the list of spells is:

1. Incomplete and
2. Was not even needed.

1. The list is complete.

2. Where does this claim come from? Of course a list is needed when you restrict the remedies for a spell; if the list excludes those not on the list (as Feeblemind does), you need the list to know which spells work; if the list is open-ended (as the list in Bestow Curse), then the list provides spells we can look at for characteristics to determine if other spells will remedy the effects.

So no, there is no problem with Feeblemind's exclusivity, and as written Break Enchantment does not work.

What intent, hindsight, or revisions might produce I won't speculate on. But that's how it's written.

 

[Artoomis]

When you cast Mass Heal, you cast Heal on multiple different targets; someone Feebleminded will be targeted by a Heal effect.

Well, almost. It does cure more damage.

Limited Wish and Wish do not have that kind of relationship; they have much different effects than simply an increased number of targets. They are different spells in a way that Heal and Mass Heal are not.

Not realy, no. Anything Limited Wish can do, Wish can do. No need to list them both.

1. The list is complete.

Nope. Not quite. Mass Heal is not on it. You claim it does not need to be, and at the same time claim the list is truly complete. Can't have it both ways, now.

2. Where does this claim come from? Of course a list is needed when you restrict the remedies for a spell; if the list excludes those not on the list (as Feeblemind does), you need the list to know which spells work; if the list is open-ended (as the list in Bestow Curse), then the list provides spells we can look at for characteristics to determine if other spells will remedy the effects.

There are, for this argument, only two kinds of spells. Instantaneous and Non-Instantaneous.

Instantaneous spells have no residual magic in place. Thus they cannot be truly restrictive in their remedies. You can declare certain things that will reverse the condition, but you cannot really declare an exclusive list of those because there is NO MAGIC to enforce that restriction, unlike non-Instantaneous spells.

This is a very important point that you do not yet seem to grasp.

 

[Felix]

Well, almost. It does cure more damage.

Not realy, no. Anything Limited Wish can do, Wish can do. No need to list them both.

Yeah, Wish can do everything Limited Wish can. But while Limited wish cannot do nearly as many things as Wish can, Heal and Mass Heal's only difference to the target of the spell is the cap on the HP gained. Very different.

But having both Limited Wish and Wish on the list is redundant. So what? Redundancy in one instance does not necessitate it in another.

Nope. Not quite. Mass Heal is not on it. You claim it does not need to be, and at the same time claim the list is truly complete. Can't have it both ways, now.

Mass Heal produces a Heal effect, and Heal is on the list; I'm not trying to have it both ways.

If there is a spell that says, "works as Heal, but does not recover any HP", then that spell will also find itself on the list of spells that remove Feeblemind, and that list will still be exclusive.

This is a very important point that you do not yet seem to grasp.

So it seems; I have no idea what you're talking about. Would you mind being a bit clearer as to why, when exclusive language is used (and we don't seem to be arguing that point anymore), a list of spells that have not been excluded is "not even needed". Is this a new angle of yours, or perhaps you've simply re-phrased an older argument?

 

[Thanee]

What if I created a spell, Destroy Prismatic Wall? Is there a problem there?

No. You can always create new spells, that overrule old rules text, as long as they specifically say so. There's also a spell, which cures Feeblemind in a later book. No problem. An exclusive set of options only applies up to the point where it was set up, anything that comes after it, can change that list (but also needs to specifically say so, a generic rules text, like 'destroys all ongoing abjurations' wouldn't be sufficient).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

There are, for this argument, only two kinds of spells. Instantaneous and Non-Instantaneous.

Instantaneous spells have no residual magic in place. Thus they cannot be truly restrictive in their remedies. You can declare certain things that will reverse the condition, but you cannot really declare an exclusive list of those because there is NO MAGIC to enforce that restriction, unlike non-Instantaneous spells.

Why do you need magic to enforce a restriction!?

It's just an effect, a state. There is absolutely no need for magic there...

It's like the target was naturally in this state. There are only few cures for it.
You cannot send the target into psychotherapy, or whatever, to change that.

Bye
Thanee