Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[mirivor]

You cannot send the target into psychotherapy, or whatever, to change that.

LOL! THAT is funny.

 

[Pielorinho]

Instantaneous spells have no residual magic in place. Thus they cannot be truly restrictive in their remedies.

Can you explain how the first statement leads to the second?

And do you agree with the sample sentences above about cookies--that if I tell you that you'll remain in a cookieless state until you clean your room to cancel that effect, and then Uncle Larry gives you a cookie, my initial statement was incorrect?

Daniel

 

[glass]

And do you agree with the sample sentences above about cookies--that if I tell you that you'll remain in a cookieless state until you clean your room to cancel that effect, and then Uncle Larry gives you a cookie, my initial statement was incorrect?

Either that, or Uncle Larry issued errata for the cookie rule!


glass.

 

[Cedric]

Against my better judgment, I am re-entering this discussion just to make a point.

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.

If you truly believe this, then I think you should reread the Spell: Imprisonment.

Imprisonment
Abjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

When you cast imprisonment and touch a creature, it is entombed in a state of suspended animation (see the temporal stasis spell) in a small sphere far beneath the surface of the earth. The subject remains there unless a freedom spell is cast at the locale where the imprisonment took place. Magical search by a crystal ball, a locate object spell, or some other similar divination does not reveal the fact that a creature is imprisoned, but discern location does. A wish or miracle spell will not free the recipient, but will reveal where it is entombed. If you know the target’s name and some facts about its life, the target takes a -4 penalty on its save.

That's an instantaneous spell that quite clearly has a magical affect still in place and very much has a restricted list of cures/remedies.

As to the subject of this statement being exclusive:

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

Now..."until"...that's a funny word. It's exclusive and yet it isn't. For instance. I could tell my daughter, you're not getting a cookie until you finish your vegetables. However, if I look away for a moment, she could snag a cookie on her own and eat it. Obviously she got the cookie and didn't finish her veggies.

So, "until" doesn't enforce or absolutely require exclusivity. Another case, "You're not getting out of prison until you're approved for parole." However, if you are pardoned the day after I say that, then obviously, it wasn't very exclusive.

The real point to this is that the word "until" does not enforce rigid exclusivity. What it does is indicate the desire, wish or plan of the author/user of the word "until" that the condition be exclusive.

So, even though my daughter had a cookie when I told her she had to finish her veggies first...it was my intention in using the word "until" that she not have a cookie without having first finished her vegetables.

Now, what does this mean? It means that the author of the spell, Feeblemind, intended the required steps to relieve the condition to be an exclusive list.

Much discussion has been made now about Mass Heal. Well, Mass Heal is exclusively written to provide all of the functionality of Heal, with the addition of more targets and more hit points healed.

So will it function to cure Feeblemind (by my logic), even though it's not on the list? Yes.

Why do I say that? Because it has text that specifically provides it the complete functionality of a spell on the list.

Likewise, any spell that specifically states that it cures Feeblemind, or copies the abilities precisely of one of the spells on the list known to cure Feeblemind...also functions as a cure. It has exclusive abilities that alter this. Just like being pardoned is an exclusive action that alters the prisoner's release regardless of parole.

Lastly, would temporary modifiers improve the condition of the afflicted? Fox's Cunning, etc?

No, the condition remains in effect until one of those listed spells has cleared the condition. Putting on a headband of intellect doesn't satisfy that requirement and will not raise the subjects intellect.

Cedric

 

[Artoomis]

Why do you need magic to enforce a restriction!?

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

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?

I had a feeling this concept was not being clearly understood. I've said it many time in this thread, so it is not a brand new argument.

Here's the way it goes.

A spell that is not instantaneous can list any restriction it chooses on remedies because that spell still has magic energy in place to enforce this restriction.

A spell that is instantaneous has no magic still in place to enforce any restriction. There is no enforcement mechanism. If some solution exists (defined elsewhere, most likley), than the solution will indeed work because there is no mechanism (magic energy) to prevent it from working.

In this particuler case, Feeblemind reduces INT and CHA to 1. It's not damage, so no normal ability damage cures will work. It's not a curse, so Remove Curse won't work. It appears to be something new - a state of Feeblemindeness.

So what will work - wihout regard to the spell list in Feeblemind for the moment? Well, Heal we know will work because the spell says so. Break Enchantment works because the spell says so (Feebleming is an instantaneous enchantment). Limited Wish, Wish and Miracle work, of course, because they can each be used in place of Break Enchantment. Plus Panacea seems to work because the spell says so (so I've heard).

Now we look at the list of cures in Feeblmeind. Break Enchament is not included, and the list appears to be an exclusive list of possible redemedies...

But wait! If Break Enchantment should work, and Feeblemind is instantaneous, is it even possible for the Feeblemind spell description to exclude Break Enchantment? What enforces the restriction of Break Enchantment not working?

Answer: Nothing. The spell is instantaneous, so there is nothing left to enforce the exclusion of Break Enchantment (there is no magic energy left - it's all "gone").

It is not logical ("legal" within D&D rules) possible to exclude an otherwise-valid remedy in an instantaneous spell. For example, a Cause Light Wounds variant spell cannot restrict Cure Light Wounds from working to eliminate the damage unless it actually changes the damage to be something other than regular damage - because the spell is instantaneous and any spell energy that might restrict a remedy from working is not present.

Feeblemind cannot restrict Break Enchantment from working unless it somehow changes Feeblemind to be something other than what Break Enchantment can reverse.

For example, if Feeblemind was Permament instead of Instantaneous then it could prevent all other remedies other than those listed - it would then still have magic energy available to enforce those restrictions, so one could declare in the spell description that Dispel Magic AND Break Enchantment (or anything other than the listed spells) would not work.

The whole argument in this post rests on the very nature of an "instantaneous" spell duration. "The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting."

Does this now make sense?

 

[Artoomis]

Against my better judgment, I am re-entering this discussion just to make a point. ...If you truly believe this, then I think you should reread the Spell: Imprisonment. ...

That's an instantaneous spell that quite clearly has a magical affect still in place and very much has a restricted list of cures/remedies. ...Cedric

However, if there was a 9th level spell that reversed the effect on 9th level instananeous abjurations it would work.

Why? Because there is no residual magical energy left to prevent that from working. This fictional spell is not so much "curing" the state of "Imprisonment" as it is somehow restoring the victim to its pre-Imprisonment state.

Of course, it won't actually work anyway because there is no way to target the unfortunate Imprisoned creature - unless this fictional spell indicate that you could target the intended subject by merely identifying him/her and affect him/her regardless of range/location.

 

[Cedric]

Instantaneous

The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

There is nothing about this statement, which defines an "instantaneous" spell to limit the consequence to being non-magical.

The spell energy that brought about the consequence has come and gone, yes. However, the consequence itself can have magical energy of it's own, and that clearly seems to be the case with Imprisonment. Otherwise, how would a non-magical sphere impose a stasis on the target?

So, in light of the fact that the consequence of imprisonment is very much a persistent magical effect, it then stands to reason that the consequence of feeblemind can be a persistent magical effect.

So persistent that only a limited number of remedies or cures may work to remove it even...

 

[Pielorinho]

Now..."until"...that's a funny word. It's exclusive and yet it isn't. For instance. I could tell my daughter, you're not getting a cookie until you finish your vegetables. However, if I look away for a moment, she could snag a cookie on her own and eat it. Obviously she got the cookie and didn't finish her veggies.

The question is, was your statement correct? I say your statement was incorrect.

So, "until" doesn't enforce or absolutely require exclusivity. Another case, "You're not getting out of prison until you're approved for parole." However, if you are pardoned the day after I say that, then obviously, it wasn't very exclusive.

Again, your statement was incorrect. You made a prediction about the future, and it didn't come true.

D&D rules are different from predictions: they're descriptions of the fantasy world. If a passage in D&D says, "Children do not get a cookie until they have eaten their dinner," then, by the rules, they do not get a cookie from Uncle Larry until they've eaten their dinner. It's a description of the way the cosmos works, not a prediction about its working.

But wait! If Break Enchantment should work, and Feeblemind is instantaneous, is it even possible for the Feeblemind spell description to exclude Break Enchantment? What enforces the restriction of Break Enchantment not working?

Answer: Nothing. The spell is instantaneous, so there is nothing left to enforce the exclusion of Break Enchantment (there is no magic energy left - it's all "gone").

The peculiarity of the change wrought by the spell. What it does to your mind is something that can only be reversed by a very specific things, listed in the spell.

The fact that it's instantaneous doesn't matter. It's not that there's a magic aura preventing other things from getting through; according to the spell's description, the change is static and unfixable until one of four specific things happen.

Also, and sorry to be pedantic (well, I guess that's the point of the thread), but what about the cookie? Do you agree that my statement about a cookieless child is rendered incorrect by my mischievous Uncle Larry?

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

There is nothing about this statement, which defines an "instantaneous" spell to limit the consequence to being non-magical.

The spell energy that brought about the consequence has come and gone, yes. However, the consequence itself can have magical energy of it's own, and that clearly seems to be the case with Imprisonment. Otherwise, how would a non-magical sphere impose a stasis on the target?

So, in light of the fact that the consequence of imprisonment is very much a persistent magical effect, it then stands to reason that the consequence of feeblemind can be a persistent magical effect.

So persistent that only a limited number of remedies or cures may work to remove it even...

However, one cannot prevent an otherwise-valid remedy unless one does so quite specifically.

A remedy that is specifcally designed to reverse instantaneous effects of the type in question must always work unless somehow the spell's effects make it not work. Not the spell itself, but the remaining effect.

In this case, there is nothing in the "Feebleminded" state that would indicate that a solution that reverses all that type (enchantments) of instantaneous spells would not work.

Even more evidence for this is the fact that this is the ONLY instantanous enchantment of fifth level or lower in the PHB.

Of higher-level spells, there are only Insanity and Word of Chaos (both 7th level).

It seems that if you do not allow Break Enchantment to work, the "instantaneous" reversal portion of that spell is pretty much useless. Within the PHB, Feeblemind is really about the only instantaneous spell that can be reversed.

 

[Artoomis]

...The peculiarity of the change wrought by the spell. What it does to your mind is something that can only be reversed by a very specific things, listed in the spell.

The fact that it's instantaneous doesn't matter. It's not that there's a magic aura preventing other things from getting through; according to the spell's description, the change is static and unfixable until one of four specific things happen.

Also, and sorry to be pedantic (well, I guess that's the point of the thread), but what about the cookie? Do you agree that my statement about a cookieless child is rendered incorrect by my mischievous Uncle Larry?

Daniel

First, I do agree with the cookie thing.

Second, if a remedy is set up to reverse ALL instantanous effects, that the other remedies within the spell do not matter because the remedy has nothing to do with the residual effect from the spell - it actually somehow reverses the spell to restore the victim to a state as if the spell had never been cast. Weird, but that seems to be the way it works.

Break Enchantment is set up to work pretty much no matter what the spell says about remedies. It's really kind of wierd because it is set up to reverse instantaneous effects.