Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Pielorinho]

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 so 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.

Okay, let me make sure I'm following you.
1) A child is told "You can't have a cookie until you finish dinner." The child receives a cookie before he finishes dinner. You agree that the original statement was incorrect.
2) A spell says that you remain in a certain condition until one of four specific things happens. You are removed from taht condition before one of those specific four things happen.

Do you agree with all of that? If so, do you agree that the statement "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind" is incorrect, given that the subject can be removed from the state before one of those four spells is cast?

Daniel

 

[glass]

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.

So, can you raise someone killed by an instantaneous death effect? After all, there is no magic around to prevent it.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

Okay, let me make sure I'm following you.
1) A child is told "You can't have a cookie until you finish dinner." The child receives a cookie before he finishes dinner. You agree that the original statement was incorrect.
2) A spell says that you remain in a certain condition until one of four specific things happens. You are removed from taht condition before one of those specific four things happen.

Do you agree with all of that? If so, do you agree that the statement "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind" is incorrect, given that the subject can be removed from the state before one of those four spells is cast?

Daniel

Yep, I do. To me more accurate, I think the statement ""The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind" is incorrect ONLY if you think it was meant to be a complete list. After all, it is correct as far as it goes, it is just incomplete.

Just as the cookies statement was. It was correct as far as it went - it was just incomplete: that is, its error was in failing to state all conditions under which the child gets a cookie.

I think that's the same situation here. The statement in the spell is accurate, but incomplete.

The statement was not needed at all and should have not been in the spell.

If Break Enchantment really was not supposed to work, then the spell really needed to state: "Break Enchantment will not restore a victim from the effects of Feeblemind, but Limited Wish will restore a victim, as will Heal, Wish and Miracle."

Anything short of that simply is not good enough to prevent Break Enchantment from working per RAW as presented in the PHB. Even at that, such a statement is arguably illegal from a rules perspective, but at least it would be unarguably clear.

 

[Pielorinho]

Yep, I do. To me more accurate, I think the statement ""The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind" is incorrect ONLY if you think it was meant to be a complete list. After all, it is correct as far as it goes, it is just incomplete.

Just as the cookies statement was. It was correct as far as it went - it was just incomplete: that is, its error was in failing to state all conditions under which the child gets a cookie.

I think that's the same situation here. The statement in the spell is accurate, but incomplete.

And this might be our disagreement right here. The statement cannot be both accurate and incomplete, given the way it was phrased. If it said, "The victim can be cured by blah blah blah," then it could be accurate and incomplete; but when it says "the victim cannot be cured until blah blah blah," then if the victim can be cured before blah blah blah, then it is not the case that the victim cannot be cured until blah blah blah. Then incompleteness of blah blah blah renders the statement false.

(Again, I agree that BE should work; I'm just stubbornly pointing out what i see as a "fatal exception error" in the rules, for my own ulterior purposes ).

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

So, can you raise someone killed by an instantaneous death effect? After all, there is no magic around to prevent it.


glass.

Huh? Sure, why not? Is there a rule to prevent that? Is not Raise Dead a valid remedy for the condition of "dead"?

Finger of Death is an Instantaneous Necromancy [Death] spell. Raise Dead works, within the limits of the spell and with the loss of level, etc., as defined in the Raise Dead spell.

I think I am missing your point.

 

[Cedric]

1) A child is told "You can't have a cookie until you finish dinner." The child receives a cookie before he finishes dinner. You agree that the original statement was incorrect.

A lot of focus is being placed on this statement being "incorrect". Incorrect is not a valid judgment of the sentence.

As the parent in this case, I was making the rules. Within the rules there is only one way to get the cookie, finish dinner.

While there may be other ways to get the cookie, none of them satisfy the requirements that I laid down when I made the rules. They would be cheating.

In order for a cookie to be obtained, within the rules, prior to finishing dinner...some aspect of the rules would have to change after the fact, specific to the situation.

For instance, I make the statement, you can only get a cookie if you finish your dinner. However, my daughter then bites her tongue trying to chew her food and ends up crying because it hurt. In order to make her feel better, I allowed her to have her cookie even though dinner wasn't finished.

Why was this allowed? Because an event that transpired after my declaration caused me to change the rules.

Now...bringing this back around to Feeblemind.

The author of Feeblemind clearly only intended for the four listed effects to cure the residual consequence of this spell. Those are the "rules".

Had Break Enchantment been intended to function, it would have to be included in this very specific list, because the publication of both are concurrent to one another, neither follows the other.

Now, after the fact, another spell (panacea) could be written that changes the rules, but it has to do so specifically.

 

[Cedric]

Huh? Sure, why not? Is there a rule to prevent that? Is not Raise Dead a valid remedy for the condition of "dead"?

Finger of Death is an Instantaneous Necromancy [Death] spell. Raise Dead works, within the limits of the spell and with the loss of level, etc., as defined in the Raise Dead spell.

I think I am missing your point.

Death Attacks

In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly.

* Raise dead doesn’t work on someone killed by a death attack.
* Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive.
* In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has -10 hit points.
* The spell death ward protects a character against these attacks.

I think that was the point...

 

[Artoomis]

And this might be our disagreement right here. The statement cannot be both accurate and incomplete, given the way it was phrased. If it said, "The victim can be cured by blah blah blah," then it could be accurate and incomplete; but when it says "the victim cannot be cured until blah blah blah," then if the victim can be cured before blah blah blah, then it is not the case that the victim cannot be cured until blah blah blah. Then incompleteness of blah blah blah renders the statement false.

(Again, I agree that BE should work; I'm just stubbornly pointing out what i see as a "fatal exception error" in the rules, for my own ulterior purposes ).

Daniel

Sure it can be both accurate and incomplete. That's a function of the English language and the fact that normal, mortal beings write this stuff.

It is accurate as far as it goes. It just does not go far enough. In fact, I'd say it is virtually impossible to exclusively list ALL remedies.

Okay, really, I am agreeing with you - I am just trying to find a way to make it ALL work together. If you allow for the fact that the list is only partially complete, than everything all works together with no "fatal exception error".

Generally speaking, absolute, exclusive lists for anything fail. There is always an exception, and/or new things get discovered, and/or there was an oversight initially. Thus such lists should be assumed to be less than fully complete and one should leave open the possibility for other solutions if they are otherwise valid.

 

[glass]

Death Attacks

In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly.

* Raise dead doesn’t work on someone killed by a death attack.
* Death attacks slay instantly. A victim cannot be made stable and thereby kept alive.
* In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has -10 hit points.
* The spell death ward protects a character against these attacks.

I think that was the point...

Indeed it was. You get a cookie!


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

I think that was the point...

Oh, right. Got it. Thanks.

It appears that the effect of being killed by a death attack leaves you in a state other than simply "dead." You are in a state of, I guess, "dead by death attack" which appears to be different from simply "dead."

Note that, in this case, an otherwise valid remedy has been specifically excluded from working. There really should have been an explanation of why Raise Dead does not work, as this is somewhat unsatisfying, but, alas, that's the way it is.