Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

hmmm... if you manage to turn the Feebleminded creature into an animal or tree, could you reverse the Feeblemind via Awaken?

-Stuart

Interesting trick. I think you might end up with an awakened creature, but not back to it's pre-Feebleminded state.

Not a really good solution.

 

[Pielorinho]

Anyway, let's say there is a "fatal exception error" here, for argument's sake. Now what?

Now we gotta abandon programmatic interpretation of the rules in favor of contextual interpretation, considering how it'd work in play, what would be fun, what we can imagine coherently, what's balanced, what the authors probably intended, what the words say, etc.

Daniel

 

[Cedric]

I submit that my example is poorly worded (just as with Feeblemind) in that I should have specifically addresed by the spell duration running out and Dispel Magic in the "until" clause.

I agree your example is poorly worded, as it was written to be poorly worded in order to make your points.

However, I do not agree that feeblemind is poorly worded. You are assuming it is poorly worded, and you know how slippery a slope assumptions are.

Regardless that you think the spell is poorly worded, that does not allow you to use it differently than how it is worded and still cloak yourself in the protection of being "official."

Now, if you want to argue how it was actually intended to work, vice how it's written, then go for it. That won't change the fact that it is written very clearly to only allow four cures from the PHB.

 

[Pielorinho]

Regardless that you think the spell is poorly worded, that does not allow you to use it differently than how it is worded and still cloak yourself in the protection of being "official."

Wait--huh? Who's cloaking themselves in the protection of being "official"?

Now, if you want to argue how it was actually intended to work, vice how it's written, then go for it. That won't change the fact that it is written very clearly to only allow four cures from the PHB.

Indeed--but that doesn't change the fact that Break Enchantment is written very clearly to work on a set of effects that includes Feeblemind.

Daniel

 

[Cedric]

Wait--huh? Who's cloaking themselves in the protection of being "official"?

I was trying to make a distinction between discussing the rules as they are officially written and used...and discussing the rules as you feel they are intended to be used, despite what they specifically say. I'm sorry if it came out wrong.

Indeed--but that doesn't change the fact that Break Enchantment is written very clearly to work on a set of effects that includes Feeblemind.

Daniel

I agree. If you just read Break Enchantment and ignore the line in Feeblemind about what might remove the effect, then Break Enchantment would work just fine.

However, I'm not ignoring the line in Feeblemind about what might remove it. I'm not assuming it is wrong. I'm not assuming it is incomplete. I am assuming that it, officially, functions precisely as it is written. And as it is written, "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind."

There are only four cures. Only one of those four spells, or a spell worded to function exactly like one of those four spells (Mass Heal), or a spell later added that explicitly states that it works (Panacea), actually works.

 

[sirwmholder]

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.

Given the cookie example above... the intent is the child has to finish dinner before before he gets a cookie. If the child is given a cookie before he finishes dinner does that automatically means he is finished with his dinner?

In game terms... just because Break Enchantment is cast on the target doesn't mean the effect ends because the original conditions still have not been met.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder

 

[Artoomis]

...There are only four cures. Only one of those four spells, or a spell worded to function exactly like one of those four spells (Mass Heal), or a spell later added that explicitly states that it works (Panacea), actually works.

So you decided what the exceptions are to "unless." By doing you you proved the the "unless" clause is flawed.

Now, having done so, it is only a question of degree. You can make a judgement call on that as you have, or you can assume that any other valid remedy will work (which really only brings in Break Enchantment in addition to Mass Heal and Panacea).

You way involves a judgement call. My way involves only the rules, no judgement calls at all, no splittiing hairs, no deciding what is included and what is not as a remedy except by what the rules state is a remedy.

And yet you feel your way is more closely following the rules. Correct?

Go figure.

 

[Deset Gled]

Now I do agree, of course, that without any of the unstated (but implied, perhaps) conditions being met that marrying another would be breaking his/her word.

To me when faced with an apparent "fatal exception error," the first thing to do is to see if there is a way to interpret the language to avoid the "fatal exception error." That's pretty much what I've done here, I think.

Anyway, let's say there is a "fatal exception error" here, for argument's sake. Now what?

Luckily, the rules tell us what to do when we reach this problem, so we don't have to try and make up words that aren't there.

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

All you have to do is choose which spell is the primary source.

 

[Artoomis]

Given the cookie example above... the intent is the child has to finish dinner before before he gets a cookie. If the child is given a cookie before he finishes dinner does that automatically means he is finished with his dinner?

In game terms... just because Break Enchantment is cast on the target doesn't mean the effect ends because the original conditions still have not been met.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder

Actually, it does. It reverses the instantaneous effect, which mean the effect no longer exists.

Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect.

Besides, we know the "unless" clause is flawed (incomplete). It is only a matter of degree (see my last post).

 

[Artoomis]

Luckily, the rules tell us what to do when we reach this problem, so we don't have to try and make up words that aren't there.

All you have to do is choose which spell is the primary source.

ROFL Good luck with that approach:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.