Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Lonely Tylenol]

Let it go. I've admitted my error and we've moved on from there anwyay.

I'm going to edit that stuff so it no longer comes up.

1. I hadn't got to that part, so chill.
2. I have taught logic, and I have often wanted to throw chalk at my students for this very error.

 

[Felix]

Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect

I will address this point first, and have not brought it up because I thought it thoroughly debunked earlier by Thanee and me.

Firstly, simply because something can do A, does not mean that it will do A. Listed in the Break Enchantment spell is the ability to reverse an effect like Flesh to Stone. The argument over BE's ability to specifically reverse FtS's effect should be held elsewhere, but it is enough to agree that BE can reverse Duration: Instantaneous effects.

This is wholly different from saying, "Break Enchantment reverses all Insantaneous effects", because in that case, every Instantaneous effect could be removed by BE. In such a case there would be a conflict with the BE language and the Feeblemind language. But that is not the language of the spell.

Feeblemind is a Duration: Instantaneous spell, yes. But it is not necessary that it should be removed because it is instantaneous.

Consider both of these True:
Alan can hit curve balls.
Bill throws curve balls that nobody can hit.

Do you suggest that because Alan can hit curve balls, he must be able to hit Bill's curve balls? There is no conflict between these two truths, nor is there in the relationship between Feeblemind and Break Enchantment.

Does that answer your issue regarding the "can reverse even Instantaneous effects" problem?

 

[Artoomis]

Can you please explain how this post serves any purpose than to try and belittle me?

Sorry, that came across wrong. I just meant that there is no guidance whatsoever for deciding precendence between two spells within the PHB.

 

[Deset Gled]

The problem here is precidence within a single book, and thus isn't covered.

Yes it is. The primary source rule applies whenever there is a confict between two rules, no matter where they are. The example given of text vs. table is an example of a conflict between two sources in the same book.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes it is. The primary source rule applies whenever there is a confict between two rules, no matter where they are. The example given of text vs. table is an example of a conflict between two sources in the same book.

Wouldn't that imply that no future spell could ever remove Feeblemind, because the primary source--the feeblemind spell--lays out the methods for removing it, and a new spell that removes it would therefore be in conflict with the primary source?

 

[Artoomis]

I will address this point first, and have not brought it up because I thought it thoroughly debunked earlier by Thanee and me.

Firstly, simply because something can do A, does not mean that it will do A. Listed in the Break Enchantment spell is the ability to reverse an effect like Flesh to Stone. The argument over BE's ability to specifically reverse FtS's effect should be held elsewhere, but it is enough to agree that BE can reverse Duration: Instantaneous effects.

This is wholly different from saying, "Break Enchantment reverses all Insantaneous effects", because in that case, every Instantaneous effect could be removed by BE. In such a case there would be a conflict with the BE language and the Feeblemind language. But that is not the language of the spell.

Feeblemind is a Duration: Instantaneous spell, yes. But it is not necessary that it should be removed because it is instantaneous.

Consider both of these True:
Alan can hit curve balls.
Bill throws curve balls that nobody can hit.

Do you suggest that because Alan can hit curve balls, he must be able to hit Bill's curve balls? There is no conflict between these two truths, nor is there in the relationship between Feeblemind and Break Enchantment.

Does that answer your issue regarding the "can reverse even Instantaneous effects" problem?

Nope.

Note that the word "can" is needed because it is not automatic.

First, of course, it must an enchantment, abjuration or curse.
Second, it must be no hgigher than fifth level (that's arguable and does nto matter here)
Third, the Caster Level check must be successful.
Fourth, there nust not be some other rule that would prevent this from taking happening.

If all those are true, that it reverses the instantaneous effect.

The tricky bit is number four, of course.

Whether or not the spell list within Feeblemind represents a rule that can possibly prevent the revesal hinges on the defintion of "reverse."
n
If "reverse' meas that the spell effect essentially never happens (it is "unraveled," for lack of a better term), than there is no spell effect to contain the "spell list" text and the "spell list" cannot prevent Break Enchantment from working.

On the other hand, if you take the word "reverse" to have it mean something more akin to "cure," then perhaps the spell list does exclude Break Enchantment, depending upon other arguments (with which I do not agree, but that's beside the point here).

Unfortuantely, we have no guidance other than ordinary English to decide what "reverse" means in this instance.

 

[Felix]

Wouldn't that imply that no future spell could ever remove Feeblemind, because the primary source--the feeblemind spell--lays out the methods for removing it, and a new spell that removes it would therefore be in conflict with the primary source?

Unless you consider new material, such as the spell Panacea, to be an implicit change of the rules that you make when you accept the material. This is an individual-campaign degree of eratta; it will not apply to other's games necessiarly, unless they too accept the change of the rules-set.

 

[Felix]

Nope.

Note that the word "can" is needed because it is not automatic.

First, of course, it must an enchantment, abjuration or curse.
Second, it must be no hgigher than fifth level (that's arguable and does nto matter here)
Third, the Caster Level check must be successful.
Fourth, there nust not be some other rule that would prevent this from taking happening.

If all those are true, that it reverse in instantaneous effect.

I think perhaps you've miswritten something in the bolded sentence; would you please edit it before I respond if that is the case?

 

[Artoomis]

Yes it is. The primary source rule applies whenever there is a confict between two rules, no matter where they are. The example given of text vs. table is an example of a conflict between two sources in the same book.

I do not think that, generally, there is an order of precendence between two spells.

Certainly a spell that states "Dispel Magic will not affect this spell" takes precendence over the Dispel Magic rules within that spell, but, other than something really clear-cut like that, I see no way to establish precendence between spells.

 

[Artoomis]

I think perhaps you've miswritten something in the bolded sentence; would you please edit it before I respond if that is the case?

Fixed it, Thanks. I hate it when my stupidness/carelessness/bad editing and/or typos gets quoted and I can no longer fix it!

Happens all to often!