Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Mephistopheles]

The Break Enchantment spell states "This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses".

Bestow Curse states "You place a curse on the subject" and also "The curse bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell".

The Heal spell states "It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the Target: ... feebleminded ...".

(As a quick aside, Mass Heal states "This spell functions like heal", so by reference Mass Heal establishes that it is a remedy for Feeblemind.)

The Feeblemind spell states "The subject remains in this state until a heal ... spell is used to cancel the effect".

Now I'll bring this into context with the current debate. While Break Enchantment establishes that it can remove curses Bestow Curse still specifies Break Enchantment as a specific remedy even though it is redundant to do so. Similarly while Heal establishes that it can remove a feeblemind effect the Feeblemind spell description still specifies Heal as a remedy even though it is redundant to do so.

Along similar lines the FAQ states "A feeblemind effect remains until the subject receives a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell".

Based on the above it seems reasonable to infer that if Break Enchantment was intended to remedy a feeblemind effect then it would be listed as a remedy in the Feeblemind spell.

In any case allowing Break Enchantment to remedy a feeblemind effect does not seem terribly unbalancing. The remedy list in the Feeblemind spell lists spells that are 6th level and above as guaranteed remedies, while the success of the 5th level (for non-hybrid casters) spell Break Enchantment in removing a feeblemind effect would be dependent on a caster level check and not guaranteed.

 

[Thanee]

Does this now make sense?

No.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

It would seem that the errata thinks otherwise.

The main point here is that when you are faced with a decision between A or B, the rules state that you should choose whichever one is "primary", and follow that option. The rules do not allow for a third party option C, or for you to make up unwritten rules about A so that it is consistent with B (where, there is a rule that allows that, but that's Rule 0).

Which of these two spells is the primary source is still open to debate.

 

[Umbran]

Actually, it means precisely that. You'd better go back to logic class.

Okay, this was a page back, but I'll address it now, just to be perfectly clear...

If no nice, then no post.

And anyone who tries to apply mathematical logic to that will probably not like the results. If you're technically correct, and know it, then your argument will stand without making others look small.

 

[Felix]

Re: Umbran

While I bow to your Syllogistic Moderator Construct Hammer, I'd like to say that I think this is one of the few rules threads that has gone on for this many pages as quickly as it has and been this civil; generally we're calling each other yahoos by page 3.

Go us?

 

[glass]

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

I don't know anything of the sort. In fact, I know, because the spell is written in english and I have been speaking and reading english for the best part of 30 years, that the unless clause as worded cannot be anything else than complete.


glass.

 

[glass]

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

The precendence is that the specific overrides the general.

This is not stated explicitly, because it doesn't need to be; if the general overrode the specific then their would be no possibility of specific rules or exceptions ever. Since this is clearly unworkable, the specific must override the general.


glass.

 

[KarinsDad]

Having finally read all of the posts on the last 6 pages, my conclusion is that the specific overrides the general and Break Enchantment does not get rid of Feeblemind according to literal RAW. Unless means unless.

The arguments to the counter are not convincing.

Balance-wise, there is probably nothing wrong with allowing BE to get rid of Feeblemind, but that is not what is written.

 

[Artoomis]

The precendence is that the specific overrides the general.

This is not stated explicitly, because it doesn't need to be; if the general overrode the specific then their would be no possibility of specific rules or exceptions ever. Since this is clearly unworkable, the specific must override the general.


glass.

That's assuming the "specific" is actually truly specific. In fact, the list is not complete.

Wish and Limited Wish are both listed, implying that EVERY spell needs to be listed, even if redundant, as everything Limited Wish can do Wish can also do (plus more, of course), so only Limited Wish needed to be listed.

Therefore, if the list is to be complete. Mass Heal shoiuld have been listed.

Now there is a very fine argument on why Mass Heal should work. However, the fact remains that it was not on the list.

There is a very fine argument why Break Enchament should work, too.

But it's not on the list. Yes, I know the counter argument, how "Mass Heal" is really just Heal plus more, but here one is just deciding the degree to which the list may be expanded beyond the actual text.

Finally, on this topic directly, an "unti" a Break Enchament spell is used" clause could be viewed as innaccurate - a Break Enchament spell is not an automatic success (well, except under a generous reading) - a Caster Level check is still required. If it has been on the list, I could see folks arguing how that is evidence that Break Enchantment needs to Caster Level check vs. Feeblemind.

More importantly, there is an excellent argument why break Enchament DOES work, and does not even need to be on the list. That's because Break Enchantment does something UNIQUE in the PHB. It reverses certain intantaneous effects.

"Reverses" them.

It does not "cure" them, it does not "remove" the effect, it actually "reverses " the instantaneous effect.

So, it seems, everything hinges on what "reverse" means. At least everything for this one argument.

"Reverse" in this context means whatever the spell's effects are they no longer exist because (somehow) the pre-spell state of the character is restored. In some sense, it is as if the instantaneous effect never really happened. How this is possible is not explained, but what else can "reverse" really mean?

This trumps the "unless" clause in the same way the M's Disjunction trumps spells that cannot be dispelled, or spells that have a defined list of how to end them. The magic is somehow "undone" - not dispelled, not cured, etc. No spell can avoid M's Disjunction - certainly not unless it specifically stated so on the affiramtive, not by simply listing an apparently "exclusive" list of remedies.

In the same way no instantaneous effect ( if a 5th level or lower enchantment, transmuatation or curse) can avoid Break Enchantment unless it specifically says so.

That really seems to be the way it works.

Of course those on the other side of the argument will have a different explanation, that is to be expected.

A matter of interpretation, really, I suppose.

Bottom line - yes, there CAN be more than one RIGHT answer. That's what happens when humans right the rules. Rule as you wish in your games, I am more than satisfied that, as written, Break Enhcantment trumps Feeblemind (provided, of course, you have the minute to spend casting it AND you successfully make the caster Level check).

 

[KarinsDad]

Therefore, if the list is to be complete. Mass Heal shoiuld have been listed.

If you were arguing the opposite side of this fence, I do not think you would think this.

This is an extremely weak argument due to the definition of Mass Spells in the PHB.