Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

...Just because Mass Heal "opens the door a crack" does not mean that Break Enchantment can walk through.

I agree. It does nto mean that at all. It does, however, make the question legitimate.
...
Any spell that explicitly states that it can cure Feebleminded can, even though Feeblemind itself only allows for 4 spells. Any spell that does not explicitly state it can do so (with the exceptions of Wish, Limited Wish, Heal, and Miracle) cannot.


My POV is a literal reading of RAW, not a liberal reading of RAW.

First, a literal reading does not necessarily restrict the spell list that can overcome Feebglmind. It is just as literal to read that list as the list of spells that are noted as actually being able to overcome Feeblmind - a permsissive list that is not necessarily all-inclusive.

Second, a literal reading of Break Enchament shows that it can reverse Feeblemind - an instaneous fifth level enchantment.

Third, "reverse" is a unique word relative to spell effects (other than revsing effects to thy go back to the caster). A literal reading of reverse is intersting - there are many defintions. Some relevant ones are:

To revoke or annul. (as in "reverse a lower court decision")
To change to the opposite. (as in "reversed a planned course of action")
The opposite or contrary. As in "All along we thought Sue was older than Bill, but just the reverse was true.")
Reversed (turned backward) in order or nature or effect [syn: inverse]
Turning in the opposite direction [syn: reversion, reversal, turnabout, turnaround]

If the effects of "Feeblemind" are reversed, then perhaps the it makes no difference what is written in the spell description because the effects cannot exist, thus no restriction on what will end the effects exists either.

 

[Artoomis]

Can you sight any rules backing this up? How did you come up with these three spells, specifically? I believe you are talking about your feeling of the situation, not what the actual rules state.

Also, to require all spells to specifically prohibit all spells that do not counter said spell would be pretty much impossible when considering that new spells are added all the time through research or splat books.

Nope, I cannot. My precedent is that in every other case it seems that the authors went out of thier way to specify if Dispel Magic or Mage's Disjunction would not work (or Anti-Magic Field, for that matter).

The nature of reversing instantaneous spells pretty much makes it along the same lines.

The far stronger argument is actually that the spell text does not matter at all if the instantaneous effect is "reversed " - at that point there is no spell text at all.

 

[KarinsDad]

Maybe so. But if they did, would M's Disjunction work?

Simple question.

No.

I submit that this is basically the same question as to whether Break Enchament should work with it as written.

MD has the same basic problem that BE has:

Was a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell (or a spell which explicitly states that it can cancel Feeblemind) used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind? No.


The specific language spell still takes precedence over the general language spell.

 

[PallidPatience]

Back to the cookie example:

If you somehow get a cookie before your room is clean, you've broken the rules.

If you remove the Feeblemind state before you've been subjected to those spells, spells that work like those spells, or spells that specifically state that they remove the state, you have done the same (unless you want to change the rules in your own house).

 

[Artoomis]

No.



MD has the same basic problem that BE has:

Was a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell (or a spell which explicitly states that it can cancel Feeblemind) used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind? No.


The specific language spell still takes precedence over the general language spell.

I obviously do not agree with you in this instance, but I give you, also, 10,000 points for consistency.

"The points don't matter" (who can tell me the reference for thar line?).

 

[Artoomis]

Back to the cookie example:

If you somehow get a cookie before your room is clean, you've broken the rules.

If you remove the Feeblemind state before you've been subjected to those spells, spells that work like those spells, or spells that specifically state that they remove the state, you have done the same (unless you want to change the rules in your own house).

Unless , of course, some other rule says you can. Like, say, the ability to reverse an instantaneous enchament. Just for example, of course.

 

[KarinsDad]

First, a literal reading does not necessarily restrict the spell list that can overcome Feebglmind. It is just as literal to read that list as the list of spells that are noted as actually being able to overcome Feeblmind - a permsissive list that is not necessarily all-inclusive.

Not with the word "unless" in that sentence. That's ignoring the meaning of English words.

Second, a literal reading of Break Enchament shows that it can reverse Feeblemind - an instaneous fifth level enchantment.

If Feeblemind did not have an all inclusive list within it, this would be true.

Third, "reverse" is a unique word relative to spell effects (other than revsing effects to thy go back to the caster). A literal reading of reverse is intersting - there are many defintions. Some relevant ones are:

To revoke or annul. (as in "reverse a lower court decision")
To change to the opposite. (as in "reversed a planned course of action")
The opposite or contrary. As in "All along we thought Sue was older than Bill, but just the reverse was true.")
Reversed (turned backward) in order or nature or effect [syn: inverse]
Turning in the opposite direction [syn: reversion, reversal, turnabout, turnaround]

If the effects of "Feeblemind" are reversed, then perhaps the it makes no difference what is written in the spell description because the effects cannot exist, thus no restriction on what will end the effects exists either.

This is grasping at straws. Anytime a person has to dig this deeply into semantics and meaning to illustrate a point, it's a sure bet that most DMs will not dig this deep and the designers did not think it out to that level.

Using Break Enchantment is no different than using Dispel Magic (or Remove Curse or Mage's Disjunction, etc.) on Feeblemind. Neither spell affects Feeblemind because they are not on the inclusionary list of Feeblemind, nor do they explicitly state that they can override that list (like Mass Heal) by explicitly stating that they reverse Feeblemind.

 

[Artoomis]

Not with the word "unless" in that sentence. That's ignoring the meaning of English words.....

No, it's actualy using the word as it is commonly used.

For example, many web sites use the text:

"We share other types of information with our affiliates unless you tell us not to."

No one thinks that "you tell us not to" is the ONLY condition under which the information will be shared. There may be government regulations that trump this statement under certain conditions.

In common usage, unless is not truly exclusive.

That's the trouble with statements that purport to be "exclusive" or "all-inclusive" - they rarely actually are.

And that is why spells that do not allow for Dispel Magic or M's Disjunction or even Antimagic Field are very careful to affirmitively spell that out.

If the intent is to exclude any of those remedies, or, in this case, to exclude Break Enchantment, then it should be so stated.

The plain fact is the use of the word "until" does not, in common usage, really produce a truly complete, exclusionary list.

Indeed, even in this case it cearly did not for eveyone agree that Mass Heal and Panacea both work, yet they are not on the "100% exclusionary list.

 

[Deset Gled]

First, a literal reading does not necessarily restrict the spell list that can overcome Feebglmind. It is just as literal to read that list as the list of spells that are noted as actually being able to overcome Feeblmind - a permsissive list that is not necessarily all-inclusive.

As has been pointed out extensively, the list is all inclusive. And you yourself said earlier of this point "Look, it realy does not matter anyhow."

The far stronger argument is actually that the spell text does not matter at all if the instantaneous effect is "reversed " - at that point there is no spell text at all.

Its worth noting that if you ruled in this way, even if a spell stated that BE did not work, BE still would, as that text would not be there at all.

 

[Deset Gled]

In common usage, unless is not truly exclusive.

Yes, it is. You are making up additional conditions to the spell that simply are not there.