Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Cedric]

Instantaneous. That's the real key.

What happens after the spell is cast - what is left?

For feeblemind, the victim has INT 1 and CHA 1 with some explanation of what that means.

That's it. Is there any residual magical effect? No.

Okay, then, what happens when BE is cast? It should reverse the instantaneous effect.

But what about that "until" text. Hmmm.. What about it? The spell itself has been used up - nothing remains but the CHA 1 and INT 1. Nothing. There is no magical effect to prevent BE from working, so it must indeed work.

So what about if, for argument's sake, the spell was permananet? Would that make a difference? Most assuradely.

Now we try and cast BE. Is there anything that could prevent it form working? Sure, The spell is permanent, thus still in effect. That means if the spell says BE won't work, it won't. Period. Assuming you think the "until" language actually would prevent BE form working then, in the case of this being permanent rather than instantaneous, it would not work.

This is not even a stetch. It's just the way instantaneous spells work. Now it was very nice of the author to provide a list of spells that would remove the Feebleminded state - it's just a shame he did not include Break Enchantment in that list. He did not need to for it to work, of course, because the spell is "instantaneous," but it certainly has caused much confusion here.

I'm not sure why we are back to this, there are numerous examples in the book that flatly disagree with you.

Imprisonment, very much leaves behind a residual magical effect, despite being instantaneous.

Just because the "spell energy" passes instantly, doesn't mean the consequence or result of the spell isn't also magical by it's own nature.

There is nothing to support your supposition that "the magic is gone and no longer can dictate conditions."

 

[Cedric]

In the case of D&D spells you should (must?) do both. Certainly it is true for all example where Dispel Magic won't work.

That's your opinion, nothing in the text requires this.

 

[Artoomis]

I'm not sure why we are back to this, there are numerous examples in the book that flatly disagree with you.

Imprisonment, very much leaves behind a residual magical effect, despite being instantaneous.

Just because the "spell energy" passes instantly, doesn't mean the consequence or result of the spell isn't also magical by it's own nature.

There is nothing to support your supposition that "the magic is gone and no longer can dictate conditions."

In that case, do you go back to your normal INT and CHA in an Anti-Magic Field?

Is it your opinion that this spell leaves behind some magical condition? If so, this potentially opens up a HUGE can of worms.

Imprisonment does in fact leave you in a magical prison in a state of suspended animation. True enough. I fail to see the relevance to THIS spell, though.

It seems like you want to blur the lines between a permanent spell and an instantaneous one.

 

[Artoomis]

Let's keep in mind the difference between:

Instantaneous
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

and

Permanent
The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic.

 

[Artoomis]

That's your opinion, nothing in the text requires this.

You kinda missed my point.

"That's why, if you have known exceptions that you wish to exclude, they really should be listed to avoid confuision and potential invalidity of your statment."

AFTER you list out your complete list of remedies, you should also list those few reemdeis that definately will not work.

Failure to do so causes confusion (at least) - and note the authors seem to agree with me based upon how they have handled Dispel Magic, M's Disjunction and Antimagic Field. If one or more of those will not work, they are very, very careful to actively point that out.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, wow! How many agree that, all other things being equal, if the spell was Permanent that M's Disjunction would not work?

If a spell states that Dispel Magic does not work, then Disjunction will not work unless the spell states otherwise.

What does Disjunction do to a spell? It "ends the effect as a dispel magic spell does". If a Dispel Magic spell does not end a spell, then neither will Disjunction, unless otherwise stated.

Examples include Wall of Force and Prismatic Wall, which are unaffected by Dispel Magic, but which specifically state "A Mordenkainen's Disjunction spell destroys the Wall".

If this line were omitted, then Disjunction would have no effect on a Wall of Force or Prismatic Wall.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

If a spell states that Dispel Magic does not work, then Disjunction will not work unless the spell states otherwise.

What does Disjunction do to a spell? It "ends the effect as a dispel magic spell does". If a Dispel Magic spell does not end a spell, then neither will Disjunction, unless otherwise stated.

Examples include Wall of Force and Prismatic Wall, which are unaffected by Dispel Magic, but which specifically state "A Mordenkainen's Disjunction spell destroys the Wall".

If this line were omitted, then Disjunction would have no effect on a Wall of Force or Prismatic Wall.

-Hyp.

Hmm.. I am not so sure, but it does not matter for this discussion anyway. It looks like the end effect is the same but the way it gets there is much different. Ah, well, different topic.

How do you feel about my argument on Feeblemind as an Instantaneous spell means Break Enchantment works (see post #269)

For that matter, what does "reverse instantaneous effects" really mean, anyway?

 

[KarinsDad]

REVERSE GRAVITY

This spell reverses gravity in an area, ... If an object or creature reaches the top of the area without striking anything, it remains there, oscillating slightly, until the spell ends...

Does this prevent any other possible solution? What about flying out of the area of effect? Etc,. etc.

...

Okay, okay, not bullet-proof examples, but they do show how the word, "until" is not really used in an absolute sense.

It's used more like "until this event happens, or some other valid event happens that we did not list."

Well, first off, Reverse Gravity explicitly allows flying creatures to ignore the effect.

But, in answer to your question, it depends on reasonableness.

If it is reasonable to Dimension Door out of a Reverse Gravity, then that is an external valid event. Reverse Gravity does not really change anything except the direction of gravity, so spell effects that can ignore gravity should be able to work and the spell effect itself gives examples.


When given an explicit list of spells that will end the instantaneous effect, what is reasonable? 1) Any spell that explicitly states that it ends that effect is reasonable. 2) Any spell on the list is reasonable.

Any other spell is not reasonable precisely because the list exists.

A player could say "Feeblemind is worse than Bestow Curse in power and it does not even do ability damage or drain, hence, it is a curse and Remove Curse can remove it". That is also not reasonable because Remove Curse is not on the list (nor is Feeblemind stated as a curse, even though for all intents and purposes it is).


Is it reasonable for a good night's sleep to get rid of Feeblemind? No because that is not a solution on the list either.


The reason that Fly or Dimension Door can be reasonable for Reverse Gravity is because Reverse Gravity does not give a concise list of solutions (like Feeblemind). It instead states the typical solution (spell expiring) shy of other unnamed solutions resolving it.

Feeblemind does not do that. It states specific named spell solutions that are very difficult to acquire and very limited in number. This implies that other solutions will not work and it implies that only spell solutions will work based solely on how it is worded.


It's all about reasonableness and where one draws the line. Is it reasonable for Break Enchantment to kill a creature that had previously been reincarnated?

Is it reasonable for Feeblemind to be listing an exclusive list? I think yes. You think no.

 

[Cedric]

In that case, do you go back to your normal INT and CHA in an Anti-Magic Field?

No, it's not on the list.

Is it your opinion that this spell leaves behind some magical condition? If so, this potentially opens up a HUGE can of worms.

It is my opinion that the spell is Brain Damage, and the spells that can cure it all have some sort of text relating to their ability to specifically remove adverse affects like insanity, etc.

Imprisonment does in fact leave you in a magical prison in a state of suspended animation. True enough. I fail to see the relevance to THIS spell, though.

It seems like you want to blur the lines between a permanent spell and an instantaneous one.

My relevance with the imprisonment example is that imprisonment is instantaneous...not permanent. And yet, despite being instantaneous, it VERY clearly leaves behind a residual magical effect. Furthermore, this effect would NOT be suppressed by an anti-magic field, as imprisonment very, very clearly can only be eliminated by Freedom.

 

[Cedric]

You kinda missed my point.

"That's why, if you have known exceptions that you wish to exclude, they really should be listed to avoid confuision and potential invalidity of your statment."

Agreed, listing everything in every spell would eliminate confusion. Though, the line has to be drawn somewhere to prevent unnecessary redundancy.

AFTER you list out your complete list of remedies, you should also list those few reemdeis that definately will not work.

Failure to do so causes confusion (at least) - and note the authors seem to agree with me based upon how they have handled Dispel Magic, M's Disjunction and Antimagic Field. If one or more of those will not work, they are very, very careful to actively point that out.

Sometimes they point this out, sometimes they don't. You can't say the authors agree with you when there are clear examples of both cases, even in our own example.

Feeblemind can be cured by Limited Wish, it says so in the feeblemind description, but not under limited wish.

Feeblemind can be cured by Heal, it says so in the description of both spells.

Feeblemind cannot be cured by Break Enchantment (as I read the spells involved), because neither spell's description specifically references the other spell.