Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[sirwmholder]

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

This is precisely the position I take on this entire debate. To me it is very reasonable to slightly alter Break Enchantment by removing the line... "Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect." This slight alteration could possibly effect only two SRD spells, Unholy Blight and Feeblemind, both of which state possible remedies which, in my mind, means Break Enchantment wouldn't work anyway. In addition it would eliminate any future problems with Break Enchantment.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Contrast the effects on a Fly spell of Dispel Magic or Disjunction with an AMF.

If someone casts Dispel Magic on your Fly spell, it behaves as though the duration had expired; you start to slowly descend.

If someone Disjoins your Fly spell, it ends as though Dispel Magic had been used; you start to slowly descend.

If you Fly into an Antimagic Field, your Fly spell is suppressed; you plummet.

Disjunction works on spells like Dispel Magic does; if Dispel Magic explicitly does nothing, then so will Disjunction, unless otherwise specified.

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

I don't like it.

I think Feeblemind is similar to being killed by a Death effect. The Death effect is instantaneous, but it leaves you in the 'killed by a Death effect' state, which cannot be undone by a Raise Dead spell.

Feeblemind is instantaneous, but it leaves you in the 'feebleminded' state, which can only be undone by a specific list of treatments. Break Enchantment isn't one of them.

(Break Enchantment has its own problems, of course, given that the spell description lists Flesh to Stone as an example of an instantaneous effect, yet later on gives a rule that prohibits Break Enchantment from actually working on Flesh to Stone...)

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...It is my opinion that the spell is Brain Damage...

Okay, that's reasonable. In that case BE works because that's what it is designed to do and nothing stops it from working.

A list in the spell description simply cannot, from a rules perspective, stop BE from working.

That's because the spell is instanenous. BE "reverses" such instantaneous effects.

Because the spell is instananeous and leaves behind no enforcement mechanism for any restrictive list of remedies, this list must be a permissive list rather than a restrictive one.

If someone can point out HOW BE can not work, I might be convinced. I see nothing along those lines, though.

Mind you, if the spell energy still existed (permanent), that would be different. But without the spell energy to prevent some otherwise-valid remedy, how can that remedy not work?

 

[Cedric]

Okay, that's reasonable. In that case BE works because that's what it is designed to do and nothing stops it from working.

A list in the spell description simply cannot, from a rules perspective, stop BE from working.

That's because the spell is instanenous. BE "reverses" such instantaneous effects.

Because the spell is instananeous and leaves behind no enforcement mechanism for any restrictive list of remedies, this list must be a permissive list rather than a restrictive one.

If someone can point out HOW BE can not work, I might be convinced. I see nothing along those lines, though.

Mind you, if the spell energy still existed (permanent), that would be different. But without the spell energy to prevent some otherwise-valid remedy, how can that remedy not work?

Nothing in the wording of BE leads me to believe it can cure a damaged brain, even a magically damaged brain, at least not of anything except for very minor maladies perhaps.

Wish, Limited Wish, Heal and Miracle ALL have text that relates to their ability to specifically cure mental maladies.

Now...on the other hand, if you wanted to argue that Greater Restoration would cure Feeblemind, I would house rule that in a second, it seems to be a very obvious oversight that Greater Restoration isn't on the list...but since it isn't, technically it doesn't work either.

That needs to be changed though, because it should.

 

[Felix]

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

Ok, so let's define terms!

X: Share Info
Y: Tell us not to.

That leaves: X unless Y
Which becomes: If not X, then Y
Also: If not Y, then X

In English: If we arn't sharing info, then it's because you told us not to.
Also: If you don't tell us not to, we are sharing info.

I have no problem with your postulate so far.

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.

You then continue by saying that "telling us not to" is a necessary condition for sharing.

In two sentences you have contradicted yourself, and pass this off as an argument!

Artoomis, this is the third time in this thread you have made an error in the language and logic foundations of your arguments, and yet continued to support their conclusions despite the demonstrable unsoundness of the premises. In view of this, how am I to believe that you will be persuaded by even the most rigorous arguments? What point is there in discussing this with you when you distort logic and language either by error or artifice?

 

[KarinsDad]

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

I think this statement boils down the argument for me.

Feeblemind is a serious condition for which only a few listed remedies exist.

Break Enchantment is not listed as one of those remedies.


It's like a virus that only a few select antibiotics work. BE is a general antibiotic that fixes a lot of viruses, just not the Feeblemind one, even though the Feeblemind virus has the basic properties of the type of virus for which BE does work.

The disease nor the cure explicitly specifies that this cure works.

 

[Artoomis]

...I don't like it.

I think Feeblemind is similar to being killed by a Death effect. The Death effect is instantaneous, but it leaves you in the 'killed by a Death effect' state, which cannot be undone by a Raise Dead spell.

Feeblemind is instantaneous, but it leaves you in the 'feebleminded' state, which can only be undone by a specific list of treatments. Break Enchantment isn't one of them.

-Hyp.

I don't like the way Death Effects work, but at least there the rule that breaks the normal rule is very, very specific.

I don't like the way this was written. In EVERY OTHER INSTANCE if WotC did not want the normal remedy to work (Dispel Magic, etc., etc.) they plainly stated such.

Here they did not.

Worse yet, they did not do it in a unique case of an instantaneous spell normally subject to Break Enchantment, which can reverse even instantaneous effects.

All in all, poorly done.

I'd allow it to work for several reasons:

Flavor (seems right - it's very much like a curse)
Balance (one fifth level spell countering another one - and only with a Caster Level check, at that).
Rules (lot's of arguments on that one)
Utility: If you don't allow this use, which instantaneous effects do get reversed by Break Enchantment anyway? Unholy Blight would be the ONLY one in the PHB, and that's questionable - it's not listed as a curse but remove curse works, so maybe...

 

[KarinsDad]

You then continue by saying that "telling us not to" is a necessary condition for sharing.

In two sentences you have contradicted yourself, and pass this off as an argument!

Come on, this is lame.

He obviously meant "not sharing" in that sentence. Just because he had a typo does not mean that his logic was faulty. It means he had a typo.

The rest of us read what he wrote, realized he made a mistake, read it as he meant it to be read, and moved on.

 

[Artoomis]

...Artoomis, this is the third time in this thread you have made an error in the language and logic foundations of your arguments, and yet continued to support their conclusions despite the demonstrable unsoundness of the premises. In view of this, how am I to believe that you will be persuaded by even the most rigorous arguments? What point is there in discussing this with you when you distort logic and language either by error or artifice?

I made a wee error. Whoops. I left out the word "not," it appears, though in context it was clear.

The main point is that I keep trying to tell you it is an error to apply strict logic here. It works well in computer science, but not in normal everyday use.

Why?

Because we are all fallable. We make lists that are supposedly exclusive and than later realize the exception we should have included.

That's normal life, man.

"This program will run until it detects an error condition."

Someone pulls the plug.

Whoops - the original statement was not complete - That's the NORMAL state for such statements.

Heck, if we were infallable all our computer programs would actually work as they were supposed to.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Utility: If you don't allow this use, which instantaneous effects do get reversed by Break Enchantment anyway? Unholy Blight would be the ONLY one in the PHB, and that's questionable - it's not listed as a curse but remove curse works, so maybe...

Someone brought up the example of Reincarnate before. As far as I can tell, it fits all the criteria - Instantaneous Transmutation below 5th level...

But I see it as being particularly applicable for effects that might not be in the PHB. Baleful Polymorph is Permanent, but the witch in the forest might have an instantaneous Turn-You-Into-A-Toad effect. Dispel Magic doesn't work, but Break Enchantment is tailor-made.

-Hyp.