Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

Probably, yes. But how does that change the state of the subject?...Bye
Thanee

The "state" of the subject is:

"...its Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1. The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently. Still, it knows who its friends are and can follow them and even protect "

Since you can use items to raise the scores enough to be able to use a item that gives permanent increases, tomes for example, than the "state" of the subject is no longer as listed in the spell, but you have not used one of the listed spells to change the "state.". In other words, it is possible to do things OTHER than those listed to affect the "state" of the feebleminded victim.

Since Break Enchantment could normally "cure" Feeblemind, takes a very clear statement like" only" those other spells can be used to indicate that Break Enchantment wil not work.

An instantaneous effect can be reversed by anything that says it has that sort of power. The listed spells really work, it seems to me, because they can duplicate a Break Enchantment spell, or, in the case of Heal, because it is a listed thing that can be Healed.

None of those things needed to be listed in the spell - so they are, in effect, only a list of example solutions to being feebleminded.

Heal works because Heal says it works.
Break Enchantment works becasue it is an instantaneous enchantment of fifth level or lower.
Limited Wish, Wish and Miracle all can be used to emulate a Break Enchantment.

It appears the list in the spell is merely for convenience and is incomplete, rather than an exclusive list of all possible remedies.

Looks to me like either leaving Break Enchantment off the list was an oversight or using more specific language to exclude the possibility of other solutions other than those listed was an oversight.

Actually, if one wants to list only a certain set of "cures" and exclude all others that might work, the effect should have been "permanent" rather than "instantaneous" so that some residual magic could be in place that would prevent anything else from working.

As it is, because the effect is "instantaneous," the rules allow any possible solution that can affect a fifth-level instantanous enchantment, like Break Enchantment.

 

[Corsair]

Out of curiousity, does David Eckelberry's interpretation which I stated above affect anyone's opinion?

 

[Artoomis]

Out of curiousity, does David Eckelberry's interpretation which I stated above affect anyone's opinion?

That definately counts towards orignal intent, but, unfortunately, he made an error (perhaps) by making this effect "instantaneous" rather than "permanent."

A "permanent" effect is still a magical effect and so you could apply any rules you want on how to get rid of it. Thus a "Dispel Magic" need not work, for example, if the spell does not permit it to do so (as in Bestow Curse). I should think that this would leave it subject to Mage's Disjunction, though, but I hardly see that as a major issue.

An "Insantaneous"effect has no residual magic, so any in-the-rules stated cure for that effect must work unless clearly and specifically prohibited.

In this case, it's a fifth level instantaneous enchantment, so Break Enchantment will work unless specifcally prohibited.

If that's what was intended, it should have been so stated.

 

[Cedric]

This is a case of specificity vs. generality.

Anytime you have two texts (technical manuals, operating instructions, rule books...) that contradict one another, you have to consider specificity vs. generality.

Someone tried to point this out above, but referred to it as can vs. can't...they were right, but it just opened the door to semantics arguments.

You have a rulebook that states, with specificity, a limited set of actions that will function to produce a desired reaction.

No other action that states a general effect may function to produce the same reaction as required in our specific list.

Now, just to make this confusing, there is one possible exception, but it doesn't apply to Break Enchantment.

If there were a spell that specifically stated that it provided all of the functionality of one of our required spells, (heal, wish, limited wish or miracle) in so far as repairing damage, removing effects or the like is concerned, then that spell would function.

Why? Because it would have it's own limited specificity that allows it to apply in the same instances where our existing list of spells apply.

Example, Mass Heal. It's not the same as a Heal spell...however it specifically states that it provides the same functionality. So it works.

Sorry if this came off as too convoluted. Sometimes you have to think of rule books as technical manuals, operating instructions or the like. And there are very clear precedents of hierarchy for those.

Considering what Break Enchantment is intended to do, it makes sense that it would work, however, there is a specific list of available solutions and break enchantment is not on that list. If Break Enchantment was released in a subsequent rulebook and were not available in the core rulebook, then you could make a plausible argument that it is an addition to the rules and is specific enough in its capabilities that it should also function.

However, break enchantment is from the core rulebook, along with the other spells in question. Were it to be intended to function to remove feeblemind, the specific list of remedies would have to be updated to include break enchantment.

Cedric

 

[Artoomis]

FWIW:

At the beginning of this discussion I would have said, "No, way, Break Enchantment won't work - it's not on the list of things that work."

Further analysis has led me to that Break Enchantment really does work here. What do you know!

 

[Artoomis]

This is a case of specificity vs. generality.

Anytime you have two texts (technical manuals, operating instructions, rule books...) that contradict one another, you have to consider specificity vs. generality.

Ah, but they do NOT contradict. The list within the spell is merely incomplete.

...

You have a rulebook that states, with specificity, a limited set of actions that will function to produce a desired reaction.

But, once again, although the list is specific, it is not claimed to be exclusive of all other possible remedies, which is a good thing because as a instantaneous effect there is no residual magic left to limit the scope of possible remedies.

....However, break enchantment is from the core rulebook, along with the other spells in question. Were it to be intended to function to remove feeblemind, the specific list of remedies would have to be updated to include break enchantment.

Cedric

Nothing says their cannot be an oversight in a core rulebook. The list does not purport to be an exclusive list of remedies. Other solutions may (and can) exist.

 

[Cedric]

Ah, but they do NOT contradict. The list within the spell is merely incomplete.

Where is it stated that the spell is incomplete?

...

But, once again, although the list is specific, it is not claimed to be exclusive of all other possible remedies, which is a good thing because as a instantaneous effect there is no residual magic left to limit the scope of possible remedies.

Specificity works by stating what is allowed. Absent of any text to acknowledge that other solutions or options may exist, the list is complete.

Nothing says their cannot be an oversight in a core rulebook. The list does not purport to be an exclusive list of remedies. Other solutions may (and can) exist.

If other solutions are going to be official solutions, then an FAQ or errata entry would be required to allow this.

Every GM has the option of saying, "this is how it will work in my game."

However, that same GM cannot cloak himself in the comforting blanket of this is "official" based upon his own reading and interpretation.

For "official" rules to be used differently, there has to be a statement in an official source.

Again, if Break Enchantment were not in the core rulebook, I might very well agree with you. But since there is a clear, distinct list of what works, with no allowance for "other things to work," I contend the Break Enchantment does not function in this case.

Cedric

 

[Stalker0]

I think the magic missle vs shield argument mentioned above is a perfect one in this case.

Magic Missile strikes unerringly, that's what is says. But along comes this shield spell and says it can block it.

Feeblemind says, here are the ways to get rid of me. But along comes Break Enchantment and says, I'm special, I can break ANY enchantment of 5th level or level with an instantaneous duration. But of course, BE requires a check, all the other spells are automatic.

As far as general vs specific, Break Enchantment is pretty specific. It work against a certain class of spells, of a certain level or lower.

 

[mirivor]

Alright. I have to respond to this.

Break enchantment will not work. It is not one of the specified cures. How much easier can this get?

The argument that other things are not excluded is wishy-washy. Example: I am going to make fortitude saves against all spells from now on. Why? Because it is not specified that I can't. Sure, the save says "will", but it does not say "no fortitude".

Come to think of it, nearly every rule in the game is shattered by this method of thought, that unless something is excluded specifically it is not excluded at all.

Where does the book say that I cannot use my will save to make a melee attack?

Where does the book say that I cannot use my hide skill to jump up a small ledge?

I do not disagree about the possibility of Break Enchantment working, but as written in the rules it does not.

 

[Cedric]

I think the magic missle vs shield argument mentioned above is a perfect one in this case.

Magic Missile strikes unerringly, that's what is says. But along comes this shield spell and says it can block it.

Shield says is blocks Magic Missile ...specifically.

Feeblemind says, here are the ways to get rid of me. But along comes Break Enchantment and says, I'm special, I can break ANY enchantment of 5th level or level with an instantaneous duration. But of course, BE requires a check, all the other spells are automatic.

As far as general vs specific, Break Enchantment is pretty specific. It work against a certain class of spells, of a certain level or lower.

Working against a certain class of spells of certain levels, is a general list with a few parameters to define the list.

If, instead, Break Enchantment had listed every spell it worked against by name, that would be a specific list.