Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Hypersmurf]

That sounds a lot like an old Star Trek reference. Is it?

Changeling. The first error was in thinking that Kirk was Jackson Roykirk, Nomad's creator.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...Quite wrong. The original statement of yours was not "incomplete", it was False. ...

Okay then, the statement in Feeblemind is in error. As in false. It leaves out Break Enchantment, which must work for a couple of reasons, and is therefore in error.

It aslo leaves out Mass Heal any any opening for future (post-PHB) spells, and is therefore in error. Those a minor omissions, I grant, but still, if it is to be a strict True/False anaylsis, then the statement is False.

Satisified?

 

[Hypersmurf]

It leaves out Break Enchantmen, which MUST work, and is therefore in error.

Why 'must' work?

How can you be certain that whatever you're using to determine that Break Enchantment 'must' work isn't where the error lies, if we're assuming an error exists?

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Why 'must' work?

How can you be certain that whatever you're using to determine that Break Enchantment 'must' work isn't where the error lies, if we're assuming an error exists?

-Hyp.

Must because:

1. It's an instaneous spell. Break Enchament reverse instaneous spells. There is no residual spell energy to somehow direct the Break Enchantment to not work.

2. The Break Enchantment spell is not prohibited specifically from working. It really needs to be the same way that Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field are ALWAYS metioned if they do not apply. I submit that a virtual rule has been created by precendence of the treatment of Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field.

So, for at least those two reasons, Break Enchantment must work.

Now I am perfectly willing to agree that this is not the only possible valid interpretation and that two correct answers may exists, but I am not willing to state that my answer does not follow the rules.

 

[Cedric]

Okay then, the statement in Feeblemind is in error. As in false. It leaves out Break Enchantment, which must work for a couple of reasons, and is therefore in error.

Was this just an example? Or are you now arguing that you're right, because the rules are wrong?

 

[Artoomis]

Was this just an example? Or are you now arguing that you're right, because the rules are wrong?

Actually, the argument would not be I am right because the rules are wrong, more like the rules are wrong because they violate other rules.

Since Felix will only allow the "until" statemernt to be true to false, it must be false and in error - if I such a precise approach is followed.

However, I prefer a less precise approach that recognizes that "until" is often simply an incomplete (non-exclusive) list and add Break Enchantment to it. An oversight.

 

[Felix]

Okay then, the statement in Feeblemind is in error. As in false. It leaves out Break Enchantment, which must work for a couple of reasons, and is therefore in error.

It aslo leaves out Mass Heal and any opening for future (post-PHB) spells, and is therefore in error. Those a minor omissions, I grant, but still, if it is to be a strict True/False anaylsis, then the statement is False.

Satisified?

I am; satisfied that I cannot change your assumption of Falsehood if you insist upon it, no matter the arguments that have been presented against it, which are sound; I am satisfied that you are determined not to change your opinion on the matter; I am satisfied with my participation in this thread.

 

[Cedric]

Actually, the argument would not be I am right because the rules are wrong, more like the rules are wrong because they violate other rules.

Since Felix will only allow the "until" statemernt to be true to false, it must be false and in error - if I such a precise approach is followed.

However, I prefer a less precise approach that recgnizes that "until" is often simply an incomplete (non-exclusive) list and add Break Enchantment to it. An oversight.

So the rules "officially" work the way you think they do because the published rules violate other rules and are imprecise? That's your position?

 

[Mort]

However, I prefer a less precise approach that recgnizes that "until" is often simply an incomplete (non-exclusive) list and add Break Enchantment to it. An oversight.

An oversight implies that the designers intended the spell to work but made an error in the wording- way back on page 1 it was stated that designer's intent was for the spell not to work. Since there isn't an error in the wording (you can argue semantics all you like but the plain meaning is clear) it is clearly not an oversight at all.\

So plain language - check
designer intent - check



what else is there?

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is no residual spell energy to somehow direct the Break Enchantment to not work.

There doesn't need to be, if the intantaneous spell put the subject into an unBreak-Enchantmentable state.

2. The Break Enchantment spell is not prohibited specifically from working.

It's not on the list of things that can restore the subject.

-Hyp.