Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

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?

The designer's intent for Break Enchantment, plus my analysis of how the rules actually work, as opposed to how we'd like them to work, or how they were intended to work.

In any cases, I have stated, and now re-state, I am perfectly willing to agree that BOTH arguments are legitmate interpretation of the rules.

I think mine is better....

 

[Cedric]

In any cases, I have stated, and now re-state, I am perfectly willing to agree that BOTH arguments are legitmate interpretation of the rules.

I think mine is better....

I'm saying this to be honest and frank, so please don't take it with any under or over tones of rudeness.

But I think your position is groundless, wrong and without validity.

 

[Mort]

The designer's intent for Break Enchantment, plus my analysis of how the rules actually work, as opposed to how we'd like them to work, or how they were intended to work.

In any cases, I have stated, and now re-state, I am perfectly willing to agree that BOTH arguments are legitmate interpretation of the rules.

I think mine is better....

If the two arguments are equally valid (and I still maintain the plain language says they are not, and that the rules are perfectly consistant - but I'm just going here for the sake of argument) - then where do you go?

Well, if you somehow know the intent (not always feasible) - you go there.

Here we know the intent - and it's that BE doesn't work.

Argue all you like, but this is one of the truly rare instances where there is no ambiguity, and even if there was - we have a clear answer!

 

[Artoomis]

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



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

-Hyp.

It does not need to be. It needs to be listed on a short list of spells that would otherwise work to remove the effects but don't work in this particular instance.

I might agree if stronger language had been used. As it is, the language is simply not strong enough to exclude the use of an otherwise-legitimate remedy.

I think that Break Enchament deserves the same treatment as Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field. EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE when those won't work is clearly and affirmatively stated.

I simply do not buy the argument that Break Enchantment does not work because it's not on "the list" of things that do. Such lists are almost always flawed to one degree or another which is why, I think, that Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field are always specifically addressed if they are not to work on some spell effect.

Besides that, of course, is the fact that, unlike other spells, the lack of remaining spell energy that can be applied to exclude Break Enchament form working is rather huge burden to overcome for your side.

I know all about the opposing argument and I give them full due and consideration. I think they are just as valid as mine.

I fail to see why we cannot simply agree that we are ALL CORRECT.

Break Enchantment both does and does not work, per the rules, on Feeblemind. Each DM must decide how it works in his/her game.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I fail to see why we cannot simply agree that we are ALL CORRECT.

Because most people think that they're correct, and you're wrong, which is why they hold the position they do in the first place.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...
Argue all you like, but this is one of the truly rare instances where there is no ambiguity, and even if there was - we have a clear answer!

I disagree. There is plenty of ambiguity, and designer's intent matters not if the rules are against tha tintent. i think they are.

Of course I am perfectly willing to go compromise and agree there is no real answer here. Designer's intent and all considered.

Among other things, we do not know the designer's intent for Break Enchantment. From the spell language itself, it appears to be intended to work - it's just about the ONLY spell in the PHB on which it would work to reverse an instantaneous effect.

 

[Artoomis]

Because most people think that they're correct, and you're wrong, which is why they hold the position they do in the first place.

-Hyp.

ROFL.

 

[pawsplay]

Multitudes of people have already said this - but the simple answer is because feeblemind says so. If that's not enough, you have one of the designers saying that that's exactly what was intended, so you cannot argue it was an error in wording.

And what does Break Enchantment say?

 

[pawsplay]

The language within Feeblemind is not flawed; it is accurate and complete.

Let us accept that for a moment.


Feeblemind
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One creature


The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.

From polymorph any object:

Unlike polymorph, polymorph any object does grant the creature the Intelligence score of its new form.

What happens if a human wizard is feebleminded, then transformed into a gnoll?

What happens if the wizard is killed? A dead body is not a creature. So what happens if a creature is feebleminded, then killed, then raised? What happens if he is killed, his body is transformed into a honey ham, the honey ham is transformed back into his body, and he is then raised?

What happens if a major deity uses Alter Reality to undo feeblemind?

What happens if someone researches a 9th level spell, "Reverse Feeblemind," and casts it on a person afflicted with feeblemind?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What happens if the wizard is killed? A dead body is not a creature. So what happens if a creature is feebleminded, then killed, then raised? What happens if he is killed, his body is transformed into a honey ham, the honey ham is transformed back into his body, and he is then raised?

Much the same as if you cast Charm Person on a human who then turns into an ogre. The Charm Person spell is already in effect, so even though you could not cast it on an ogre, the ogre who is already under the effect of a Charm Person spell that was valid at casting time is Charmed.

Remember, Bestow Curse targets a creature, and Raise Dead explicitly states that curses are not undone when a creature is raised.

What happens if a major deity uses Alter Reality to undo feeblemind?

Presumably, he'd use it to emulate the 9th-level-or-lower spell, Heal, which would work just fine.

-Hyp.