Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

Well! I'm glad we got that settled!

Daniel

Did it?

Well, in any case, I am convinced that a very reasonable approach is:

1. Int and Cha stay at "1" regardless of enhancements, etc.

2. Break Enchantment can "reverse" the instantaneous effect of Feeblemind.

This may be the best approach, Trying to read the rules with more precision than is generally contained in normal English, in this case as with a few others, simply leads to an impasse for rules interpretation. (For another good example of this, think about Monks and INA.)

For our group, it means do NOT let the Bard get "Feebleminded." He's the only one that can do "Break Enchantment" on our group, and no other remedy is readily available. Not that this has come up - and maybe it never will. One can only hope.

 

[Cedric]

Well! I'm glad we got that settled!

Daniel

Hah, the only thing that is settled is that we all disagree.

For what it's worth though, and I said this 8 pages ago, if you wanted to house rule that Break Enchantment would cure feeblemind in your game, then I would both:

Support your decision completely, and...
Agree with your logic for thinking it's a viable solution.

However, I wouldn't agree that the rules as written function that way.

 

[Pielorinho]

Hah, the only thing that is settled is that we all disagree.

Yeah--I was joking, but I think if we can agree to disagree, we're doing good.

For what it's worth though, and I said this 8 pages ago, if you wanted to house rule that Break Enchantment would cure feeblemind in your game

A very quick reminder that, due to its tendency to inflame tempers, we frown on referring to other folks' sincerely-held rules interpretations as "house rules" in this forum. There's a sticky at the top of the forum that explains our reasoning.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

That is a fine way to resolve conflict between spells. Unfortunately, I also believe that there is no conflict here due to the list of spells in Feeblemind. For people who do not believe that the wording there makes that list restrictive, they would have a conflict.

I'm assuming that last sentence is not restrictive . For example, I believe that the list in Feeblemind is restrictive--AND I believe there is a conflict. The conflict doesn't arise because of any nonrestrictive nature in Feeblemind; it arises because of the nonrestrictive nature of Break Enchantment.

Break Enchantment, as I read it, clearly reverses Feeblemind. Feeblemind, as I read it, clearly is not changed by Break Enchantment. That's why I see a conflict.

Daniel

 

[Cedric]

A very quick reminder that, due to its tendency to inflame tempers, we frown on referring to other folks' sincerely-held rules interpretations as "house rules" in this forum. There's a sticky at the top of the forum that explains our reasoning.

Daniel

I'm sorry if I crossed over a line, I wasn't trying to refer to house rules as a pejorative (that would be hypocritical of me, since I use so many house rules). I was trying to support the decision to house rule this particular issue, if one so chooses.

Again though, if I crossed over a line, I apologize.

 

[Cedric]

Break Enchantment, as I read it, clearly reverses Feeblemind. Feeblemind, as I read it, clearly is not changed by Break Enchantment. That's why I see a conflict.

Daniel

I agree in essence that this conflict exists. What I don't understand is why anyone would choose to err on the side of the broad, generic rule, instead of erring on the side of the one that explicitly states intended usage and cures.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Originally posted by KarinsDad

That is a fine way to resolve conflict between spells. Unfortunately, I also believe that there is no conflict here due to the list of spells in Feeblemind. For people who do not believe that the wording there makes that list restrictive, they would have a conflict. I do not.

The interpretation that the list is restrictive is what creates the conflict, isn't it? If you look at the list as being exhaustive, then the only way a spell that is not on the list can reverse feeblemind is if it duplicates the effect of a spell on the list. That's what I understand the restrictive reading to be; that the silence of feeblemind excludes break enchantment from being a potential cure. Did you include the bolded text by accident, or am I totally misunderstanding something?

 

[Pielorinho]

I agree in essence that this conflict exists. What I don't understand is why anyone would choose to err on the side of the broad, generic rule, instead of erring on the side of the one that explicitly states intended usage and cures.

My reason for it is that, as a player, it's more fun to be told "yes" by the DM than to be told "no." I'd rather have my enemies quickly cured of feeblemind than be doomed as a PC because nobody in our party has the necessary magic to get rid of the spell.

(And you didn't really cross over a line--I just wanted to remind everyone that the line was there . Sorry if it came across too strong).

Daniel

 

[Cheiromancer]

I agree in essence that this conflict exists. What I don't understand is why anyone would choose to err on the side of the broad, generic rule, instead of erring on the side of the one that explicitly states intended usage and cures.

I think you have this turned around. If I understand you correctly, you are wondering why someone would follow "reverses 5th level instantaneous enchantments" instead of "only reversed by heal, limited wish, miracle and wish." Am I right?

The first refers to feeblemind by description in terms of positive features, features which feeblemind actually has; feeblemind is, in fact, a 5th level instantaneous enchantment. The second refers to feeblemind in purely negative terms; as neither heal nor limited wish nor miracle nor wish. Which is also an accurate description; break enchantment is not any of those spells, nor is it described as duplicating one of their effects (e.g., the way that mage's disjunction refers to dispel magic).

It seems to me that, generally, positive designations are much more explicit than negative designations. Saying that something is a 5th level spell narrows the number of candidates down much more than saying it is not a 4th level spell. Saying that something is an enchantment narrows down the number of candidates more than saying it is not an evocation. Saying that something is neither heal nor limited wish nor miracle nor wish doesn't narrow down the list of candidates by much at all. So the description of feeblemind is not at all explicit in its exclusion of break enchantment.

It is true that feeblemind is very explicit about what will cure it; designating the spells by name is more explicit than describing them. But feeblemind is not explicit about what will not cure it; "only reversed by heal, limited wish, miracle and wish" is really quite broad. Unambiguous, perhaps, but not explicit.

So if you really believe that the more explicit rule should be followed, you should be on the "BE works" side.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm assuming that last sentence is not restrictive . For example, I believe that the list in Feeblemind is restrictive--AND I believe there is a conflict. The conflict doesn't arise because of any nonrestrictive nature in Feeblemind; it arises because of the nonrestrictive nature of Break Enchantment.

Break Enchantment, as I read it, clearly reverses Feeblemind. Feeblemind, as I read it, clearly is not changed by Break Enchantment. That's why I see a conflict.

That's avoided by the specific versus general rules interpretation.