Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Cheiromancer]

Ok, so let me make sure I understand your contention...

"This spell works on any spells that satisfy the following criteria (type of spell, duration of spell, etc."

Is, according to you, more specific than:

"Remains in effect until one of the following four spells listed by name is used."

That is your contention, correct? That's what you are claiming, I am not misunderstanding you?

We're talking apples and oranges here. Or rather, apples and non-oranges.

If the specific designation is "apples", a somewhat less specific designation would be a unique description like "the fruit from which cider is made." It's less specific because cider might be made from something else. But you could also refer to the fruit very non-specifically as "non-oranges". All these terms are accurate (you make cider from apples, and apples are non-oranges), but the different designations are not equally specific.

The text of feeblemind rules out break enchantment in a very non-specific manner, since it refers to it as not-(four named spells). The number of spells that are not those four is potentially infinite; even if you just consider the spells in the PHB it is very large. The text of break enchantment includes feeblemind in a quite specific manner; true, it doesn't refer to it by name, but there is only one 5th level instantaneous enchantment in the PHB. Of the thousands of 3rd-party spells in existence, how many of them are 5th level instantaneous enchantments? Not many. Far fewer than there are spells that are not (four named spells).

And so break enchantment refers to feeblemind in quite a specific fashion, while feeblemind refers to break enchantment in a very non-specific fashion.

 

[Pielorinho]

The text of feeblemind rules out break enchantment in a very non-specific manner, since it refers to it as not-(four named spells).

I actually disagree. It says nothing about what Break Enchantment does; all it says it was the spell itself does. The spell itself makes you remain in that state, until one of four specific things happen. These four specific things cancel the effects of the state.

That seems highly specific to me. I see how you're looking at those four things as a negative list, but I think they're a positive list, because we know exactly what happens re: Feeblemind prior to one of those four occurrences: the state continues. Are you disintegrated? The state continues. Are you poisoned? The state continues. Are you turned to stone? The state continues.

I think its wording leads to absurdities, but I think it's pretty specific.

Daniel

 

[Thanee]

...but it's not one that Break Enchantment will work on, because "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower" forbids it.

This is wrong. It's certainly something one can read out of that sentence, but it's not what is meant there.

While instantaneous spell effects cannot be targeted with a dispel effect, they cannot specifically not be dispelled (AFAIK there is no rule, that states, that instantaneous effects cannot be dispelled, there is a rule, that states the opposite, that permanent effects can be dispelled). They could, technically, be dispelled, if there ever was a time at which you could target them. There is not, which is why it doesn't work. And as said somewhere above, in a colloquial way, you could certainly say, that instantaneous spells thus cannot be dispelled.

But that's not meant with 'cannot be dispelled' there. It's a more specific term in this context.

Yes, it's a bit screwed up for sure, but through the examples they made it clear, that instantaneous is not what they meant with 'cannot be dispelled', but only effects, where dispelling is specifically prevented from working, like Bestow Curse.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Cedric]

The text of feeblemind rules out break enchantment in a very non-specific manner, since it refers to it as not-(four named spells). The number of spells that are not those four is potentially infinite; even if you just consider the spells in the PHB it is very large. The text of break enchantment includes feeblemind in a quite specific manner; true, it doesn't refer to it by name, but there is only one 5th level instantaneous enchantment in the PHB. Of the thousands of 3rd-party spells in existence, how many of them are 5th level instantaneous enchantments? Not many. Far fewer than there are spells that are not (four named spells).

It's not ruling things out, it's ruling things in. Regardless, either is value depending on whichever list is shorter.

Someone gave a baseball analogy earlier that fits this argument.

You may only, legally, come to the plate to bat if you are using a regulation baseball bat. The includes only one thing you may bat with, a regulation baseball bat (with those regulations being defined elsewhere in regards to length, width, weight, density, material of construction, etc...but those are defined into one term, Regulation Baseball Bat).

That's a LOT easier than try to list the things you may NOT come to bat with...you can't legally come to bat with a golf club, hammer, iron spike, tennis racquet, etc. etc.

And so break enchantment refers to feeblemind in quite a specific fashion, while feeblemind refers to break enchantment in a very non-specific fashion.

Break Enchantment refers to a general description of spells...and Feeblemind falls into that description. However, I fail to see how that is specific. ...Until a, b, c or d...that's very specific.

 

[Felix]

It seems I was not satisfied...

We're talking apples and oranges here. Or rather, apples and non-oranges.

<snip>

Alan can hit curve balls.
Bill throws curve balls that nobody can it, except Carl.

Is it the case that Alan can hit Bill's curve balls?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, it's a bit screwed up for sure, but through the examples they made it clear, that instantaneous is not what they meant with 'cannot be dispelled', but only effects, where dispelling is specifically prevented from working, like Bestow Curse.

So do you feel that Break Enchantment will work to reverse Power Word Kill, for example?

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

If there was a lasting effect, sure. But there isn't, the effect is instantaneous in the most direct sense of the word (unlike, for example, Flesh to Stone, which is basically a permanent effect, just without any lasting magic).

Break Enchantment frees the subject of an enchantment, a transmutation, or a curse. There is nothing to free you from, if you die, because there is no lasting effect remaining in place, which could be removed.

As I said, it's not a very well-defined spell effect, but it's still clear enough, what the spell is meant to do, when you put all the pieces together.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Deset Gled]

So do you feel that Break Enchantment will work to reverse Power Word Kill, for example?

-Hyp.

I disagree with Thanee on this point, but even if he was right, BE would not be able to reverse PWK because it can only target creatures. Once a person is killed, their body becomes an object.

Unless you're going to pull that discussion about how nothing can really die in D+D...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Break Enchantment frees the subject of an enchantment, a transmutation, or a curse. There is nothing to free you from, if you die, because there is no lasting effect remaining in place, which could be removed.

Desert Gled makes a good point about BE being unable to target a corpse.

But apart from that, I don't understand how you can claim that making someone a statue is different to making someone a corpse. Both are instantaneous effects. What is the lasting effect of Flesh to Stone? How is it different to the lasting effect of Power Word Kill?

While instantaneous spell effects cannot be targeted with a dispel effect, they cannot specifically not be dispelled (AFAIK there is no rule, that states, that instantaneous effects cannot be dispelled...

Apart from this one, in the description of Dispel Magic:

Note: The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled...?

Dispel Magic explicitly states that it cannot dispel instantaneous effects. Flesh to Stone is an instantaneous effect. Therefore Flesh to Stone cannot be dispelled by Dispel Magic. Therefore Break Enchantment will only work on Flesh to Stone if it is 5th level or lower.

-Hyp.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Just for the sake of conciseness, let's pretend that the text feeblemind said that it could only be reversed by heal. We'd read it with the understanding that anything that could duplicate heal would also work- and that means miracle, wish and (using the adept list) limited wish. I'm saying this so that I don't have to keep typing the names of those four spells over and over again.

Then when feeblemind says "can only be reversed by heal" it is specifying two categories of spells; spells that can reverse feeblemind and spells that cannot reverse feeblemind. The first list is very short; it only contains heal (and the spells that can duplicate heal). The second list is quite long; it includes everything else, and includes break enchantment.

The first list is quite specific; it gives the spells by name. The second list (implicitly defined as the spells not on the first list) isn't. It is less specific than the text of break enchantment that says that the spell can reverse a 5th level instantaneous enchantment. So if you are saying that the most specific rule takes precedence, then you have to say it is break enchantment that applies.

Maybe the example of 20 questions will help illustrate what I am saying about specificity. What would require fewer questions to correctly guess?

1. This spell is not heal, nor can it duplicate heal.
2. This spell is a 5th level instantaneous enchantment.

I hope it is obvious that 2 is a more specific description than 1. So the part of feeblemind that says that break enchantment doesn't work is much less specific than the part of break enchantment that says it does. If your criterion is that the more specific rule takes precedence, you have to say that break enchantment works.

I would also argue that even if both spells were equally specific, the defensive/curative spell would take precedence. But that's not the case; the defensive/curative spell is the more specific spell.