Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Squire James]

Feeblemind is an old spell (first seen in oD&D, I think), so it is most likely to have a "grandfathered" description that doesn't take newer spells into account. It seems to have undergone SOME revision over the years, but not much.

Insanity has a similar problem, since it too has a fixed list. It actually has a slightly larger "cure list", adding Greater Restoration to the mix. Given the similarity of effects, and Insanity's higher spell level, I think Feeblemind should have a slightly larger "cure list". So I would recommend that Greater Restoration and Break Enchantment be added to the Feeblemind "cure list".

I think "cure lists" are a bad thing to use in spell descriptions, because they don't account for new spells being added to the system. It would be better if the spell just stated what spells or kind of spells that normally would work but NOT work on this spell. An example would be Feeblemind stating that Break Enchantment would not work.

 

[Solarious]

Does anyone else get the feeling people who support the "Break Enchantment doesn't work" angle just want to punitively punish the players (who are most typically inflicted with the problem of curing it)?

I haven't seen any arguements that refute the logic that Feeblemind's text doesn't say the list is comprehensive, or the fact that Feeblemind is entirely within Break Enchantment's parameters. Most of which I've seen either says: No, Feeblemind can only be broken by -list- when no such wording appears, or just flat out say Break Enchantment doesn't work. By the RAW (which in itself debateable, but not relavant to the discussion), Feeblemind can cured by Break Enchantment. RAI is estoric knowledge, and seems heavy handed.

So... what's the whole arguement again?

 

[Cedric]

Feeblemind is an old spell (first seen in oD&D, I think), so it is most likely to have a "grandfathered" description that doesn't take newer spells into account. It seems to have undergone SOME revision over the years, but not much.

Insanity has a similar problem, since it too has a fixed list. It actually has a slightly larger "cure list", adding Greater Restoration to the mix. Given the similarity of effects, and Insanity's higher spell level, I think Feeblemind should have a slightly larger "cure list". So I would recommend that Greater Restoration and Break Enchantment be added to the Feeblemind "cure list".

I think "cure lists" are a bad thing to use in spell descriptions, because they don't account for new spells being added to the system. It would be better if the spell just stated what spells or kind of spells that normally would work but NOT work on this spell. An example would be Feeblemind stating that Break Enchantment would not work.

I will completely agree that having cure lists is a poorly thought out concept because it creates confusion as other texts and spells become available.

 

[Pielorinho]

My reading?

A programmatic interpretation of the rules leads to a fatal exception error. The rules were written by humans, and they've written in an unstoppable force encountering an immovable object. It seems very clear to me that this is a contradiction in the rules: Feeblemind states that the subject remains in the state until one of four conditions are used, and Break Enchantment states that it can remove the Feeblemind state.

This is why a common-sense interpretation is necessary. Yes, this is fuzzy; yes, there are two different common-sense approaches to this. No, there's no way to prove that one approach is better than the other. Figure out which way you like more for your campaign, and use it.

FWIW, I like Artoomis's approach best.

Daniel

 

[Cedric]

Does anyone else get the feeling people who support the "Break Enchantment doesn't work" angle just want to punitively punish the players (who are most typically inflicted with the problem of curing it)?

First of all, I don't use Feeblemind against my players, and if I did, I would do so when they were high enough level to have reasonable access to a Heal spell.

I haven't seen any arguements that refute the logic that Feeblemind's text doesn't say the list is comprehensive, or the fact that Feeblemind is entirely within Break Enchantment's parameters. Most of which I've seen either says: No, Feeblemind can only be broken by -list- when no such wording appears, or just flat out say Break Enchantment doesn't work. By the RAW (which in itself debateable, but not relavant to the discussion), Feeblemind can cured by Break Enchantment. RAI is estoric knowledge, and seems heavy handed.

So... what's the whole arguement again?

A "list" is defined as the total number to be considered or included. Every list by its nature is comprehensive unless there is verbiage to allow additions, exclusions or exceptions. The list in the Feeblemind text allows none of these. Therefore, it falls back to the default nature of being comprehensive...the total number to be considered or included.

By the RAW, only that list works. Had there been no list or had the list included the possibility of other solutions, break enchantment would work.

Break Enchantment is from the same book as Feeblemind and the spells that can reverse the effects of feeblemind. If break enchantment was intended to work, it should have been in the list.

 

[mirivor]

"I haven't seen any arguements that refute the logic that Feeblemind's text doesn't say the list is comprehensive...."

Yes you have, if you read my post. Where in the book does it say that I cannot use my climb skill to make attack rolls? Where in the book does it say that I cannot roll 5d8 for my Cure Light Wounds at 1st level? Where in the book does it say that I cannot use my spellcraft skill to craft a masterwork sword?

These are all ludicrous ideas, yet no where in the books are they specifically spelled out. It is taken for granted that because base attack bonus is used to make attacks, then my climb skill is not. The people that are arguing for Break Enchantment on the grounds that Feeblemind's list is not specified as "exclusive" have no basis from which to argue that point. There is no prior examples set in the books. The entire ruleset has the assumption that if a book says that component X is used for component why, then that is the way it is.

Now, as for arguing based on Break Enchantment's text, that is a logical and reasonable idea. I would not refute the points made from that stand.

 

[Cheiromancer]

mirivor, the grounds for saying that break enchantment will work is in the description of break enchantment; it says it will reverse instantaneous fifth level enchantments. If this isn't referring to feeblemind, what *is* it referring to?

If there is a line in the Climb description that I've been overlooking that allows you to make a climb check when an attack roll is called for, then you can do it. If your 1st level character possesses a feat or magic item that allows you to roll 5d8 for your cure light wounds, then you can. And so on for the rest of your examples.

The reason we are saying that break enchantment works is not just because feeblemind doesn't rule it out, but because the text of break enchantment says it works and the feeblemind spell doesn't mention break enchantment even by description.

The case would be different if there were words that said that feeblemind could *only* be removed by those spells. Or it couldn't be removed *except* by those spells. But what the description does is effectively add "can reverse the effect of feeblemind" to a short list of spells. But it doesn't have to include break enchantment in that list because break enchantment already has the equivalent text. Just read the part where it says it can reverse instantaneous fifth level enchantments.

When people say that "the text of feeblemind doesn't rule this out" the fact that break enchantment has text that will apply is an unstated, but obvious, part of their position.

 

[Cheiromancer]

A "list" is defined as the total number to be considered or included. Every list by its nature is comprehensive unless there is verbiage to allow additions, exclusions or exceptions. The list in the Feeblemind text allows none of these. Therefore, it falls back to the default nature of being comprehensive...the total number to be considered or included.

By the RAW, only that list works. Had there been no list or had the list included the possibility of other solutions, break enchantment would work.

Break Enchantment is from the same book as Feeblemind and the spells that can reverse the effects of feeblemind. If break enchantment was intended to work, it should have been in the list.

The list in feeblemind text effectively adds a line to the spell descriptions of heal and limited wish that says they can reverse the effects of feeblemind. The inclusion of miracle and wish in the list is unnecessary, since these spells can duplicate heal. The addition of any spell that can duplicate heal is unnecessary, for the same reason. And the addition of break enchantment to the list is unnecessary, because break enchantment doesn't need a line that says it can reverse a feeblemind. It already has the relevant text:

This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.​

In other words, break enchantment can work against instantaneous 5th level enchantments that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic. No text needs to be added, so the description of feeblemind doesn't have to supply it.

 

[mirivor]

Cheiromancer: My posts are more addressed to those saying that are saying that the list in Feeblemind is not descripted as a complete list, therefore they are assuming that there are other things allowed. This does not make sense. If that were the case, the why bother with the list to begin with? By that logic, I don't need a rule or mechanic to let me use my jump check to attack, nor anything to let my first level character roll the 5 dice for a 1st level CLW. I can do it because the spells and mechanics in question do not specify that is all that they are used for.

Example: There is no line in the Climb skill that allows that. However, there is no line that forbids it. That is the logic that is being used by some of the posters here to support use of Break Enchantment. They are declaring that because the "list" is not specified as complete then other effects are possible. Faulty logic. My point is that the text of Feeblemind DOES rule it out.

I am not against Break Enchantment working, although as written it would not. Its description is more general than Feeblemind's. When determining effects, it is always the most general first. Saying "This spell gets rid of enchantments" is by no stretch as specific as saying "This spell is removed by spells x, y, or z".

Here is the reasoning that some are using, which I will parallel with another example that is ridiculous:

1)Feeblemind's text does not specifically eliminate the use of Break Enchantment.
1) The climb skill does not specifically eliminate the use of itself to make attack rolls with.

2) Break Enchantment will remove Feeblemind.
2) The Climb skill can be used to make attack rolls.

Surely that is an easy logical process to follow and, by the rules of logic, that makes sense. Problem is, I daresay that everyone on the boards would agree that the second notion is nuts. Therefore, by logic, the first is as well.

 

[mirivor]

Drat. You are fast, Cheiro.

The text does have to supply it because it is more specific than the text in Break enchantment.