Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Cheiromancer]

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

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

There are several possible ways of interpreting the word "can". "Alan can hit curve balls" could mean, for instance, that

On lucky days Alan hits any pitch that is 90 mph or slower.​

(I'm trying to strengthen the parallel between Alan and break enchantment; with BE you have to be lucky with your opposed caster level check, and if you are trying to reverse an instantaneous enchantment it must be 5th level or less). Now let's add some detail to the description of Bill's pitch:

On lucky days Alan hits any pitch that is 90 mph or slower.
Bill throws 75 mph curve balls that nobody can hit, except Carl.​

What happens if Bill pitches Alan one of his 75 mph curve balls on one of Alan's lucky days?

This is more like the case of break enchantment versus feeblemind. There is an inconsistency between the rules, and we'd have to find a procedure to resolve the inconsistency. What would you say would happen?

 

[Cedric]

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.

And it's the first list, the one you agree is quite specific that we are talking about. Because that's the list used in the spell text. This second "implicit" list you discuss is not referred to in the spell text. If it were, we'd be talking about it, but it isn't, so we aren't.

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.

So how about...

1. This spell is heal, or spells that can duplicate heal.
2. This spell is an enchantment, transmutation, or curse. If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

Now...that's the list we're talking about. And I hope you can agree that number 1 is more specific.

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.

I'll give you that....if they were equally specific and neither excluded or included the other.

 

[Cheiromancer]

1. This spell is heal, or spells that can duplicate heal.
2. This spell is an enchantment, transmutation, or curse. If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

Now...that's the list we're talking about. And I hope you can agree that number 1 is more specific.

Number 1 says that heal will work, or spells that can duplicate heal. No argument from me. Number 2 says that break enchantment will work. Again, no argument from me. I grant both of those statements; I will even grant that the first is more specific.

I look forward to seeing how, given the truth of number 2, you can validly argue that number 2 is false.

 

[Cedric]

Number 1 says that heal will work, or spells that can duplicate heal. No argument from me. Number 2 says that break enchantment will work. Again, no argument from me. I grant both of those statements; I will even grant that the first is more specific.

I look forward to seeing how, given the truth of number 2, you can validly argue that number 2 is false.

Easy...Break Enchantment isn't Heal and doesn't duplicate Heal.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I will even grant that the first is more specific.

I look forward to seeing how, given the truth of number 2, you can validly argue that number 2 is false.

1. The lance (a two-handed weapon) can be wielded in one hand by a mounted wielder.
2. A two-handed weapon requires two hands to wield.

Number 2 is true. Number 1 is true, and more specific. Number 1 is contradicted by number 2. However, in the case of the lance, number 1 applies, because it is more specific... despite the truth of number 2 in the general case.

-Hyp.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Easy...Break Enchantment isn't Heal and doesn't duplicate Heal.

So #1 doesn't apply; #2 does.

1. The lance (a two-handed weapon) can be wielded in one hand by a mounted wielder.
2. A two-handed weapon requires two hands to wield.

Number 2 is true. Number 1 is true, and more specific. Number 1 is contradicted by number 2. However, in the case of the lance, number 1 applies, because it is more specific... despite the truth of number 2 in the general case.

Right. And I'm saying that break enchantment's permission is more specific than feeblemind's prohibition. They contradict each other, but break enchantment carries the day.

I am having great trouble explaining my central thesis: "heal" is specific. "not-heal" is not specific. "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is not as specific as "heal", but more specific than "not-heal".

The "5th level instantaneous enchantment" part means that break enchantment applies. The "not-heal" part means that break enchantment does not apply. This is a contradiction. To resolve the contradiction, follow the rule that is more specific; the one that says that break enchantment applies.

 

[Cedric]

So #1 doesn't apply; #2 does.
Right. And I'm saying that break enchantment's permission is more specific than feeblemind's prohibition. They contradict each other, but break enchantment carries the day.

I am having great trouble explaining my central thesis: "heal" is specific. "not-heal" is not specific. "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is not as specific as "heal", but more specific than "not-heal".

The "5th level instantaneous enchantment" part means that break enchantment applies. The "not-heal" part means that break enchantment does not apply. This is a contradiction. To resolve the contradiction, follow the rule that is more specific; the one that says that break enchantment applies.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. I think I'm done here.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I am having great trouble explaining my central thesis: "heal" is specific. "not-heal" is not specific.

But we're not referencing Not-Heal. We're referencing Heal.

Is Break Enchantment Heal? No. This is a more specific exclusion than the inclusion of "Is Feeblemind an enchantment, transmutation, or curse of 5th level or lower?"

You could also ask the question "Is Break Enchantment not Heal?" and "Is Feeblemind not an enchantment, transmutation, or curse of 5th level or lower?"... but that leaves us with four questions, and the most specific of the four is still "Is Break Enchantment Heal?"

-Hyp.

 

[Cheiromancer]

The statement "only Heal reverses Feeblemind" does not specifically exclude Break Enchantment. To specifically exclude Break Enchantment you'd need wording like "Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind". The only way that Break Enchantment is excluded by the statement "only Heal reverses Feeblemind" is by being not-Heal. And that is a very non-specific exclusion.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. I think I'm done here.

I don't think anyone's views are changed after page 2, maybe even page 1. Certainly not at page 10. I'm gonna try to make the will save against posting some more. I don't think I can explain my point any better than I have already.

 

[Pielorinho]

I'm gonna try to make the will save against posting some more.

So you're not going to post again in this thread?

Daniel