Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Hypersmurf]

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.

If you wrote Feeblemind, and wrote "Only Heal reverses Feeblemind. Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind."... could you honestly look at that pair of sentences and not feel that the second one is completely and utterly redundant?

-Hyp.

 

[Cheiromancer]

If you wrote Feeblemind, and wrote "Only Heal reverses Feeblemind. Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind."... could you honestly look at that pair of sentences and not feel that the second one is completely and utterly redundant?

-Hyp.

Will save failed.

I am not suggesting that as possible wording. I am saying that "Only Heal reverses Feeblemind" refers to Break Enchantment in a non-specific (but still unambiguous) fashion, while "Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind" refers to it in a specific fashion.

Frankly, the spell doesn't have to list its removal conditions at all; Heal already says that it will work, and the other three spells listed can all replicate Heal. So the current text is redundant. (Something is either redundant or it isn't; "completely and utterly redundant" is, well, redundant. )

If a designer wished Feeblemind to be irreversible by Break Enchantment, they should fix the wording of Break Enchantment. And while they are at it, they can either remove the reference to stone to flesh or change the wording so the spell can actually do something about it; as it is, the "of 5th level or lower" makes this application impossible. Actually, I don't understand why it reverses instantaneous effects at all. It is just bizarre that it can remove the effect of Reincarnate or Awaken, and if the designer intent is that it not affect Feeblemind... well, what instantaneous effects are left?

 

[Felix]

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?

Your amendment is unacceptable, because the language of Break Enchantment does not say the equivalent of "hits any pitch", it merely says "can hit curve balls". It then goes on to refine which curves he can hit, instead of specifying which curves he will hit.

Feeblemind would have been a curve Alan could have hit, were it not for the clause that specifies, "only Carl can hit these curves".

With these two conditions:

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.

And assuming a lucky day, these two statements cannot both be true. Either Alan hits the curve, in which case the second is false, or he does not hit the curve, in which case the first is false. Happily, this is not the language used in the two spells under discussion.

It is possible for the clauses in both spells to be true, but only if Break Enchantment does not cure Feeblemind. Similarly, it is possible for Alan to hit curves, and yet not be able to hit Bill's curve. The truth of Feeblemind's clause does not prevent the clause in Break Enchantment from also being true.

However, were Break Enchantment to cure Feeblemind, then it is the case that the clause in Feeblemind must be false.

---

I responded to your Apples and Non-apples post (#381) meaning to make clear that the prohibition in Feeblemind is indeed specific, and not general, as you had claimed. This is why I posed the curveball question the way I did; that Alan can hit curve balls is a general truth, and not trespassed upon by the specific truth of only Carl being able to hit Bill's curve balls.

 

[pawsplay]

Feeblemind is not a more specific case of Break Enchantment. It is a more specific case than magic spells in general. so is Break Enchantment.

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

 

[Felix]

Feeblemind is not a more specific case of Break Enchantment. It is a more specific case than magic spells in general. so is Break Enchantment.

I assume you mean to say that BE is more specific than Feeblemind. If that is the case, what are the particulars of your argument?

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

If the DM allowed that spell, it would change the rules of the game much like allowing Panacea would. But simply because the rules can be changed by the DM does not change the meaning of the rules as they stand. Were the spell "Reverse Feeblemind" allowed, it would perforce be included in the list of allowable spells. But that would only happen after an alteration of the rules, and are we not discussing what the rules are instead of what they might be?

 

[glass]

So then you think that NO OTHER SPELLS can work? That would include Mass Heal and Panacea, then.

Mass Heal works for reasons that have already been discussed at length.

Panacea doesn't work, by default. Like anything in a supplement, it is an optional variant, which if you choose to use it in your game, can also remove feeblmind. Becuase you have given it the power to do so.


glass.

 

[glass]

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

It could be worded something like, 'this spell acts like heal, except as above and that it only reverses feeblmind. It does not have any of the other beneficial effects of heal'. In which case it would work for the same reason as mass heal.

Alternatively, it could just say, 'this spell reverses feeblemind', and by allowing the spell in his game the DM is effectively modifying feeblemenind to allow it to work, just like with Panacea.

In either case though, it seems a little weak for a 9th level spell.


glass.

 

[Thanee]

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?

One is an actual transformation, the other is not. Turning someone into a corpse is not a lasting effect, like turning someone into stone. It's not what the spell does, the spell 'only' kills you. Becoming a corpse is a result from dying, not the direct effect of the spell, unlike being turned to stone.

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.

Of course, all of that is correct from the text, but it doesn't apply.
The problem is, that they used a term, which isn't really accurate.

The note is pretty much what I have written above... there is no way to use dispel, hence it cannot be dispelled (<- colloquial, not game term). It's a trait of instantaneous rather than the spell itself. The 'cannot be dispelled' (<- game term) from BE is meant as a trait of the spell itself only, however.

It's not possible to get to this conclusion by looking at the pure game texts. It only becomes clear within the context.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

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

Trying to... not doing.

He didn't train with a Jedi Master, apparantly.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's not possible to get to this conclusion by looking at the pure game texts.

Well, we agree there!

It's not possible to reach that conclusion by looking at the rules.

It's a trait of instantaneous rather than the spell itself.

And the spell, being instantaneous, inherits that trait.

You're actually contending that when something "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic", it doesn't mean the same as "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic", because it's a different kind of "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic"?

-Hyp.