Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

You surely do not want to argue, that the inclusion of Mass Heal and the inclusion of Break Enchantment are somewhere even nearly on the same level, or do you?

Nope. I only argue that the list is incomplete as presented in the book.

Is Mass Heal (or more correctly: Heal, Mass) a heal spell?

Quite certainly it is. It's not the Heal spell, though.

For comparison...


Bye
Thanee

The list clearly refers to the spells named "heal, limited wish, wish and miracle."

I guess Heal Mount in included, too. Missed that earlier

If you go with the somewhat vague notion of "heal" spells in general, potentially the whole list of "Cure" spells will work as they are Conjuration (Healing).

D&D generally does not use capital letters for spell like we do on this site. They use lower case, adn you can tell it is a spell name form context.

 

[sirwmholder]

Maybe we are looking at this from the wrong angle or too literally... Break Enchantment states: "This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses..." Enchantments and Transmutations are schools of magic within the confines of D&D but Curses are not. Therefore one could assume that the intent of this general spell is to aid in freeing victims of general enchantments, transmutations and curses not every spell within the Enchantment school or the Transmutation school. So we are left with what's a general enchantment, transmutation or curse? Enchantments are compulsions that bend the will of the victim to fulfill your desires... Transmutations are the transforming of the victim into a toad, chair, or stone... Curses are a bit more variable but they usually hold the person back from doing something they want to do or force the person to do something they wouldn't normally do. I content Feeblemind does not fit any of those perimeters and therefore not subject to Break Enchantment.

Feeblemind is not an enchantment because you are not charmed. You are not anything other than you therefore no transmutation. It is not a curse because the victim most likely will not have the intelligence to understand that he is not in a natural state and would act as any Int 1 creature would.

However your brain is broken therefore you need to have your brain Healed by either the spell or a wish or miracle.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder

 

[Thanee]

D&D generally does not use capital letters for spell like we do on this site. They use lower case, adn you can tell it is a spell name form context.

Yeah, most likely, though even in that context, I would consider Heal, Mass as a spell of the Heal line, which should be included when you say Heal works.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Artoomis]

Yeah, most likely, though even in that context, I would consider Heal, Mass as a spell of the Heal line, which should be included when you say Heal works.

Bye
Thanee

I'm not saying it should not be.

I am saying that if one considers the list to be a truly 100% exclusive, no exceptions, list than Mass Heal is not included.

I agree Mass Heal works.

Therefore the list is not truly 100% exclusive.

That's all I am saying.

 

[Deset Gled]

Yeah, most likely, though even in that context, I would consider Heal, Mass as a spell of the Heal line, which should be included when you say Heal works.

Exactly. The fact that Mass Heal works is not adding anything to the list of spells that breaks Feeblemind. It is simply expanding upon what is meant by Heal.

It would be the same as saying "John only likes apples." The fact that John can like green apples, and red apples, and crab apples is not contradictory to the statement in any way, and does not require any additions to the list, just different definitions of what is meant by "apple". The list is still exclusive.

 

[Artoomis]

...However your brain is broken therefore you need to have your brain Healed by either the spell or a wish or miracle.

Thank you for your time,
Wm. Holder

Nothing inherently wrong with that analysis. It's not what the rules say, but I would not have any trouble if that's the way you put it in a game you were running for me.

Still, it does leave you with only one spell left for which an instantaneous effect may be reversed, and that's Unholy Blight, which actually is not an enchantmetn or transmutataion or even called a "curse" so it might not even apply either.

If you allow Unholy Blight to be reversed, than at least that's one instantaneous effect that can be reversed by BE.

 

[Neverwill]

I also contend, of course, that Break Enchantment is unique in that it can reverse any qualifying instantaneous effects (though only those that have a "victim," per the BE spell description.)

There are EXACTLY two such spell in the PHB, and one of those is questionable as to whether it qualifies (Unholy Blight is remoc3ed with Remove Curse but is not labeled as a "curse"), leaving only one clearly qualify spell: Feeblemind.

If you do not allow Feeblemind to work than, short of optional rules, the reversing of instantaneous effects has absolutely no meaning as it can never happen, except from optional rules or situations the DM creates not contained within the core rules.

That is completely unacceptable to me, so I would, without hesitation, rule that Break Enchantment reverses Feeblemind (provided you are successful with the Caster Level check, of course).

Spell-wise, people have brought up others that have instananeous effects - Awaken, Mnemonic Enhancer, Reincarnate, and Telekinesis.

Regardless, why does BE have to reverse instantaneous effects that only derive from spells? There are many other kinds of effects in the core rules that may apply, such as inflicted lycanthropy or the Sea Hag's Evil Eye.

 

[Artoomis]

Spell-wise, people have brought up others that have instananeous effects - Awaken, Mnemonic Enhancer, Reincarnate, and Telekinesis.

Regardless, why does BE have to reverse instantaneous effects that only derive from spells? There are many other kinds of effects in the core rules that may apply, such as inflicted lycanthropy or the Sea Hag's Evil Eye.

I brought most of those up. Telekinesis is a but much (so do they actually get "un-tossed" if they have been tossed by telekinesis. How? What really happens when this is done no sooner than one minute later (casting time of BE). Besides, the effect is getting tossed, not getting damaged, so what gets reversed? The others do not generate "victims" of the effect, so likely BE does not really apply anyway.

Lycanthropy can be cured with Break Enchantment, if cast at the time. But it is not defined as a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect, it simply states in Lycanthropy that Break Henchmen works.

The Sea Hag's Evil Eye may or may not be cues by BE. IT is not defined as an "Instantaneous" effect of fifth level or lower, but it can be cured by Remove Curse, so likely BE will work.

In either case BE does not apply by virtue of the effect being a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect.

This still leave EXACTLY ONE clear case of a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect that could be reversed by BE. Feeblemind.

That's it. Everything else defined as a fifth-level or lower instantaneous effect that would be reversed with BE has issues with applying BE, and even Feeblemind has that troublesome "until" list.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This still leave EXACTLY ONE clear case of a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect that could be reversed by BE. Feeblemind.

That's it. Everything else defined as a fifth-level or lower instantaneous effect that would be reversed with BE has issues with applying BE, and even Feeblemind has that troublesome "until" list.

The "until" list makes it not a particularly clear case of a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect that could be reversed by BE, don't you think?

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

The "until" list makes it not a particularly clear case of a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect that could be reversed by BE, don't you think?

-Hyp.

Correct.

It is my contention that, as written, there is more than one reasonble way to interpret whether BE applies to Feeblemind or not.

There is good evidence it does (and/or should) and good evidence it does not.