Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

Those are not mutually exclusive in this case. The intent of using the word "until" in all of the rules is not the same as the intent of the feeblemind spell. He can be arguing the intent of the use of the word until, in general, within the rules and still argue the RAW of feeblemind.

Exactly. Well stated. Thank you.

 

[glass]

Those are not mutually exclusive in this case. The intent of using the word "until" in all of the rules is not the same as the intent of the feeblemind spell. He can be arguing the intent of the use of the word until, in general, within the rules and still argue the RAW of feeblemind.

Yes they are.

You are either talking about what the rules say, or what you think the designers meant them to say. They may of course be the same thing, they may be different, but they are entirely separate debates.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

Yes they are.

You are either talking about what the rules say, or what you think the designers meant them to say. They may of course be the same thing, they may be different, but they are entirely separate debates.


glass.

No, actually there are a couple an different analyses that need to take place:

1. What words are used, and what do they mean IN THE CONTEXT of WotC rules.

2. What was the intent of the rules? What did the designers mean to have happen here.

The first is a RAW analysis, where one is looking at the words themselves only, plus evidence throughout the rules to discern the meaning of the words. A pure dictionary definition is only used if the rules do not help us decide what the word(s) mean in a WotC core rules context. Using a pure dictionary definition is not the best way to go, usually. There are often many defintions, and it varies according to which dictionary one uses, etc.

The second is where we look at all evidence on intent - how sentences are structured, interviews with designers, history of how the rules developed, etc., etc. to attempt ti divine the orginal intent of the rule.

Frankly, where you draw the line between "RAW" and intent is far from crystal clear and an especially value-added debate.

 

[Artoomis]

P.S. to my last post:

In this case, that means:

What does the word "until" mean in the context of WotC Spell Descriptions? (RAW)

Whether or not that analysis shows absolute exclusion of Break Enchantment, did the designers intend to allow Break Enchantment to work to reverse the effects of Feeblemind?

To answer that last question, you really have to ask two questions:

1. Did the designer of Feeblemind intend to exclude Break Enchament?

2. Did the designer of Break Enchantment intend the caster to be able to reverse the effects of Feeblemind? (Intent)

Now, if one looks to the review of statutes in the law, a most reasonable parallel, one discovers that neither RAW nor intent trumps the other, which one wins is entirely situation-dependent and usually both are argued in a case whose outcome depends upon how one sees the law.

In D&D, of course, none of that really matters except as in intellectual excercise to help ward off Alzeimer's Disease.

What matter is how you DM rules for your game.

 

[Nail]

In D&D, of course, none of that really matters except as in intellectual excercise to help ward off Alzeimer's Disease.

Which is closer for some us than for others.

Go Rules Forum!

 

[Artoomis]

Which is closer for some us than for others.

Go Rules Forum!

Hee hee. Yep. I am sure these well-nigh pointless intellectual debates are at least good brain exercise.

 

[Nail]

...and I (for one) need all the brain exercise I can get.