Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Cheiromancer]

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.

I think the people who are saying "Feeblemind's text does not specifically eliminate the use of Break Enchantment" are taking for granted the fact that break enchantment has text that allows it to apply in this case. If this premise about break enchantment is not part of their argument it is, in fact, absurd. But it is uncharitable to assume that they do not intend this point to be part of their argument.

The principle of charity requires you to construe an opponent's argument in the best light; this means allowing for obvious, unstated premises. You don't seem to have been doing so; instead you have been interpreting some of the posts as expressing patent absurdities.

 

[Cedric]

Once a discussion reaches it's second page of back-and-forth, I let it go.

For what it's worth, I would house rule that Break Enchantment works. But I would consider it a House Rule, not an official rule.

Cedric

 

[mirivor]

Cheiromancer: I agree with that statement, although I stand by my assertion that when discussing effects the general must come before the specific.

On a less arumentative note, anyone else come to believe through this thread that maybe Feeblemind is mislabeled as an enchantment spell? Seems to me that it should be a Transmutation effect. Afterall, enchantments are suppose to be continuous effects. If this is the case, then that would answer some of the questions stated in the thread thus far.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think the people who are saying "Feeblemind's text does not specifically eliminate the use of Break Enchantment" are taking for granted the fact that break enchantment has text that allows it to apply in this case. If this premise about break enchantment is not part of their argument it is, in fact, absurd. But it is uncharitable to assume that they do not intend this point to be part of their argument.

I agree that Feeblemind's text allows it to work: it is, when it comes to such effects, an unstoppable force.

However, Feeblemind is pretty clear that the victim remains in that state--i.e., cannot be moved from the state--until one of a set of specific, finite events happen. Having "Break Enchantment" cast on the victim does not fall into this set. The spell is, when it comes to Break Enchantment, an immovable object.

Do you see what I mean? I htink it's perfectly plausible to read the rules as contradicting one another when it comes to this case. The rules were written by people, and people make mistakes. It makes the most sense to me to recognize this contradiction and decide how to handle it.

Daniel

 

[Cheiromancer]

Do you see what I mean? I think it's perfectly plausible to read the rules as contradicting one another when it comes to this case. The rules were written by people, and people make mistakes. It makes the most sense to me to recognize this contradiction and decide how to handle it.

Daniel

I'd love for this to be the case, simply because it would illustrate the need for a less mechanical reading of the rules. But I find myself convinced by my argument that break enchantment is not mentioned in the text of feeblemind because it doesn't need to be; its own text is sufficient.

Once a discussion reaches it's second page of back-and-forth, I let it go.

You are a wise man. I wish I had your self-restraint.

I wish I did, but I don't. I'll try to let the break enchantment argument rest. There are, however, a few other things I wanted to give my opinion on:

Regarding greater restoration; I don't think having a score drop to 1 is the same as ability drain. Ability drain reduces an ability by a certain amount; it doesn't reduce it to a target number. Ability drain also only affects living creatures. If a non-living creature were subject to mind-affecting compulsions they could be affected by a feeblemind, but not by ability drain. Greater restoration says that it "dispels all magical effects penalizing the creature’s abilities" but instantaneous effects can't be dispelled. And so I don't think greater restoration would work.

Regarding eagle's splendor and fox's cunning; I think these would raise the effective stats to 5, and restore playability to the character. In other words, the bit that says that "the affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently" is only for when the stats are at 1; it spells out what it means for a PC to have animal intelligence. This text shouldn't apply to victims whose stats are 3 or above.

 

[Pielorinho]

I'd love for this to be the case, simply because it would illustrate the need for a less mechanical reading of the rules. But I find myself convinced by my argument that break enchantment is not mentioned in the text of feeblemind because it doesn't need to be; its own text is sufficient.

According to my reading of both texts, here's how it goes:

1) Victim is Feebleminded.
2) Victim is subjected to break enchantment, which reverses the Feeblemind.
3) Victim remains feebleminded ("the subject remains in this state until X, Y, or Z happens.)
4) Victim is subjected to a heal spell.
5) Victim is no longer feebleminded.

It's true that break enchantment is not mentioned in the text of feeblemind; what IS mentioned in the text of feeblemind is that the victim remains in the feebleminded state until one of four things happens.

Technically, of course, this means that once you kill the feebleminded person, they remain at an intelligence of 1. A dead creature has no intelligence score; this apparently means that killing a feebleminded creature does not kill them.

That suggests to me that the immovable object is at fault .

Daniel

 

[Cheiromancer]

Must... let... it... go...

(Attempt Will Save... success!)

Luckily we clerics have good base Will saves *and* a high Wisdom.

 

[glass]

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)?

No, I get the impression that people who support "Break Enchantment doesn't work" have read their PHBs.

EDIT: Not that I am suggesting that the 'does work' side haven't read them. I just don't see how "the subject remains in this state until X" can be read any other way.


glass.

 

[Starglim]

I don't think it's been mentioned yet why it would be so bad to allow break enchantment to work. Fox's cunning isn't even worth considering.

The letter and the intent of the rules is that feeblemind requires a 6th-level cleric spell or a 7th-level wizard spell to remove it. Allowing a 5th-level wizard spell to remove the effect, simply because of pedantry or player whining, is an unacceptable weakening of the spell.

 

[glass]

I don't think it's been mentioned yet why it would be so bad to allow break enchantment to work. Fox's cunning isn't even worth considering.

Actually, I don't have a problems with BE removing feeblemind in principal. It makes it possible to use feeblemind without stalling the adventure as much. I might even rule to that effect if it ever came up IMC, but I would consider it 'the H-word'.


glass.