Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Thanee]

This means that if you use a heal, limited wish, miracle or wish spell then the feeblemind effect is canceled. It does not rule out other methods. It is permissive, not prohibitive. The text for break enchantment says that it can reverse an instantaneous enchantment of 5th level or lower. That describes feeblemind to a T.

If they intended something different, they should have written something different. (Like "feeblemind can only be canceled by...") But I'm going to invoke the Hypersmurf principle of rules interpretation: If it says X, then assume they mean X.

And that's why it doesn't work.

If you use Break Enchantment you contradict the above-quoted text from Feeblemind, since neither Heal, Limited Wish, Miracle nor Wish have been used to cancel the effect and thus, according to the description, the subject remains in this state.

As you say, if it says X, then it means X. And if they give a finite list of methods to remove the effect, then they probably mean the list to be finite and exactly as presented.

Break Enchantment has no effect.

Bye
Thanee

 

[pawsplay]

If feeblemind was silent on it's curing methods, BE would have worked.

Why does the feeblemind description description trump the BE description?

If BE fails to work, that contradicts that would contradict the text of ME. There is no rule that states that one spell cannot contradict another, actually. Nothing in feeblemind precludes BE that I can see.

Greater restoration also seems like it would work since it seems having your ability scores drop to 1 is a "penalty."

 

[pawsplay]

And that's why it doesn't work.

If you use Break Enchantment you contradict the above-quoted text from Feeblemind, since neither Heal, Limited Wish, Miracle nor Wish have been used to cancel the effect and thus, according to the description, the subject remains in this state.

And the wording of BE would then end the state if BE was used.

 

[Thanee]

That's not possible. Feeblemind specifically says that. The subject still remains in that state.

Specific cases generally override generic cases, if they contradict each other.

Break Enchantment works on enchantments like this in general.

Feeblemind specifically contradicts this by not listing Break Enchantment as a possible method to remove the state.

Feeblemind wins.

Bye
Thanee

 

[pawsplay]

That's not possible. Feeblemind specifically says that. The subject still remains in that state.

It does not state the subject remains in that state irrespective of casting BE. Why is feeblemind god? BE states it affects enchantments, and it effects spells with an instantaneous duration.

Magic missile states it strikes inerringly and does damage. Shield states it blocks magic missile. Contradiction? I don't really think so.

BE does not contradict Feeblemind by dispelling it. Yes, the subject remains in that state. But then BE comes along and removes that state, removing the need to have feeblemind cured in some other fashion.

 

[Artoomis]

Hmmmm....

Instantaneous
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

Feeblemind
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Duration: Instantaneous
If the target creature fails a Will saving throw, its Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1... The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind

Break Enchantment
This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect.

This one is a litle tricky. It seems cleaer on its face that "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used" cannot be the only ways to remove the Feebleminded state. One could also use other means to raise the Intelligence and Charisma of the affected creature, for example. That HAS to work as there is no magic to counter it, so magic items, etc. that raise those scores must still work.

With that as precedent, and given the way Break Enchantment is written, Break Enchantment should work.

 

[Thanee]

One could also use other means to raise the Intelligence and Charisma of the affected creature, for example. That HAS to work as there is no magic to counter it, so magic items, etc. that raise those scores must still work.

Probably, yes. But how does that change the state of the subject?

The subject's own Intelligence is affected. Temporary modifiers apply as usual.

By the way it is worded, it's very clear, that the listed methods are the only methods to remove the Feeblemind state, because whatever you do (other than using these four spells) the subject remains in that state. Quite straightforward, really.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Michael Morris]

In most rules systems - D&D, Magic: The Gathering, hell even Monopoly, can't trumps can. Feeblemind states it can't be removed by any spell except those listed.

Note that if you want to houserule that Break Enchantment works that's fine. You can also write other spells that break a feeblemind condition if you want. I have one in my campaign...

Cleanse
Conjuration (Healing) [White]
Level: (4), Clr 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched.
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will Neg. (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Harmless)

“All that is befouled can be cleansed and reclaimed.” ~ Lisana.

Cleanse is a weaker version of heal that heals no damage but does remove the following conditions from the subject: temporary ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feeblemind, insanity, nauseated, sickened and poison. Cleanse has no affect on permanent ability damage or level draining effects.​

The reason this spell works and Break Enchantment doesn't is it specifically lists feeblemind as a spell it can undo - where feeblemind lists the spells that can undo it specifically, it was also printed before cleanse was. If I was to go back and 'reprint' a house version of feeblemind cleanse would be included.

Feeblemind is intended to be a spellcaster killer spell without actually killing the spellcaster. A feebleminded character is all but dead and it's almost as much a pain to bring them back from this condition as it is to bring back the dead.

 

[Cheiromancer]

In most rules systems - D&D, Magic: The Gathering, hell even Monopoly, can't trumps can. Feeblemind states it can't be removed by any spell except those listed.

Except it doesn't say "feeblemind can't be removed by any spells except the following." I'm reading it as saying that the listed spells *can* remove the condition, not that other spells can't. Imagine a first draft of feeblemind for 3.5 that says just that the subject's Intelligence and Charisma drop to 1. People would ask how this could be fixed. Is this ability damage? Ability drain? A curse? It would appear not. Then how is it fixed? The designer says "Well, a heal would work. Or a limited wish. A wish or miracle, obviously." This answers the question of how to remove it, but it doesn't exclude other solutions.

And break enchantment pretty clearly applies to feeblemind; it's an instantaneous 5th level enchantment. Without words that mention break enchantment by name, I don't see how you could exclude it.

 

[Artoomis]

Except it doesn't say "feeblemind can't be removed by any spells except the following." I'm reading it as saying that the listed spells *can* remove the condition, not that other spells can't. Imagine a first draft of feeblemind for 3.5 that says just that the subject's Intelligence and Charisma drop to 1. People would ask how this could be fixed. Is this ability damage? Ability drain? A curse? It would appear not. Then how is it fixed? The designer says "Well, a heal would work. Or a limited wish. A wish or miracle, obviously." This answers the question of how to remove it, but it doesn't exclude other solutions.

And break enchantment pretty clearly applies to feeblemind; it's an instantaneous 5th level enchantment. Without words that mention break enchantment by name, I don't see how you could exclude it.

I tend to agree with this logic.