Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Thanee]

Yeah. For some reason, the people who say that Feeblemind only lists some options, read 'remains in this state until' (finite list of options follows) as 'the state can be removed with' (list of examples follows).

Takes a lot of creative reading to get there.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Knight Otu]

Hm, that makes break enchantment more or less a limited greater dispel magic that might also free a petrified creature, doesn't it?
Most other instantaneous enchantment and transmutation spells that affect creatures either provide their own cure list (feeblemind, insanity), or are generally benefitial to the target. Well, and then there's disintegrate and power word: kill.

 

[Thanee]

The fact alone, that it can un-petrify a creature (without a risk even) makes the spell pretty good (much better than the spell, that is specifically for this purpose and one level higher)!

Also...

Targets: Up to one creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other

So, don't say this spell is bad, it surely isn't.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Knight Otu]

So, don't say this spell is bad, it surely isn't.

I'm not saying it is bad, I say that it is more limited in applications than greater dispel, which is ok, as the latter is higher level as well. Just an observation that the "can affect instantaneous spells" doesn't amount to all that much.

 

[Thanee]

Yep, it's a highly specialized spell. And who knows what kind of instanteneous spells there will be in upcoming books.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Knight Otu]

Yep, it's a highly specialized spell. And who knows what kind of instanteneous spells there will be in upcoming books.

Bye
Thanee

Or have been. I admittedly only looked through the core spells.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

edit: This is kind of long, but it brings all of my arguments together, I think

"...Allowing a 5th-level wizard spell to remove the effect, simply because of pedantry or player whining, is an unacceptable weakening of the spell" No, it's just applying Break Enchantment as written, plus realizing that for an instantenous spell such a list is permissive rather than restrictive (or, if you like inclusive rather than exclusive).

Let's look at which fifth level or lower "instantaneous enchantments" actually exist in the PHB, for Break Enchantment is meant to apply to all of those.

Let's see, there is:

Feeblemind Sor/Wiz 5 and... oh, look, that’s it! The only one. (edit: I searched the "Hyperlinked SRD." If I missed somehting please let me know.)

That alone is evidence fairly strong evidence that Break Enchantment should work on Feeblemind, It is the only PHB spell that is an instantaneous enchantment that could be affected by Break Enchantment.

The argument that the "feebleminded state" can only be removed as stated in the spell falls apart very quickly, as I have shown.

There are other ways that one can remove the feebleminded state, even if rather inefficiently (such as magically raising the stats and/or even slowing raising them by level advancement).

Since that is true, the list presented cannot be an exclusive list.

Since that is true, Break Enchantment must work.

An instantaneous effect, by definition, leaves behind no magic that can control its ongoing effect.. This is a very key point Because of this fact, any language about what can remove the instantaneous effect must be permissive, rather that restrictive. In other words, it’s removing the normal restriction that one can pretty much do nothing to reverse “instantaneous” effect. Feeblemind list some ways one can do this, but Break Enchantment lists another. By the logic above, and because Feeblemind is the ONLY fifth level or lower instantaneous enchantment in the PHB, Break Enchantment must be able to work.

If not, the whole logic above must have a fatal flaw somewhere (please point it out to me) and, to top it off, the “fifth level or lower instantaneous enchantment” portion of Break Enchantment must have no meaning, at least as far as the PHB is concerned, and that is not really acceptable to me.

edit: Unfortunately a quick surface reading for Feeblemind would lead one to a conclusion that ONLY those spells listed work to "fix" the feebleminded.

That's unfortunate, especially lin light of the fact that NONE of those spells needed to be listed. That's because Heal already explicity states it "immediately ends... the adverse condition..." of feeblemind, and the others all can be used in place of Break Enchantment anyway. It would have been better (clearer) to have no such text at all in the Feeblemind spell description.

 

[Pielorinho]

edit: Unfortunately a quick surface reading for Feeblemind would lead one to a conclusion that ONLY those spells listed work to "fix" the feebleminded.

Agreed--but I also agree that a slower surface reading leads to this same conclusion. The spell is poorly written, as you eloquently point out: the line that the subject remains in that state until subjected to one of four spells is obviously unworkable in play.

This is why I think that a "surface reading" of the rules is a bad approach; it's much better to analyze the rules from multiple angles.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

Agreed--but I also agree that a slower surface reading leads to this same conclusion. The spell is poorly written, as you eloquently point out: the line that the subject remains in that state until subjected to one of four spells is obviously unworkable in play.

This is why I think that a "surface reading" of the rules is a bad approach; it's much better to analyze the rules from multiple angles.

Daniel

Generally true, but should not be needed. Of course, as you pointed out, the rules are written by people, not flawless machines. Mistakes are made and not always corrected.

Also, in writing rules (and any other exacting text) it is generally better to have things said in only once place . Every time something is unnecessarily repeated, errors tend to creep in.

 

[Pielorinho]

Also, in writing rules (and any other exacting text) it is generally better to have things said in only once place . Every time something is unnecessarily repeated, errors tend to creep in.

Agreed. I think they would've been better off leaving this line out of Feeblemind. If they felt the need to emphasize the spell's nastiness, they could've written something like: "Note: because this spell is instantaneous, not permanent, Dispel Magic and similar spells have no effect."

Daniel