Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Thanee]

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.

As for the instantaneous effect (not just enchantment, even though both words start with an 'e'), there is an example in the PHB, actually.

The full sentence is: "Break Enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as Flesh to Stone." So much for that part.

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

And this part therefore cannot refer to instantaneous effects, BTW, which also becomes clear when reading the full description in the PHB, because it lists an example for what is meant there (a spell, that could normally be dispelled (i.e. has a duration other than instanteneous), but actually states, that it cannot be dispelled, like Bestow Curse).

Otherwise it would be kinda funny, that they use an example spell (Flesh to Stone), which doesn't even work, since it is 6th level.

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

Not sure what you think you have shown, but nothing falls apart there...

It doesn't state whether it is modified Int or base Int. Either it is modified Int, then those modifiers won't raise it, or it's base Int, then you can raise it, but only from 1 onwards. Either way, the state remains.

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).

As already said, that doesn't remove the state, it might lessen its effect (if it works, and one could easily make an argument, that regardless of any modifiers, Int is always set to 1, because the modified Int is affected), but the state is still there.

The state is what turned the Int value at the moment the spell was cast to 1.

The Int value doesn't have to remain at 1 in order for the state to remain.
As long as the Int is still lowered by the margin it has been lowered when the spell was cast, the state is still in effect.

Of course, if you are adamant about that the state is and can only be that Int is exactly 1, then everything you name to change the Int will fail, since only four spells (as listed in the description) can remove the state. So if that is the state, then that's exactly what happens.

As I said, it doesn't really matter what way you define the state, there is always a fitting and consistent answer to it, so there is really no way to make an argument, that the state cannot only be removed by the four listed spells, since whatever method can alter the state. It cannot. The spell description clearly says so.

Your logic is highly flawed here. You basically use two different definitions for the state, one to make your other methods (i.e. Fox's Cunning) work (because there is no other rule to say, that they do; it's just an unproven assumption your whole argument is based upon), and the other definition to say, that if anything else works, then it's not only those four spells that work (obviously, since something else works, too). It doesn't work that way. You have to use the same definition throughout (as mentioned a few times above in this post, as long as you are consistent with the state definition, everything falls into place). If it is possible to raise the Int via those methods, then that is part of the state definition, because that is the state then, and by virtue of that definition, the state is not removed then either. If not, then those methods fail. Choose one, no switching allowed.

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

Since that is true, Break Enchantment must work.

Since the initial assumption is false, the rest is also false.

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

Yeah, all the ones that don't agree with you only did a quick surface reading... that must be it!

I even looked up the 3.0 version to see, if something got edited in or out.

How about... a quick surface reading for Break Enchantment would lead one to a conclusion that ALL those spells that fall under the listed categories will be canceled, regardless of what the specific spell descriptions have to say about that matter.

See? Works that way, too.

Of course, as you pointed out, the rules are written by people, not flawless machines. Mistakes are made and not always corrected.

And of course, it must be Feeblemind, which is wrong. It absolutely cannot be, that the description of Break Enchantment is written too loosely by not figuring in spells, which are even in the same book (and have been in the previous version as well and all corrected printings of that one), which fit the pattern but still do not get countered. No way! That's totally not possible.


Sorry, Artoomis, but your thoughts are so much fixed on how Break Enchantment totally has to work by now, that you cannot see the simple truth anymore, I think.

There's a list of exactly four PHB spells, which work to counteract Feeblemind. The spell description makes clear, that there is no other way to remove the feeblemind effect (remains... until...). That's it. That's all there needs to be.

And how is that obviously unworkable in play, anyways, Pielorinho?

Someone casts Feeblemind. Someone else casts Break Enchantment. Nothing happens.

Quite workable, if you ask me.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Artoomis]

...Sorry, Artoomis, but your thoughts are so much fixed on how Break Enchantment totally has to work by now, that you cannot see the simple truth anymore, I think.

No..., I actually started out on your side (befoe I posted anything), but logic inexorably took me the other way.

There's a list of exactly four PHB spells, which work to counteract Feeblemind. The spell description makes clear, that there is no other way to remove the feeblemind effect (remains... until...). That's it. That's all there needs to be.

Patently false. What about Mass Heal, for starters?...

You are so fixed on how that list must be an exclusive list that you cannot follow the logic that states otherwise.

 

[Thanee]

Mass Heal is Heal.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Artoomis]

As for the instantaneous effect (not just enchantment, even though both words start with an 'e'), there is an example in the PHB, actually.

The full sentence is: "Break Enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as Flesh to Stone." So much for that part.

...Bye
Thanee

Actually, the full SRD text is:

This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is 25.

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.

Feeblemind is the ONLY instantaneous enchantment of fifth level or lower.

For transumations, there is:

Reincarnate (does this make Break Enchantent a save or die spell if you've been Reincarnated?)
Awaken (can make the animal/plant unawakened?)
Mnemonic Enhancer (lose the benefit of the spell?)

That's a Weird selection of possibilities.

For instantaneous curses, there is only:

Unholy Blight

That's it as far as I can tell.

 

[Artoomis]

Mass Heal is Heal.

Bye
Thanee

No it's not. It a different spell. "This spell functions like heal, except as noted above. The maximum number of hit points restored to each creature is 250." It is not the same spell.

You don't get to have it both ways. Either this list is completely exclusive or it is not.

I agree that Mass Heal would work because Heal specifically say it works and Mass Heal functions "like Heal," but, then, I also say Break Enchantment works because it says it will work on an instanteous fifth level enhantment.

 

[Artoomis]

...The full sentence is: "Break Enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as Flesh to Stone." So much for that part.

And this part therefore cannot refer to instantaneous effects, BTW, which also becomes clear when reading the full description in the PHB, because it lists an example for what is meant there (a spell, that could normally be dispelled (i.e. has a duration other than instanteneous), but actually states, that it cannot be dispelled, like Bestow Curse).

Otherwise it would be kinda funny, that they use an example spell (Flesh to Stone), which doesn't even work, since it is 6th level.
...

The example is not in the SRD - which is a good thing, since it is in error, as you correctly point out.

Note that ALL instantaneous effect spells cannot be dispelled, and so are covered by Break Enchantment along with any other spell that cannot be dispelled.

I guess that does make the list of affected non-dispellable spells longer than I have posted so far. On that point, at least, you are right - even though you did not put it that way.

Hmmm... that makes making a list of all non-dispellable enchantments, trasmutations and curses a bit harder to produce.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Feeblemind is the ONLY instantaneous enchantment of fifth level or lower.

For transmutations, there is:

Reincarnate (does this make Break Enchantment a save or die spell if you've been Reincarnated?)
Awaken (can make the animal/plant unawakened?)
Mnemonic Enhancer (lose the benefit of the spell?)

That's a Weird selection of possibilities.

For instantaneous curses, there is only:

Unholy Blight

That's it as far as I can tell.

Artoomis, I think you win the thread! I would never have thought of using break enchantment to reverse the effect of reincarnate or awaken. Who would have thought that it was an anti-druid spell!

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis, I think you win the thread! I would never have thought of using break enchantment to reverse the effect of reincarnate or awaken. Who would have thought that it was an anti-druid spell!

Wierd, eh? I probably would not allow it as being a little too wierd and unintended, but it looks like it fits the way the spell was written.

Oh, and of course it can be used to reverse Break Enchantment itself. I left that off this list.

The way out of the four weird and unhelpful results is to focus on the word "victim."

Now's a good time to hear from Hyp, now that we exposed all the rule wierdness. What's your opinion, Hyp? Am I right on the rules?

 

[pawsplay]

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.

However, BE states that it can remove the effect of someone in such a state.

Feeblemind is a special case, but is not therefore exempt from other special cases.

Let's take the following text from the SRD:

FLANKING
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.


That is the text for flanking. Let us suppose you have a class ability that allows you to flank from a square adjacent to you and a threatened foe (there are several such classes). If you refuse to allow a special case, then having such an ability is useless; flanking is already defined.

Feeblemind is defined by what it does. It cannot itself define Break Enchantment.

Suppose for a moment that miracle is used to duplicate heal in order to cure feeblemind. If feeblemind is, in fact, an immovable object, then it will fail. The miracle may duplicate the effects of heal, but feeblemind actually requires heal to be cast.

Further, a feebleminded character has amazing powers since they know "who its friends are and can follow them and even protect them." The inerring ability to follow someone is very valuable. Further, this is more valuable than true seeing in detecting an imposter. Presumably, even if a friend is transported to the Ethereal Plane, the feebleminded character appears loyally by their side.

I think that is enough to demonstrate feeblemind is not an "immovable object." It is simply an instantaneous spell with certain effects and remedies. It itself does not have the ability to define how other spells work, such as break enchantment.

 

[Thanee]

Actually, the full SRD text is: ...

That's it as far as I can tell.

As I said above... the complete text isn't in the SRD, it's only in the PHB.

Bye
Thanee