Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

The list doesn't get expanded. The definition of Heal does.

Look, it realy does not matter anyhow. I think this is distracting us from the real point:

I think the real key is whether Break Enchanment is like Dispel Magic and M's Disjunction in that is ought to work in every applicable instance unless clearly and specifically called out to not work.

I think it is like them and that they way it works is that they must be called out specifically as not-applicable or else they can be effectively used.

I know that, for one, glass disagrees with that.

 

[glass]

]I submit that, given the nature of Dispel Magic (and it's Greater cousin), M's Disjunction and Break Enchament, each of those is always applicable to spells that are within their scopes unless specifically prohibited, as opposed to not included on a list of remedies for the spell in question

(emphasis mine).

Actually I agree. And I would contend that in the case of feeblemind they are specifically prohibited.


glass.

 

[Deset Gled]

I think it is like them and that they way it works is that they must be called out specifically as not-applicable or else they can be effectively used.

You mean, like specifying the only spells that can be used to counter a certain spell's effects? Seems to me like you just described Feeblemind to a tee.

 

[Artoomis]

(emphasis mine).

Actually I agree. And I would contend that in the case of feeblemind they are specifically prohibited.


glass.

I see. I contend that, to be specifically prohibited, they must be called out by name.

There are only three spells with this requirement to be called out by name (as I see it):

Dispel Magic, M's Disjunction and Break Enchantment.

Greater Dispel Magic is a further special case as it works as Remove Curse in addition to working as an improved Dispel Magic.

 

[PallidPatience]

Is it easier to say "in baseball, the batter cannot use a golf club, car grille, tire, pointy stick, broadsword, femur, monkey skull, orange, etc... to hit the baseball" or to say "in baseball, the batter must use a baseball bat to hit the baseball"? Which way makes more sense?

 

[KarinsDad]

Let me pose a hypothetical. Let's suppose Feeblemind was written precisely as it is but was Permanent, rather than Instananeous.

Would Dispel Magic work?

Total strawman.

If they wrote it as permanent, it is unlikely that they would have put in the "unless" phrase.

 

[Artoomis]

Is it easier to say "in baseball, the batter cannot use a golf club, car grille, tire, pointy stick, broadsword, femur, monkey skull, orange, etc... to hit the baseball" or to say "in baseball, the batter must use a baseball bat to hit the baseball"? Which way makes more sense?

Given the D&D spell system, I would be uncomfortable with disallowing Dispel Magic or M's Disjunction with any non-instantaneous spell that did not specifically exclude Dispel Magic or M's Disjunction if that was its intent. The effect of those spells (Dispel and Disjunction) is so universal that it really needs to be stated if they are not to apply.

I feel the same way about Break Enchantment. I am not comfortable at all with disallowing it the chance to work if the spell is otherwise valid for it but for an "exclusive" list of remedies. It really needs to be clearly spelled out in the spell description that Break Enchament is not intended to work with that spell for me to feel that it really should not work.

This has to do both with the universal nature of the way it works being similar to Dispel and Disjunction and with the nature of the way it "reveres" instantaneous spells.

 

[Artoomis]

Total strawman.

If they wrote it as permanent, it is unlikely that they would have put in the "unless" phrase.

Maybe so. But if they did, would M's Disjunction work?

Simple question.

I submit that this is basically the same question as to whether Break Enchament should work with it as written.

 

[KarinsDad]

Heal is on the list. Mass Heal is not. Thats simple enough.

I agree that Mass Heal works because Heal is on the list, but, nonetheless, the list has been expanded to include Mass Heal which has opened the door, at least a crack, to other analyses of what else, perhaps, should be on the list but is not.

Mass Heal is not explicitly Heal, actually, it "functions like heal" - but is not the same spell, thus it is an expansion of the list, no matter how common-sensical, obvious and trivial it may be, it is still an expansion of the list.

Expansion or not, Mass Heal is an explicit spell that explicitly states that it overrides the text within Feeblemind (it is a specific spell). How?

It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the Target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded

Break Enchantment is an implicit spell. It does not explicitly state that it overrides the text within Feeblemind (it is a general spell).

Just because Mass Heal "opens the door a crack" does not mean that Break Enchantment can walk through.

It means that Mass Heal can walk through.

Nothing more. Just because spell A can do something does not give spell B the ability to do so. Your "opens the door a crack" supposition is logically flawed. It is grasping at straws to allow an interpretation that the literal rules do not.


Any spell that explicitly states that it can cure Feebleminded can, even though Feeblemind itself only allows for 4 spells. Any spell that does not explicitly state it can do so (with the exceptions of Wish, Limited Wish, Heal, and Miracle) cannot.


My POV is a literal reading of RAW, not a liberal reading of RAW.

 

[Deset Gled]

I see. I contend that, to be specifically prohibited, they must be called out by name.

There are only three spells with this requirement to be called out by name (as I see it):

Dispel Magic, M's Disjunction and Break Enchantment.

Greater Dispel Magic is a further special case as it works as Remove Curse in addition to working as an improved Dispel Magic.

Can you sight any rules backing this up? How did you come up with these three spells, specifically? I believe you are talking about your feeling of the situation, not what the actual rules state.

Also, to require all spells to specifically prohibit all spells that do not counter said spell would be pretty much impossible when considering that new spells are added all the time through research or splat books.