Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Mort]

Mind you, if the spell energy still existed (permanent), that would be different. But without the spell energy to prevent some otherwise-valid remedy, how can that remedy not work?

Multitudes of people have already said this - but the simple answer is because feeblemind says so. If that's not enough, you have one of the designers saying that that's exactly what was intended, so you cannot argue it was an error in wording.

Even forgetting all of that (which you shouldn't), all of the spells listed to cure feeblemind are pretty hefty (6th level and above), Break Enchantment is 4th-5th level; it's pretty easy to rule BE is simply not powerful enough to affect feeblemind.

 

[Artoomis]

Someone brought up the example of Reincarnate before. As far as I can tell, it fits all the criteria - Instantaneous Transmutation below 5th level...

But I see it as being particularly applicable for effects that might not be in the PHB. Baleful Polymorph is Permanent, but the witch in the forest might have an instantaneous Turn-You-Into-A-Toad effect. Dispel Magic doesn't work, but Break Enchantment is tailor-made.

-Hyp.

I brought that up.

Funny enough, the list is:

Reincarnate (does this make Break Enchanment an auto-death spell if you've been Reincarnated?)
Awaken (can make the animal/plant unawakened?)
Mnemonic Enhancer (lose the benefit of the spell?)

Weird, eh?

 

[Neverwill]

If you don't allow this use, which instantaneous effects do get reversed by Break Enchantment anyway? Unholy Blight would be the ONLY one in the PHB, and that's questionable - it's not listed as a curse but remove curse works, so maybe...

How about Telekinesis? Using the Violent Thrust form, you can hurl creatures into walls causing damage. Would Break Enchantment relocate and heal the damage since it is reversing the instantaneous effect?

You could also use Break Enchantment on Mnemonic Enhancer. Note, this an an instantaneous effect, yet the spells prepared or retained will fade after 24 hours. Is there magic keeping these spells in place or do they naturally expire in a day?

You could also possibly undo Power Word Kill unless the instananeous effects fall under a spell that "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic."

 

[Artoomis]

How about Telekinesis? Using the Violent Thrust form, you can hurl creatures into walls causing damage. Would Break Enchantment relocate and heal the damage since it is reversing the instantaneous effect?

I thought of that, but the object tossed are not a valid target for BE.

You could also use Break Enchantment on Mnemonic Enhancer. Note, this an an instantaneous effect, yet the spells prepared or retained will fade after 24 hours. Is there magic keeping these spells in place or do they naturally expire in a day?

Either way, yes you could use BE on that. It's on my rather short list of ways to use BE offensively.

You could also possibly undo Power Word Kill unless the instananeous effects fall under a spell that "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic."

I think most folks would lump it there since, well, it can't be dispelled.

 

[Neverwill]

I thought of that, but the object tossed are not a valid target for BE.

True, but you can also target creatures to toss.

Alternatively, the spell energy can be spent in a single round. You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15)....

 

[Artoomis]

True, but you can also target creatures to toss.

Hmmm... do you become "untossed?"

Technically, maybe so. That seems rather... weird.

 

[Felix]

I made a wee error. Whoops. I left out the word "not," it appears, though in context it was clear.

Your point was founded upon an erronious example. What hope left for the point?

The main point is that I keep trying to tell you it is an error to apply strict logic here. It works well in computer science, but not in normal everyday use.

I agree that logic will not necessarily help determine what the everyday use should be, but it works darn well at figuring out precicely what things mean, if only to show that what has been said or written is meaningless.

As it happens, Feeblemind has a precise meaning, and no amount of handwaving will dismiss that meaning.

Because we are all fallable. We make lists that are supposedly exclusive and than later realize the exception we should have included.

That's normal life, man.

"This program will run until it detects an error condition."

Someone pulls the plug.

You suggest that language can be fallable.

I agree. This is true. It can be.

But because language can be fallable does not make it so.

Your argument amounts to, "Humans make mistakes, Feeblemind was written by a human, therefore the spell is a mistake, and Break Enchantment works."

No, logic cannot be applied in all cases. This is a case where it can and has been found to work perfectly well.

Whoops - the original statement was not complete - That's the NORMAL state for such statements.

Heck, if we were infallable all our computer programs would actually work as they were supposed to.

Quite wrong. The original statement of yours was not "incomplete", it was False. As in, despite the actual meaning of the premise (which was that there was no other condition under witch information would not be shared besides being told not to) there existed some other condition that would prevent the sharing of informaiton.

Your statement was not True.

You can only add on addendums to statements like yours, or Feeblemind's, if you assume them to be False in the first place. Which is what you've been doing, for no good reason, for 8 pages.

And if you're wlling to assume that the language is False, that because errors can occur they necessarily have occured, then what do you have left to build an argument upon? Turning your own argument upon you, anyone can say that because you have erred multiple times, it means that you necessarily are in error.

But this is not the case; you might err, but are capable of being correct in the same way that language might be unclear, but it is crystal in Feeblemind.

Come on, this is lame.

He attempted to produce a logical argument; there was within the argument both a typo and a logical fallacy*: don't dismiss the second because you forgave the first.

*That being that in order for his example of other governmental regulations to prevent sharing, his original statement must necessarily be false. He was attempting to use a false statement to deride a true one, or imply that one must assume that Feeblemind's text to be false.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Turning your own argument upon you, anyone can say that because you have erred multiple times, it means that you necessarily are in error.

You are in error. You did not recognize your mistake – you have made two errors. You are flawed and imperfect, and you have not corrected – you have made three errors!

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

You are in error. You did not recognize your mistake – you have made two errors. You are flawed and imperfect, and you have not corrected – you have made three errors!

-Hyp.

That sounds a lot like an old Star Trek reference. Is it?

 

[Felix]

You are in error. You did not recognize your mistake – you have made two errors. You are flawed and imperfect, and you have not corrected – you have made three errors!

-Hyp.

I agree; that argument doesn't hold water.