Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[KarinsDad]

The consequences of an instantaneous effect are typically permanent.

True, but they are not typically non-mutable via magic.

 

[Artoomis]

See, I disagree, but I think this may just come down to how we view the spell.

I view it as something that instantaneously damages the brain in a manner which almost completely disables the subjects. The neural pathways that allow cognitive thought, speech, memory, spellcasting...those are all gone.

A headband of intellect won't work because the parts of the brain it would boost are damaged beyond the ability to be usable.

Now mind you, that's just the way I see the spell working. I can see other points of view on this aspect of it.

I don't agree, but that is not unreasonable.

It would be nice if the spell did a better job in its decsription.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Many wizards enjoy hefty bonuses to their intelligence. If feeblemind only affected the base score but not inherent or enhancement bonuses it wouldn't have anywhere near as dramatic effect. So I'm agreeable to the notion that the feebleminded state can't be mitigated by bonuses to intelligence or charisma. I'm inclined to say that the new stats count for the purpose of ability damage or drain; a single point of damage will reduce them to 0, and thus incapacitate them.

My general heuristic is that one spell trumps a lower level one in the absence of specific wording. And that defensive spells trump offensive spells. If a 5th level irresistible force meets a 5th level immovable object then the immovable object wins. If an 8th level divination spell is written so that it "ignores magical protections" I wouldn't allow it to trump a mind blank unless it said "ignores magical protections such as mind blank". If it were 9th level that said it "ignores magical protections" I would allow it to do so, even in the absence of a specific mention of mind blank.

I consider healing/curing/removing to be defensive, and so should trump offensive spells of the same level, unless mentioned by name or description. A spell that afflicts or curses a subject is offensive, of course.

If break enchantment said it didn't cure feeblemind, that would be the end of the matter. Similarly if break enchantment mentioned feeblemind by name (instead of by description) there would be no rules question to explore in this thread. As it is, the literal meaning of "until" seems to conflict with the description of break enchantment.

The question of designer intent was raised. Did the same person who designed feeblemind also design break enchantment? Were these spells revised or reviewed by someone with a different set of intentions? I don't think this is a profitable line of inquiry. You have to go down to the principle that the spell means what it says. If I as a designer didn't want feeblemind to be broken by break enchantment I would either have to raise the level of feeblemind so that the description of break enchantment wouldn't apply, or change the description of break enchantment so that it didn't apply to fifth level instantaneous enchantments. Or call out break enchantment either by name or description ("cannot be reversed by spells of fifth level or less," maybe with additional text like "such as remove curse or dispel magic." Actually, this wording would make the conflict more explicit; each would say that it trumps the other. In the absence of this wording, I think the position of feeblemind is weaker.) If I don't do this, then I am like someone who puts both an irresistible force and an immovable object in the same book; I create an interpretive puzzle for DMs.

I accept that "feebleminded" is a state (like "slain by death magic") and that a creature "remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind". However this language is trumped by the break enchantment spell description, which says it can reverse an instantaneous enchantment of 5th level or lower. I take "reverse" to be equivalent to "cancel" - is there any dispute on this? In the case of a conflict between two spells of equal level I would resolve the conflict in terms of the spell which is curative or restorative, in accordance with my general policy of how to break ties of this sort.

The question, for me, boils down to how to resolve the question of what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. I don't think designer intent is the best approach. I assign precedence to defensive/curative over offensive, but there may be a better way to approach such a question.

Can we agree that this is the question? Can we agree that feeblemind imposes a state that remains "until a heal, limited wish, miracle or wish spell is used"? Can we agree that break enchantment can reverse a 5th level instantaneous enchantment? Can we agree that feeblemind is a 5th level instantaneous enchantment? Can we agree that these statements are inconsistent, and that a procedure needs to be developed that resolves these inconsistencies?

If so, then I submit that the procedure of giving precedence to defensive/curative over offensive is worthy of consideration, and I invite people to suggest other ways in which conflicts between spells may be resolved. I am sure there are lots of alternatives.

 

[Artoomis]

Many wizards enjoy hefty bonuses to their intelligence. If feeblemind only affected the base score but not inherent or enhancement bonuses it wouldn't have anywhere near as dramatic effect. So I'm agreeable to the notion that the feebleminded state can't be mitigated by bonuses to intelligence or charisma.

...

Can we agree that this is the question? Can we agree that feeblemind imposes a state that remains "until a heal, limited wish, miracle or wish spell is used"? Can we agree that break enchantment can reverse a 5th level instantaneous enchantment? Can we agree that feeblemind is a 5th level instantaneous enchantment? Can we agree that these statements are inconsistent, and that a procedure needs to be developed that resolves these inconsistencies?

If so, then I submit that the procedure of giving precedence to defensive/curative over offensive is worthy of consideration, and I invite people to suggest other ways in which conflicts between spells may be resolved. I am sure there are lots of alternatives.

I can pretty much agree with that approach, I think.

 

[Pielorinho]

Me too, although my heuristic is slightly different from Cheiromancer's. Essentially, I imagine the acting character asking me, "Can I do this?" and if in doubt, I answer, "Yes!"

Daniel

 

[Cedric]

An instanenous effect is not typically dispellable, but often fixable (healing, etc.).

Precisely, that's why Break Enchantment doesn't work to cure Feeblemind. It requires a spell that can specifically reverse brain damage. Something all four of the listed cures can do.

 

[Artoomis]

Precisely, that's why Break Enchantment doesn't work to cure Feeblemind. It requires a spell that can specifically reverse brain damage. Something all four of the listed cures can do.

Or a spell that can reverse even instantaneous effects.

 

[Pielorinho]

Well! I'm glad we got that settled!

Daniel

 

[Cedric]

If so, then I submit that the procedure of giving precedence to defensive/curative over offensive is worthy of consideration, and I invite people to suggest other ways in which conflicts between spells may be resolved. I am sure there are lots of alternatives.

For the most part I agree with the rest of what you had to say, so I won't bother quoting it and going point by point.

I can see the reasoning behind a precedent for defensive/curative over offensive if the spells are of equal level (in fact, many other games use versions of this).

However, I still have to stipulate that the best procedure is that specific takes precedent over generic.

If there are no specifics involved (by specifics I mean spells named precisely, not just described vaguely) and two generic spells are in conflict, then I would resolve them based upon the defensive/curative over offensive.

I have posted my thoughts (a few times now) on how I think rules work in general, in pretty much all rule based activities, and no one has commented, so let me quote myself now.

I would just like to summarize my position by explaining my thoughts on the hierarchy of rules. This applies to all rules based activities, not just D&D. These are presented in order of ascending priority in relation to one another.

1. Generic, or generically stated rules. They can even be broad, sweeping rules that affect numerous aspects of the activity.
2. Specific rules. They are rules related to a particular aspect or aspects of the activity being governed, and take precedent over generic rules with regard to the particular aspect(s) in question.
3. More specific rules. They follow all of the guidelines of specific rules, however, they address a narrow scope of the specific rule they follow and alter its use in some fashion. These take precedent over Generic or Specific rules.

That's the way rules are used in just about any activity I can think of...example.

1. Generic Rule - In NCAA College Football, using bodily force to reposition, move, overcome or evade other players is completely acceptable.

2. Specific Rule - At no time may you place your hands upon the facemask of another player and certainly may not grasp or pull on the facemask of another player. Doing so will result in one of several penalties.

3. More specific rule - If you are the ball carrier and are running with the football, you may outstretch one arm (called a stiff arm) and use that arm to maintain distance from other players. While using the stiff arm maneuver as a ball carrier, you may contact or briefly grasp the facemask of another player without penalty.

Now...I'm sure I could come up with dozens of examples. But, in the end, that's just the way a rules based system is meant to function. And that's the way I am applying the rules in this case.

 

[KarinsDad]

If so, then I submit that the procedure of giving precedence to defensive/curative over offensive is worthy of consideration, and I invite people to suggest other ways in which conflicts between spells may be resolved.

That is a fine way to resolve conflict between spells. Unfortunately, I also believe that there is no conflict here due to the list of spells in Feeblemind. For people who do not believe that the wording there makes that list restrictive, they would have a conflict. I do not.