Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[KarinsDad]

Originally posted by KarinsDad
The interpretation that the list is restrictive is what creates the conflict, isn't it? If you look at the list as being exhaustive, then the only way a spell that is not on the list can reverse feeblemind is if it duplicates the effect of a spell on the list. That's what I understand the restrictive reading to be; that the silence of feeblemind excludes break enchantment from being a potential cure. Did you include the bolded text by accident, or am I totally misunderstanding something?

No. I just wrote that incorrectly.

The real conflict comes from thinking that the list is restrictive and also thinking that BE is not a general spell that can be overridden by a specific spell.

 

[Cheiromancer]

That's avoided by the specific versus general rules interpretation.

I think that "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is more specific than "neither heal nor limited wish nor miracle nor wish". The former refers to much smaller pool of spells than the latter. How would you argue that the latter description is more specific than the former?

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is more specific than "neither heal nor limited wish nor miracle nor wish". The former refers to much smaller pool of spells than the latter. How would you argue that the latter description is more specific than the former?

Because one is spell a, b, c, and d whereas the other is spell types.

A rule concerning spell types can have exceptions since it is a general rule. It is still a rule, but it is a more general rule than a specific list which is a more specific rule.

Magic Missile always hits its target. Except when it does not.

Break Enchantment always gets a chance to reverse 5th level or lower Instantaneous Enchantment or Transmuation spells on creatures. Except when it does not.


And even the Feeblemind spell is a general rule when compared to Mass Heal. Only those 4 spells heal Feeblemind. Except when another more specific spell takes precedence.

But, the spell has to explicitly be more specific than the spell rule people are trying to have it overcome. If BE explicitly stated that it reversed Feeblemind, then it would take precedence over the wording in Feeblemind.

Feeblemind in this case has the more specific explicit information on which spells can reverse it.

 

[Thanee]

"5th level instantaneous enchantment"

Just to restate, this is not a limitation, by which BE operates.

It can cancel instantaneous enchantments and transmutations and curses of any level.

(Check out the full text in the PHB, then you will most likely see this as well.)

Bye
Thanee

 

[Cedric]

So if you really believe that the more explicit rule should be followed, you should be on the "BE works" side.

Ok, so let me make sure I understand your contention...

"This spell works on any spells that satisfy the following criteria (type of spell, duration of spell, etc."

Is, according to you, more specific than:

"Remains in effect until one of the following four spells listed by name is used."

That is your contention, correct? That's what you are claiming, I am not misunderstanding you?

Also...

I think that "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is more specific than "neither heal nor limited wish nor miracle nor wish". The former refers to much smaller pool of spells than the latter. How would you argue that the latter description is more specific than the former?

On the contrary, "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is potentially infinite. Every new publication could add more of those. But the original list of four spells is finite. While more spells may be added that "act like Heal" ...in the end, there is only one Heal spell.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just to restate, this is not a limitation, by which BE operates.

It can cancel instantaneous enchantments and transmutations and curses of any level.

How many instantaneous enchantments, transmutations, and curses can be dispelled by Dispel Magic?

I agree that Flesh to Stone is an example of an instantaneous effect, and serves to demonstrate the sorts of things that Break Enchantment might be effective against.

But unless you have a class or creature that casts Flesh to Stone as a 5th level spell (rather than 6th), Break Enchantment won't be able to reverse the specific instantaneous effect Flesh to Stone. It's an instantaneous effect (and serves as an example of such), but it's not one that Break Enchantment will work on, because "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower" forbids it.

"Hobgoblins will eat fruit (such as apples). They will not eat anything that is red."

If the only apples you have are red, hobgoblins won't eat them, even though apples are an example of fruit. If you can find a green apple, they'll eat that quite happily.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...On the contrary, "5th level instantaneous enchantment" is potentially infinite. Every new publication could add more of those. But the original list of four spells is finite. While more spells may be added that "act like Heal" ...in the end, there is only one Heal spell.

So then you think that NO OTHER SPELLS can work? That would include Mass Heal and Panacea, then.

 

[Cedric]

So then you think that NO OTHER SPELLS can work? That would include Mass Heal and Panacea, then.

Mass Heal precisely duplicates Heal (as well as adding additional functionality), so it's even more specific, and the most specific rule wins. As for Panacea, you have to allow for additions to the rules, otherwise the rules fail to function at all, no one would ever buy a supplement.

Panacea works because it was released in a supplemental version of the rules and it is more specific. Once again, the most specific wins.

 

[Artoomis]

Mass Heal precisely duplicates Heal (as well as adding additional functionality), so it's even more specific, and the most specific rule wins. As for Panacea, you have to allow for additions to the rules, otherwise the rules fail to function at all, no one would ever buy a supplement.

Panacea works because it was released in a supplemental version of the rules and it is more specific. Once again, the most specific wins.

But the list is infinite.

 

[Cedric]

But the list is infinite.

Theoretically there are an infinite number of spells that could add that specifically clear the effects of feeblemind, either by saying so precisely or by stating that they work exactly like heal, limited wish, wish or miracle.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is though.

There is no question with Panacea, it came out after the PHB and specifically says it cures Feeblemind. Zero ambiguity, perfectly clear. Do you disagree?

As to Mass Heal, because it exactly duplicates the abilities of Heal (which is on the list), as well as adding targets and hit points effected, I believe it works.

However, I would come a LOT closer to agreeing that Mass Heal doesn't work, than I ever would to agreeing that Break Enchantment does work.

Short of an Errata or FAQ entry stating that Break Enchantment works, I will never believe that it does, by the rules.