Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Thanee]

Pretty much, yep.

There are two kinds of 'cannot be dispelled', one is the actual rule specific to a spell (Bestow Curse cannot be dispelled), the other is a realization of a more general nature (Dispel Magic cannot dispel instantaneous spells).

Two different (yet very similar) things with the same name.

And I'm reasonably sure, that they only speak of the first one in the Break Enchantment description.

It's not possible to reach that conclusion by looking at the rules.

BTW, I don't agree with this. The examples are part of the rules and are sometimes necessary to actually understand the rules, because they are not written in a precise-enough fashion to make sense by themselves.

This is one such case.

By RAW alone, the game doesn't work at all, anyways.
Without some interpretation you will often run into terms, which are completely undefined and thus impossible to use.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Artoomis]

Mass Heal works for reasons that have already been discussed at length.

Panacea doesn't work, by default. Like anything in a supplement, it is an optional variant, which if you choose to use it in your game, can also remove feeblmind. Becuase you have given it the power to do so.


glass.

I was making a point - I agree Mass Heal works.

However, you were bending over backwards to assert the list as absolutely, positively the ONLY possible remedies.

And now you say the list REALLY means spells on the PLUS things that work like spells on the list.

That's an expansion of the list right there. No matter how small or insignificant, it is an expansion of the list.

It may be implied in the original list, but since it is not stated, it's still an expansion.

.
.
.

Further, the unless clause is really permissive rather than restrictive. That it, is is not complete (unless you disallow Mass Heal).

The list already includes redundant spells, and thus either it is intended to be the totally complete list or it is not.

I say it is not. It lists remedies, but it is possible there may be others. Break Enchantment is one such other.

I also claim that Break Enchantment works unless specifically prohibited by name. That is the same restriction I place upon Dispel Magic. Because of the extreme difficulty of listing all possible magical remedies, those which are universal (within there qualifying set of spells) remedies (like Dispel Magic and Break Enchantment and Antimagic Field) must be excluded if they are to have no effect. This is done in every other spell in the PHB, so I see no reason not to do that here as well.

I also contend, of course, that Break Enchantment is unique in that it can reverse any qualifying instantaneous effects (though only those that have a "victim," per the BE spell description.)

There are EXACTLY two such spell in the PHB, and one of those is questionable as to whether it qualifies (Unholy Blight is remoc3ed with Remove Curse but is not labeled as a "curse"), leaving only one clearly qualify spell: Feeblemind.

If you do not allow Feeblemind to work than, short of optional rules, the reversing of instantaneous effects has absolutely no meaning as it can never happen, except from optional rules or situations the DM creates not contained within the core rules.

That is completely unacceptable to me, so I would, without hesitation, rule that Break Enchantment reverses Feeblemind (provided you are successful with the Caster Level check, of course).

So, for at least three good reasons, I submit that Break Enchantment works by a valid rules interpretation. Not necessarily the ONLY valid rule interpretation, mind you.

 

[Artoomis]

Pretty much, yep. ...Bye
Thanee

Thanee, I see where you are coming from. I think it is a stretch, but justifiable. given the way the spell was written. The becomes spell potentially and oddly much more powerful as ANY level of instantaneous effect could be reversed but NOT any level of other effects, like permanent ones.

I do not think that was intended, and I think the "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic" really does include instantaneous spells (because it really means exactly what it says).

Your interpretation is justified by the example of Flesh to Stone, which has not be errata'd out.

I think it is a position that very, very few agree with, but is, nonetheless, justifiable by the rules as written - even if a bit of a stretch.

As I like to say, more than one correct answer is often possible given that the rules were not written with the level of precision that many would like to assume is present.

 

[Artoomis]

If you wrote Feeblemind, and wrote "Only Heal reverses Feeblemind. Break Enchantment does not reverse Feeblemind."... could you honestly look at that pair of sentences and not feel that the second one is completely and utterly redundant?

-Hyp.

I could. Or perhaps, more to the point, redundant but necessarily so.

Given the way all the rest of the PHB spells are written, it seems that WotC feels that to exclude unversally applicable spells (such as Dispel Magic) one lists them by name.

The "unversally applicable" spells are:

Dispel Magic for all non-instantaneous spells
Greater Dispel Magic (covered by Dispel Magic, except is does reproduce "Remove Curse" effects)
M's Disjunction (maybe, it's arguable whether Dispel Magic covers it)
Antimagic Field
Break Enchament (for all spells within the defintion in BE)

I view the treatment of Dispel Magic and Antimagic Field in the PHB spell descriptions as precedent for allowing BE to be effective unless prohibited by name.

 

[Deset Gled]

And now you say the list REALLY means spells on the PLUS things that work like spells on the list.

That's an expansion of the list right there. No matter how small or insignificant, it is an expansion of the list.

It may be implied in the original list, but since it is not stated, it's still an expansion.

...

That is completely unacceptable to me, so I would, without hesitation, rule that Break Enchantment reverses Feeblemind (provided you are successful with the Caster Level check, of course).

So, for at least three good reasons, I submit that Break Enchantment works by a valid rules interpretation. Not necessarily the ONLY valid rule interpretation, mind you.

As has been stated before, allowing Mass Heal to work in place of Heal is not an expansion of the spell list. It is a modification to the definition of Heal. Also, your last arguement seems to be entirely motivated by balance and intent, which I would not accept to be an arguement about how the rules work (rather, how they should work).

This leaves you with one reason, not three.

I am still contemplating how an instantaneous spell truly functions. One of the major issues I am currently wrestling with is whether an instantaneous enchantment (like feeblemind) works the same as other instantaneous spells (such as Animate Dead, an abjuration).

 

[Thanee]

The becomes spell potentially and oddly much more powerful as ANY level of instantaneous effect could be reversed but NOT any level of other effects, like permanent ones.

Considering, that many people thought the spell was rather weak, that can't be such a bad thing, I guess.

I do not think that was intended, and I think the "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic" really does include instantaneous spells (because it really means exactly what it says).

Always hard to say, but the example surely implies, that the intent lies there... it has also been exactly that way in 3.0, and they made a lot of changes to the spells in the transition (they also made some changes to the BE text, but only by removing redundant text from it).

Of course, it could simply be an oversight, but I would rather think, that they did not realize, that the 'cannot be dispelled' would technically include all instantaneous spells, not just those that I am talking about above.

Either way, only the original author of the spell could actually say how it is.

As I like to say, more than one correct answer is often possible given that the rules were not written with the level of precision that many would like to assume is present.

Very true!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Artoomis]

As has been stated before, allowing Mass Heal to work in place of Heal is not an expansion of the spell list. It is a modification to the definition of Heal. Also, your last arguement seems to be entirely motivated by balance and intent, which I would not accept to be an arguement about how the rules work (rather, how they should work).

This leaves you with one reason, not three.

I am still contemplating how an instantaneous spell truly functions. One of the major issues I am currently wrestling with is whether an instantaneous enchantment (like feeblemind) works the same as other instantaneous spells (such as Animate Dead, an abjuration).

There can be no doubt whatsosever that Mass Heal is not on the list, can there?

The list is not Heal "and spells that act like Heal"... It is Heal, ...

In fact one could even argue that Mass Heal does NOT work because it was left off the list (I woudn't, as it would be a ludicrously weak argument).

You have to do SOMETHING to the list to have Mass Heal work. Mass Heal is unquestionably NOT the same spell as Heal.

Sure it "functions like heal," but it is clearly it's own spell with it's own entry in the PHB spell list.

Again, I do not argue that Mass Heal does not work - I think it does, of course, But, one must expand the list to allow it if one is to call the list truly exclusionary.

That, of course, is the problem with attempting to have a 100% exclusionary list. It's too easy to have an oversight.

That's why BE needs to be excluded by name for the exclusion to be valid.

 

[Artoomis]

...Either way, only the original author of the spell could actually say how it is. ...Bye
Thanee

Actually, no... Once it is published the orginal author no longer has any say, except to possibly explain that person's intent.

It needs to be fixed in errata or explained in the FAQ for there to be any real weight in the orginal author's remarks.

 

[Thanee]

That's what I meant... what the intent actually is (or was).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Again, I do not argue that Mass Heal does not work - I think it does, of course, But, one must expand the list to allow it if one is to call the list truly exclusionary.

That, of course, is the problem with attempting to have a 100% exclusionary list. It's too easy to have an oversight.

That's why BE needs to be excluded by name for the exclusion to be valid.

You surely do not want to argue, that the inclusion of Mass Heal and the inclusion of Break Enchantment are somewhere even nearly on the same level, or do you?

The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.

Is Mass Heal (or more correctly: Heal, Mass) a heal spell?

Quite certainly it is. It's not the Heal spell, though.

For comparison...

(a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name)

Bye
Thanee