Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[glass]

I guess Heal Mount in included, too. Missed that earlier

If you go with the somewhat vague notion of "heal" spells in general, potentially the whole list of "Cure" spells will work as they are Conjuration (Healing).

Does heal mount say that it 'works likle heal'? If so then it would certainly remove feeblemind from your mount.

The various cure X wounds spells most certainly do not say that they workl like heal, regardless of which subschool they happen to be in.


glass.

 

[glass]

I'm not saying it should not be.

I am saying that if one considers the list to be a truly 100% exclusive, no exceptions, list than Mass Heal is not included.

I agree Mass Heal works. Therefore the list is not truly 100% exclusive.

The language of the list is truly 100% exclusive.

Therefore the list is 100% exclusive unless specific language elsewhere decrees otherwise. Mass heal has specific language otherwise, panacea has specific language otherwise, break enchantment does not.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

The language of the list is truly 100% exclusive.

Therefore the list is 100% exclusive unless specific language elsewhere decrees otherwise. Mass heal has specific language otherwise, panacea has specific language otherwise, break enchantment does not.


glass.

Yes and no....

If the list is as specific as it seems (and is claimed) to be, inlcuding listing redundant spells, then it does not, strictly speaking, include Mass Heal.

Mass Heal is NOT Heal. It works LIKE Heal, true, but it is clearly NOT Heal.

Now I do agree that the list should be expanded to include those spells that work like those on the list, but, not matter how trivial and obviously implied, that's still an expansion of the list.

Because of that, the list cannot said to betruly 100% exclusive.

At a minimum, to be 100% exclusive requires adding the (reasonably) implied language of "and those spells like these" or "and those spells that duplicate the effects of these," or something like that.

Of course, it does not matter anyway, as Break Enchantment shoudl have been excluded by name if that was the intent.

 

[glass]

Yes and no....

If the list is as specific as it seems (and is claimed) to be, inlcuding listing redundant spells, then it does not, strictly speaking, include Mass Heal.

Mass Heal is NOT Heal. It works LIKE Heal, true, but it is clearly NOT Heal.

It 'works like heal except...'. Unless you fall within the boundaries of the 'except', as far as the rest of the game is concerned, mass heal is heal.

[SBLOCK=Heal, Mass]Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 9, Healing 9 Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Targets: One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart

This spell functions like heal, except as noted above. The maximum number of hit points restored to each creature is 250.[/SBLOCK]The level, the range, the number of targets, and the cap; those are the differences. No mention of feeblemind, so that is not one of the differences. Therefore, for the purposes of feeblemind, mass heal is heal.


glass.

 

[Neverwill]

In either case BE does not apply by virtue of the effect being a fifth level or lower instantaneous effect.

There is no such thing as a "fifth level instantaneous effect." This limitation is only if the effect is derived from a spell. Below are the relevant snippets.

...Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect...If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Artoomis]

It 'works like heal except...'. Unless you fall within the boundaries of the 'except', as far as the rest of the game is concerned, mass heal is heal.

[SBLOCK=Heal, Mass]Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 9, Healing 9 Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Targets: One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart

This spell functions like heal, except as noted above. The maximum number of hit points restored to each creature is 250.[/SBLOCK]The level, the range, the number of targets, and the cap; those are the differences. No mention of feeblemind, so that is not one of the differences. Therefore, for the purposes of feeblemind, mass heal is heal.


glass.

While I pretty much agree, it is still true that they are different spells and Mass Heal works LIKE Heal. IT is NOT Heal, it works LIKE Heal.

In most instances if you say Heal you really mean to include spells that act like Heal, such as Mass Heal and Heal Mount.

However, that's only in most instances, not all. For example, a PC is not a legal target for Heal Mount.

Thus, to be 100% complete, the list should have included Mass Heal. After all, it included Wish when that was 100% redundant.

Mind you, I may be splitting hairs, but that makes it no less true.

 

[glass]

Of course, it does not matter anyway, as Break Enchantment shoudl have been excluded by name if that was the intent.

No it shouldn't. The list of things that do remove feeblemind is shorter than the list of things that don't, so that is what they should have printed (and what they did print).

Under no circumstances should the print a list of things that do remove it and a list of things that don't. That is about as confusing as you can get. Which takes priority?


glass.

 

[glass]

While I pretty much agree, it is still true that they are different spells and Mass Heal works LIKE Heal. IT is NOT Heal, it works LIKE Heal.

In the abstract sense, it is like heal but not heal. But we are not talking about the abstract general case, we are talking about the specific case of how it affects feeblemind.

Feeblemind cannot tell the difference. In fact, for the purposes of of feeblemind, there is no difference to tell: it is heal.

And even if it wasn't, mass heal (by reference to heal) specifically says it removes feeblemind. As I have said all along, the list is exclusive unless specifically overruled.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

No it shouldn't. The list of things that do remove feeblemind is shorter than the list of things that don't, so that is what they should have printed (and what they did print).

Under no circumstances should the print a list of things that do remove it and a list of things that don't. That is about as confusing as you can get. Which takes priority?

glass.

Both. Why do you think Dispel Magic is listed every time it does not apply to a non-instantaneous spell? Because it is universal, and thus ALWAYS applies unless prohibited by name.

In the same way, every time Break Enchantment should work but does not it should be listed.

In the PHB that comes down to one spell: Feeblemind.

Of course, keep in mond that for BE to apply to an instantaneous spell, the spell must:

1. Be fifth level or lower.
2. Be an Enchantment, Transmutation and/or a Curse.
3. Have a "victim" of its effects (be harmful in some way).

In the entire Core Rules, only one effect fits all those criteria clearly: Feeblemind.

Given that, do you not think it was required to eliminate Beak Enchantment by name if it were to not reverse the effect of the spell?

Of course, in this case there was no reason to list anything in the first place. All it has done is create confusion.

If you disallow BE to work, there there is NO fifth level or lower instantanous effect left for it to reverse. The only possibility is Unholy Blight, and only if you consider it a "curse" based solely on the fact that Remove Curse can "cure" it - a reasonable ruling, if not totally clear-cut.

By the way, it terms of listing spells that should work but don't work to reverse Feeblemind how many are there? Hardly an infinite list. If you do not allow BE to work, the list comes down to one: Break Enchantment.

If BE was truly meant to NOT work, it would have been far easier to simply state that "not even Break Enchantment can reverse the effects of Feeblemind, though Heal and the like will do so."

That's the sort of language that ALL the other spells use when trying to eliminate a normally universal solution like Dispel Magic, for example. Based upon that example, I submit that precedent has been set that unversally applicable solutions will work to counter spells unless specifically, by name, eliminated form working.

"Universally Applicable" solutions are very limited. Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, Remove Curse and Break Enchantment come to mind. That's about it.

In ALL the rest of the core rules:

If an effect (non-instantaneous) cannot be affacted by Dispel Magic, it says so specifcally.
If a curse cannot be removed by "Remove Curse" it says so specifically.
If a spell's non-instantaneous effects remain in a Antimagic Field, it says so specifically (generally, a instantaneous spell leaves behind a non-magical effect).

By precendent, if a spell meets all the criteria for Break Enchantment (that is, Feeblemind), thatn it must exclude Break Enchantment by name if the exclusion is truly valid.

Now this last bit is not a true rule, but if Feeblemind is the ONLY example where, arguably, this was not done.

 

[Artoomis]

...Under no circumstances should the print a list of things that do remove it and a list of things that don't. That is about as confusing as you can get. Which takes priority?


glass.

On the contrary:

Many spells already do this, and do so with little or no confusion.