Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cedric" data-source="post: 3157295" data-attributes="member: 2044">This is a case of specificity vs. generality. Anytime you have two texts (technical manuals, operating instructions, rule books...) that contradict one another, you have to consider specificity vs. generality. Someone tried to point this out above, but referred to it as can vs. can't...they were right, but it just opened the door to semantics arguments. You have a rulebook that states, with specificity, a limited set of actions that will function to produce a desired reaction. No other action that states a general effect may function to produce the same reaction as required in our specific list. Now, just to make this confusing, there is one possible exception, but it doesn't apply to Break Enchantment. If there were a spell that specifically stated that it provided all of the functionality of one of our required spells, (heal, wish, limited wish or miracle) in so far as repairing damage, removing effects or the like is concerned, then that spell would function. Why? Because it would have it's own limited specificity that allows it to apply in the same instances where our existing list of spells apply. Example, Mass Heal. It's not the same as a Heal spell...however it specifically states that it provides the same functionality. So it works. Sorry if this came off as too convoluted. Sometimes you have to think of rule books as technical manuals, operating instructions or the like. And there are very clear precedents of hierarchy for those. Considering what Break Enchantment is intended to do, it makes sense that it would work, however, there is a specific list of available solutions and break enchantment is not on that list. If Break Enchantment was released in a subsequent rulebook and were not available in the core rulebook, then you could make a plausible argument that it is an addition to the rules and is specific enough in its capabilities that it should also function. However, break enchantment is from the core rulebook, along with the other spells in question. Were it to be intended to function to remove feeblemind, the specific list of remedies would have to be updated to include break enchantment. Cedric</blockquote>

Verification