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="mirivor" data-source="post: 3157434" data-attributes="member: 7478">Cheiromancer: My posts are more addressed to those saying that are saying that the list in Feeblemind is not descripted as a complete list, therefore they are assuming that there are other things allowed. This does not make sense. If that were the case, the why bother with the list to begin with? By that logic, I don't need a rule or mechanic to let me use my jump check to attack, nor anything to let my first level character roll the 5 dice for a 1st level CLW. I can do it because the spells and mechanics in question do not specify that is all that they are used for. Example: There is no line in the Climb skill that allows that. However, there is no line that forbids it. That is the logic that is being used by some of the posters here to support use of Break Enchantment. They are declaring that because the "list" is not specified as complete then other effects are possible. Faulty logic. My point is that the text of Feeblemind DOES rule it out.I am not against Break Enchantment working, although as written it would not. Its description is more general than Feeblemind's. When determining effects, it is always the most general first. Saying "This spell gets rid of enchantments" is by no stretch as specific as saying "This spell is removed by spells x, y, or z".Here is the reasoning that some are using, which I will parallel with another example that is ridiculous:1)Feeblemind's text does not specifically eliminate the use of Break Enchantment.1) The climb skill does not specifically eliminate the use of itself to make attack rolls with.2) Break Enchantment will remove Feeblemind.2) The Climb skill can be used to make attack rolls.Surely that is an easy logical process to follow and, by the rules of logic, that makes sense. Problem is, I daresay that everyone on the boards would agree that the second notion is nuts. Therefore, by logic, the first is as well.</blockquote>

Verification