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="Thanee" data-source="post: 3158913" data-attributes="member: 478">As for the instantaneous effect (not just enchantment, even though both words start with an 'e'), there is an example in the PHB, actually.The full sentence is: "Break Enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as Flesh to Stone." So much for that part.And this part therefore cannot refer to instantaneous effects, BTW, which also becomes clear when reading the full description in the PHB, because it lists an example for what is meant there (a spell, that could normally be dispelled (i.e. has a duration other than instanteneous), but actually states, that it cannot be dispelled, like Bestow Curse).Otherwise it would be kinda funny, that they use an example spell (Flesh to Stone), which doesn't even work, since it is 6th level. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Not sure what you think you have shown, but nothing falls apart there...It doesn't state whether it is modified Int or base Int. Either it is modified Int, then those modifiers won't raise it, or it's base Int, then you can raise it, but only from 1 onwards. Either way, the state remains.As already said, that doesn't remove the state, it might lessen its effect (if it works, and one could easily make an argument, that regardless of any modifiers, Int is always set to 1, because the modified Int is affected), but the state is still there.The state is what turned the Int value at the moment the spell was cast to 1.The Int value doesn't have to remain at 1 in order for the state to remain.As long as the Int is still lowered by the margin it has been lowered when the spell was cast, the state is still in effect.Of course, if you are adamant about that the state is and can only be that Int is exactly 1, then everything you name to change the Int will fail, since only four spells (as listed in the description) can remove the state. So if that is the state, then that's exactly what happens.As I said, it doesn't really matter what way you define the state, there is always a fitting and consistent answer to it, so there is really no way to make an argument, that the state cannot only be removed by the four listed spells, since whatever method can alter the state. It cannot. The spell description clearly says so.Your logic is highly flawed here. You basically use two different definitions for the state, one to make your other methods (i.e. Fox's Cunning) work (because there is no other rule to say, that they do; it's just an unproven assumption your whole argument is based upon), and the other definition to say, that if anything else works, then it's not only those four spells that work (obviously, since something else works, too). It doesn't work that way. You have to use the same definition throughout (as mentioned a few times above in this post, as long as you are consistent with the state definition, everything falls into place). If it is possible to raise the Int via those methods, then that is part of the state definition, because that is the state then, and by virtue of that definition, the state is not removed then either. If not, then those methods fail. Choose one, no switching allowed.Since the initial assumption is false, the rest is also false. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Yeah, all the ones that don't agree with you only did a quick surface reading... that must be it! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I even looked up the 3.0 version to see, if something got edited in or out.How about... a quick surface reading for Break Enchantment would lead one to a conclusion that ALL those spells that fall under the listed categories will be canceled, regardless of what the specific spell descriptions have to say about that matter.See? Works that way, too.And of course, it must be Feeblemind, which is wrong. It absolutely cannot be, that the description of Break Enchantment is written too loosely by not figuring in spells, which are even in the same book (and have been in the previous version as well and all corrected printings of that one), which fit the pattern but still do not get countered. No way! That's totally not possible.Sorry, Artoomis, but your thoughts are so much fixed on how Break Enchantment totally has to work by now, that you cannot see the simple truth anymore, I think. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />There's a list of exactly four PHB spells, which work to counteract Feeblemind. The spell description makes clear, that there is no other way to remove the feeblemind effect (remains... until...). That's it. That's all there needs to be.And how is that obviously unworkable in play, anyways, Pielorinho?Someone casts Feeblemind. Someone else casts Break Enchantment. Nothing happens.Quite workable, if you ask me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />ByeThanee</blockquote>

Verification