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="Artoomis" data-source="post: 3161792" data-attributes="member: 111">I had a feeling this concept was not being clearly understood.  I've said it many time in this thread, so it is not a brand new argument.Here's the way it goes. A spell that is not instantaneous can list any restriction it chooses on remedies because that spell still has magic energy in place to enforce this restriction.A spell that is instantaneous has no magic still in place to enforce any restriction.  There is no enforcement mechanism.  If some solution exists (defined elsewhere, most likley), than the solution will indeed work because there is no mechanism (magic energy) to prevent it from working.In this particuler case, Feeblemind reduces INT and CHA to 1.  It's not damage, so no normal ability damage cures will work.  It's not a curse, so Remove Curse won't work.  It appears to be something new - a state of Feeblemindeness.So what will work - wihout regard to the spell list in Feeblemind for the moment?  Well, Heal we know will work because the spell says so.  Break Enchantment works because the spell says so (Feebleming is an instantaneous enchantment).  Limited Wish, Wish and Miracle work, of course, because they can each be used in place of Break Enchantment.  Plus Panacea seems to work because the spell says so (so I've heard).Now we look at the list of cures in Feeblmeind.  Break Enchament is not included, and the list appears to be an exclusive list of possible redemedies...  But wait!  If Break Enchantment should work, and Feeblemind is instantaneous, is it even possible for the Feeblemind spell description to exclude Break Enchantment?  What enforces the restriction of Break Enchantment not working?Answer:  Nothing.  The spell is instantaneous, so there is nothing left to enforce the exclusion of Break Enchantment (there is no magic energy left - it's all "gone").It is not logical ("legal" within D&D rules) possible to exclude an otherwise-valid remedy in an instantaneous spell.  For example, a Cause Light Wounds variant spell cannot restrict Cure Light Wounds from working to eliminate the damage unless it actually changes the damage to be something other than regular damage - because the spell is instantaneous and any spell energy that might restrict a remedy from working is not present.Feeblemind cannot restrict Break Enchantment from working unless it somehow changes Feeblemind to be something other than what Break Enchantment can reverse.  For example, if Feeblemind was Permament instead of Instantaneous then it could prevent all other remedies other than those listed - it would then still have magic energy available to enforce those restrictions, so one could declare in the spell description that Dispel Magic AND Break Enchantment (or anything other than the listed spells) would not work.The whole argument in this post rests on the very nature of an "instantaneous" spell duration.  "The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting." Does this now make sense?</blockquote>

Verification