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="Felix" data-source="post: 3162237" data-attributes="member: 3929">Feeblemind's "until" clause, along with the "No cookie until clean room" example, outlines a necessary element. It is necessary to have a clean room in order to get a cookie; it is necessary to cast one of those spells before the Feeblemind condition is removed.Necessary conditions do not ensure the objective, they are merely prerequisites; if you clean your room, you still might not get a cookie, but you will not get a cookie if your room is not clean. In the "If X, then Y" example, Y is a necessary condition for X. You must have Y if you are going to have X. Necessity is easily shown in feat chains. Power Attack is a necessary condition for Cleave. You cannot have Cleave without having Power Attack. The syllogism would run: "If Cleave, then Power Attack". There is no way to have Cleave without having Power Attack, but there is a way to have Power Attack but not have Cleave.This syllogism is equal to "If not Power Attack, then not Cleave". "Combat Expertise" is equal to the term, "Not Power Attack", and so may be substituted: "If Combat Expertise, then not Cleave". Of course, you may have both Combat Expertise and Power Attack, but it is only ever the Power Attack that allows Cleave, and never Combat Expertise.This is both accurate and complete, and exclusivity has not been assumed: it has been shown as fundamentally part of the language.So then the question is if the language in Feeblemind may be translated into a similar syllogistic construct. Let us define our terms:X: [cure]Y: [spells]Z: Break EnchantmentNow, as Artoomis stated before, there is no argument that "Condition remains until [spells] are cast" may be translated into: "No [cure] until [spells]". Substitute our letters: No X until Y". This is equal to the statement: If X, then Y". This is then also equal to: If not Y, then not X. "Z" is equivalent to "Not Y", so substitute: If Z, then not X.[sblock]Substitute our letters: No [cure] until [spells]". This is equal to the statement: If [cure], then [spells]". This is then also equal to: If not [spells], then not [cure]. "Break Enchantment" is equivalent to "Not [spells]", so substitute: If Break Enchantment, then not [cure].[/sblock]Z is not a sufficient condition to produce X because Y is necessary and Z does not provide, nor is an element of Y.[sblock]Break Enchantment is not a sufficient condition to produce [cure] because [spells] is necessary and Break Enchantment does not provide, nor is an element of [spells].[/sblock]Y is a necessary condition for X. You must have Y if you want X. Yes, you can have both Y and Z, and that will result in X, but you will have X only because you first have Y.[sblock][spells] is a necessary condition for [cure]. You must have [spells] if you want [cure]. Yes, you can have both [spells] and Break Enchantment, and that will result in [cure], but you will have [cure] only because you first have [spells].[/sblock]Language can be both accurate and incomplete. Bestow Curse is an example of it. The language runs: "Bestow Curse cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed by <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">". This language results in: If <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">, then [removed]</li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">. That language is both accurate and incomplete. It is also not the language used in Feeblemind. IF the langugae in Feeblemind translated into: "If [spells], then [cure]", I would be the first to agree with you; that syllogism does not prevent other spells from producing a cure. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Feeblemind does not say "If [spells] then [cure]". It says: "If [cure] then [spells]", and that language is complete, it is accurate, it is exclusive, and no amount of dissembling about how imprecise a language can be will change it. This language happens to not be imprecise. Else I wouldn't be arguing with you.</li> </ul></li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification