Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3165361" data-attributes="member: 141">Many wizards enjoy hefty bonuses to their intelligence.  If feeblemind only affected the base score but not inherent or enhancement bonuses it wouldn't have anywhere near as dramatic effect.  So I'm agreeable to the notion that the feebleminded state can't be mitigated by bonuses to intelligence or charisma.  I'm inclined to say that the new stats count for the purpose of ability damage or drain; a single point of damage will reduce them to 0, and thus incapacitate them.  My general heuristic is that one spell trumps a lower level one in the absence of specific wording.  And that defensive spells trump offensive spells.  If a 5th level irresistible force meets a 5th level immovable object then the immovable object wins.  If an 8th level divination spell is written so that it "ignores magical protections" I wouldn't allow it to trump a mind blank unless it said "ignores magical protections such as mind blank".  If it were 9th level that said it "ignores magical protections" I would allow it to do so, even in the absence of a specific mention of mind blank.I consider healing/curing/removing to be defensive, and so should trump offensive spells of the same level, unless mentioned by name or description.  A spell that afflicts or curses a subject is offensive, of course.  If break enchantment said it didn't cure feeblemind, that would be the end of the matter.  Similarly if break enchantment mentioned feeblemind by name (instead of by description) there would be no rules question to explore in this thread.  As it is, the literal meaning of "until" seems to conflict with the description of break enchantment.The question of designer intent was raised.  Did the same person who designed feeblemind also design break enchantment?  Were these spells revised or reviewed by someone with a different set of intentions?  I don't think this is a profitable line of inquiry.  You have to go down to the principle that the spell means what it says.  If I as a designer didn't want feeblemind to be broken by break enchantment I would either have to raise the level of feeblemind so that the description of break enchantment wouldn't apply, or change the description of break enchantment so that it didn't apply to fifth level instantaneous enchantments.  Or call out break enchantment either by name or description ("cannot be reversed by spells of fifth level or less," maybe with additional text like "such as remove curse or dispel magic." Actually, this wording would make the conflict more explicit; each would say that it trumps the other.  In the absence of this wording, I think the position of feeblemind is weaker.)  If I don't do this, then I am like someone who puts both an irresistible force and an immovable object in the same book; I create an interpretive puzzle for DMs.I accept that "feebleminded" is a state (like "slain by death magic") and that a creature "remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind".  However this language is trumped by the break enchantment spell description, which says it can reverse an instantaneous enchantment of 5th level or lower.  I take "reverse" to be equivalent to "cancel" - is there any dispute on this?  In the case of a conflict between two spells of equal level I would resolve the conflict in terms of the spell which is curative or restorative, in accordance with my general policy of how to break ties of this sort.The question, for me, boils down to how to resolve the question of what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object.  I don't think designer intent is the best approach.  I assign precedence to defensive/curative over offensive, but there may be a better way to approach such a question.Can we agree that this is the question?  Can we agree that feeblemind imposes a state that remains "until a heal, limited wish, miracle or wish spell is used"?  Can we agree that break enchantment can reverse a 5th level instantaneous enchantment?  Can we agree that feeblemind is a 5th level instantaneous enchantment?  Can we agree that these statements are inconsistent, and that a procedure needs to be developed that resolves these inconsistencies?If so, then I submit that the procedure of giving precedence to defensive/curative over offensive is worthy of consideration, and I invite people to suggest other ways in which conflicts between spells may be resolved.  I am sure there are lots of alternatives.</blockquote>

Verification