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: 3171403" data-attributes="member: 111">Both.  Why do you think Dispel Magic is listed every time it does not apply to a non-instantaneous spell?  Because it is universal, and thus ALWAYS applies unless prohibited by name.In the same way, every time Break Enchantment should work but does not it should be listed. In the PHB that comes down to one spell:  Feeblemind.Of course, keep in mond that for BE to apply to an instantaneous spell, the spell must:1.  Be fifth level or lower.2.  Be an Enchantment, Transmutation and/or a Curse.3.  Have a "victim" of its effects (be harmful in some way).In the entire Core Rules, only one effect fits all those criteria clearly:  Feeblemind.Given that, do you not think it was required to eliminate Beak Enchantment by name if it were to not reverse the effect of the spell?Of course, in this case there was no reason to list anything in the first place.  All it has done is create confusion.If you disallow BE to work, there there is NO fifth level or lower instantanous effect left for it to reverse.   The only possibility is Unholy Blight, and only if you consider it a "curse" based solely on the fact that Remove Curse can "cure" it - a reasonable ruling, if not totally clear-cut.By the way, it terms of listing spells that should work but don't work to reverse Feeblemind how many are there?  Hardly an infinite list.  If you do not allow BE to work, the list comes down to one:  Break Enchantment.If BE was truly meant to NOT work, it would have been far easier to simply state that "not even Break Enchantment can reverse the effects of Feeblemind, though Heal and the like will do so."That's the sort of language that ALL the other spells use when trying to eliminate a normally universal solution like Dispel Magic, for example.  Based upon that example, I submit that precedent has been set that unversally applicable solutions will work to counter spells unless specifically, by name, eliminated form working."Universally Applicable" solutions are very limited.  Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, Remove Curse and Break Enchantment come to mind.  That's about it.In ALL the rest of the core rules:If an effect (non-instantaneous) cannot be affacted by Dispel Magic, it says so specifcally.If a curse cannot be removed by "Remove Curse" it says so specifically.If a spell's non-instantaneous effects remain in a Antimagic Field, it says so specifically (generally, a instantaneous spell leaves behind a non-magical effect).By precendent, if a spell meets all the criteria for Break Enchantment (that is, Feeblemind), thatn it must exclude Break Enchantment by name if the exclusion is truly valid.Now this last bit is not a true rule, but if Feeblemind is the ONLY example where, arguably, this was not done.</blockquote>

Verification