|
| 34 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is equal to the DC of the curse.
If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic or stone to flesh, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.
Target creature's Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1. The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently. Still, it knows who its friends are and can follow them and even protect them. The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind. A creature that can cast arcane spells, such as a sorcerer or a wizard, takes a –4 penalty on its saving throw.
So Break Enchantment says it will remove any enchantment of 5th level or lower, which Feeblemind is. However, Feeblemind states it can only be removed by a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish.
Specific trumps General, so this seems to state that Break Enchantment will not remove Feeblemind. Is this correct?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your interpretation appears to be correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, break enchantment will not remove the effects of a feeblemind spell.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, specific probably trumps general here.
On the other hand, I'm inclined to rule it the other way, myself. Break Enchantment is unique in that it actually says "Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect."
That's an amazing thing. It's (almost) like casting this can heal your burns after someone casts a Fireball on you (except Fireball is not an eligible enchantment, transmutation, or curse). Spells that are "Instantaneous" have no duration - the spell is cast, the effect is applied instantly, the effect is permanent (or more accurately, it is not limited by any expiration or duration), and then the magic is gone leaving nothing to be dispelled (like the damage from an Instantaneous Fireball). And then someone comes along with Break Enchantment and reverses that permanent effect even when there is no magic and no enchantment to be broken.
That's pretty cool. And powerful.
As I interpret it, the author of Feeblemind accidentally omitted Break Enchantment from his short list of spells that can overcome Feeblemind. It should be on the list. Otherwise, why should Feeblemind be so special that it gets unique exemption from Break Enchantment (which seems specifically well-designed to handle spells like Feeblemind)? Nothing about Feeblemind suggests that it deserves a special exemption. In fact, it's a ridiculously powerful spell and those are the spells that deserve, perhaps require, MORE options for dealing with them, not fewer.
So I assume that RAI applies here and I include it on the list at my table.
But that is not RAW.
I agree with DM_Blake, although I'm not so sure that it isn't actually RAW.
Feeblemind creates an instantaneous effect that puts a creature into a state of idiocy. The only things that can repair this state (i.e. make it so it doesn't matter anymore) are heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell.
Break enchantment on the other hand goes completely around that. It doesn't deal with the 'state' of feeblemind at all, rather it reverses the effect itself, making it as though feeblemind had never been cast. While this has the side effect of repairing the 'state' in truth it isn't really doing that, rather it is reversing the original magic.
The specific rules of both spells apply, but the interaction is such that break enchantment trumps feeblemind.
Your original interpretation is correct. Feeblemind very specifically calls out what spells can break it. It would seem very pernicious of the writers to make it so that break enchantment is supposed to actually fix feeblemind but is not explicitly listed where other abilities are, even if it is redundant (what 5th level spell can wish/miracle NOT trump?).
For what it's worth, I'm in agreement with DM_Blake.
RAW = it doesn't work. But I think it should, so house rule time.
Break Enchantment was written many years after Feeblemind, so I'm not surprised that Feeblemind doesn't list it. I call that an oversight by the writer(s) of Break Enchantment, and the subsequent copy-and-paste jobs for 3.5 and PF, who should have added it to Feeblemind's description.
I don't think the "specific vs general" rule really applies here. It is more like two specifics.
I agree that a spell description is just as specific as a spell description. A spell description is more specific than a general spell casting rule, but acts not what we have here. Which was published later?
Though to be more literal, Feeblemind goes all the way to 1st Edition (if not earlier), and Break Enchantment is new to Pathfinder, IIRC. Miracle's the only new fix that had been added since 1st Edition.
I agree with DM_Blake's take - by RAW break enchantment doesn't work, but by RAI it damn well should.
Feeblemind is a more specific subset than "spells that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic or stone to flesh" so the more specific rules apply, namely "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect".
Is it an overlook by the devs? Can't say, but honestly double guessing anything even when clearly stated sounds like stuffing your head down the rabbit hole.
Though to be more literal, Feeblemind goes all the way to 1st Edition (if not earlier), and Break Enchantment is new to Pathfinder, IIRC. Miracle's the only new fix that had been added since 1st Edition.
I agree with DM_Blake's take - by RAW break enchantment doesn't work, but by RAI it damn well should.
Break Enchantment is new in 3.0 as far as I know.
The reason I'd call feeblemind more specific is because it calls out a list of spells that affect it. Break enchantment calls out a class of spells it affects. List is more specific than class, so my read of RAW agrees with DM_Blake. I also agree with him that it's likely omission, not intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feeblemind is a more specific subset than "spells that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic or stone to flesh" so the more specific rules apply, namely "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect".
This.
The "Specific trumps General" rule is not binary. There are many levels of specificity.
Even though we're talking about two spells, mechanically the same thing (each is a spell), saying "Here are 4 specifically-named spells that can end this effect" is extremely specific, while saying "This spell ends every enchantment" is far less specific, much more general in nature.
Therefore, by reason of "The thing that is the MOST specific trumps the thing that is less specific", it seems that Feeblemind cannot be reversed by Break Enchantment.
Where do you see 'only' in Feeblemind's block? It doesn't say "The subject remains in this state until only a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind."
That's an interesting point. The authors might have wanted to say "The subject remains in this state until any normal means of reversing the effect are use or a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind."
I could argue that it should be read that way, for the same reason you did: the lack of the word "only".
But I can also use the old Latin legal principle that I believe is still used in legal courtrooms today: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. "the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted". Or the related principle: inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. "Inclusion of one is to exclude the others".
In short, if you make a rule that says "No swimming after 10pm", you are directly implying that the opposite is true, it is perfectly OK to swim before 10pm.
In the case of the Feeblemind spell, they made a rule "These four spells can be used to reverse the effect", directly implying that the opposite is true, other spells cannot.
It's hard to say what the developers really intended. But I think a judge would rule with the Latin and have the exception (heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spells work) prove the rule (nothing else works). But I certainly wouldn't fault any GM who reads it otherwise.
I agree DM Blake, for right now I would not rule that break enchantment works, but I would have no problem with a DM who ruled it otherwise.
Where do you see 'only' in Feeblemind's block? It doesn't say "The subject remains in this state until only a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind."
The language about "until" actually covers the only-ness. It doesn't say "This effect can be removed by...". It says you remain that way until you get hit by heal, etc.
I cast break enchantment. Is the feeblemind still active? Well, was heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish used to cancel the effect? No. So I'm still in that state.
I was thinking about that toward the end of writing my post, Kazaan. Basically, here are some ways to remove this spell outside of the normal methodology. It doesn't need to preclude the normal methods of removal...
That's not my natural reading of it. It gets me closer to where I think it should be, though, so I'll have to think about whether I can accept that as the "right" reading. That's certainly the way I can see it being concluded to be RAW.
Personally I would let Break Enchantment work on Feeblemind, since it fulfils all the criteria specified.
The call for Heal and such to cure Feeblemind I feel is merely to provide more options to fix it, since the Heal spell itself does not mention that it can cure Feeblemind.
Similar to how Slow says it can be countered/dispelled by Haste.
The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.Where do you see 'only' in Feeblemind's block?
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
To illustrate my point, which Kazaan seems to agree with imagine two spells:
'Turn Back Time': This spell makes it as though a spell cast on the target creature had never been cast, removing any damage and/or effects of that spell. Secondary effects (such as a dominated creature attacking a friend) remain.
'Stone Ray': This spell does 4d6 damage. This damage cannot be healed until wish, limited wish, miracle or stone to flesh is cast on the target creature.
I would argue that 'Turn Back Time' gets around the healing limitation of Stone Ray even though it isn't on the list, because it doesn't really matter. It isn't trying to heal the damage, it is undoing the base spell itself. This has the net effect of healing the damage, but that isn't really what the turn back time spell is doing.
I believe that Break Enchantment and Feeblemind work exactly like this, although I'll admit it is less clear.
The spell Feeblemind says you are in a state until X happens.
The spell Break Enchantment says the spell Feeblemind and it's effects are reversed and the creature is 'free'.
The 'can only be fixed by X' is a part of Feeblemind, which is now irrelevant since Break Enchantment removes Feeblemind.
Similarly
Spells like remove disease and heal are more definitive and safer ways to break the curse, as long as they are cast by a holy person of sufficient skill (typically a cleric of 12th level or higher). However, the window of time in which such mystical treatments function is short— healers have but 3 days after a victim's exposure to the curse to use their restorative magic before it is no longer sufficient. Since many lycanthropes make their homes far from civilization, those who are infected by such reclusive monsters usually have no hope of reaching such a cure in time. After the 3-day window has passed, a victim's only chance of a cure through magic is a remove curse spell, cast by a cleric of 12th level or higher, during the time of the victim's transformation. To make matters more troublesome, spellcasters of sufficient power are rare in the Inner Sea region, and even if such a prodigious cleric is found, the price of his services can be cripplingly expensive.
Notice how it can "only" be cured by Remove Disease, Heal and Remove Curse. By the logic applied earlier this would mean that Break Enchantment wouldn't work since it is not on the list.
Even though Break Enchantment specifically says it reverses all curses. And that, in my opinion, seems silly.
Summary of my thoughts:
1) If A says B will be true until C happens
2) D says ignore and undo any statement made by a vowel
Then D is more specific and has precedence.
To illustrate my point, which Kazaan seems to agree with imagine two spells:
'Turn Back Time': This spell makes it as though a spell cast on the target creature had never been cast, removing any damage and/or effects of that spell. Secondary effects (such as a dominated creature attacking a friend) remain.
'Stone Ray': This spell does 4d6 damage. This damage cannot be healed until wish, limited wish, miracle or stone to flesh is cast on the target creature.
I would argue that 'Turn Back Time' gets around the healing limitation of Stone Ray even though it isn't on the list, because it doesn't really matter. It isn't trying to heal the damage, it is undoing the base spell itself. This has the net effect of healing the damage, but that isn't really what the turn back time spell is doing.
I believe that Break Enchantment and Feeblemind work exactly like this, although I'll admit it is less clear.
This is exactly how I should have phrased my post. Good job : )
My version of RAI:
Feeblemind is not an enchantment at all, at least, not in the sense that the spell remains on the subject after it is cast. It's actually damage to the victim's ability scores. The exact amount varies from target to target but it actually damages them exactly to 1 in the affected scores.
Normally, enchantment spells can be removed with any kind of Dispel Magic, but not Feeblemind because it doesn't leave a dispellable enchantment effect on the victim. Just damage.
Normally, ability damage heals over time. At least 1 point of damage per day, more with lots of rest and care. Normally, ability damage can be magically repaired with the Restoration line of spells.
Those normal methods don't apply to Feeblemind because the spell specifically says so. The only methods available to "heal" the damage are the 4 spells listed. This means that bed rest, heal checks, and Restoration spells are fully ineffective. If you want to "heal" the damage, get one of the four listed spells.
However, Break Enchantment specifically says it can break Instantaneous enchantments. Feeblemind is an Instantaneous enchantment, so it is an eligible target. It is not on the list of "healing" spells because it's not actually healing the damage, it's removing the enchantment. It doesn't even care that there IS no enchantment effect on the subject because that's a feature of this spell that is not available on lesser spells like Dispel Magic.
As such, I would say that RAI suggests that Break Enchantment should be able to break Feeblemind, just like it says it can, and that's how I would rule it. However, as I said above, I don't think the RAW agrees.
This spell shows you why Break Enchantment does not work on Feeblemind.
Nature's exile can be removed with break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish.
|
|
This spell shows you why Break Enchantment does not work on Feeblemind.
Nature's exile can be removed with break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish.
Nature's Exile is not a cut and paste from the 3.5 OGL. Feeblemind is. It's likely an oversight. If it's not, having a definitive answer would put this to bed. Hit the FAQ.
@RAW - Ah, but the point is, Break Enchantment specifically says remove/reverse instantaneous enchantments.
So why are we even reading Feebleminds description? The act of using Break Enchantment removes all effects of Feeblemind including the pesky 'can only be fixed by' clause.
So why are we even reading Feebleminds description? The act of using Break Enchantment removes all effects of Feeblemind including the pesky 'can only be fixed by' clause.
Because we have a rules conflict. You cannot resolve a rules conflict by reading one rule and ignoring the other.
Ever hear the question "Can an omnipotent god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" Your suggestion is that we stop at "omnipotent god create" and just answer "yes" while ignoring the rest of the question.
Would you say that your reasoning were still valid if Feeblemind explicitly stated that Break Enchantment did NOT remove Feeblemind? Would it still be OK, if that were the case, to say the act of using Break Enchantment removes all effects of Feeblemind including the pesky 'cannot be fixed by Break Enchantment' clause? Of course not. You'd be bound by that pesky clause to rule that Break Enchantment couldn't remove Feeblemind.
Likewise, you cannot simply ignore the pesky clause that actually is written; you must attempt to reach a solution and/or devise a house rule while considering that entirely applicable and not-at-all-ignorable pesky clause. You can, of course, rule that you don't care about the pesky clause and choose to ignore it, but that's personal ruling, not a logically prescribed presupposition.
Let's break it into parts. What does Break Enchantment do by the rules?
This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is equal to the DC of the curse.
Ok. Is Feeblemind an Enchantment? Yes, it is.
If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic or stone to flesh, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.
Can Feeblemind be dispelled by dispel magic or stone to flesh? No.
Is it 5th level or lower? Yes.Everything in the description of Feeblemind says Break Enchantment will work, even the bit about the subject remainin in that state "until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind". That bit still means Feeblemind can't be dispelled by dispel magic or stone to flesh, hence Break Enchantment works.
|
|
Let's break it into parts. What does Break Enchantment do by the rules?
This spell frees victims from enchantments, transmutations, and curses. Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect. For each such effect, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + caster level of the effect. Success means that the creature is free of the spell, curse, or effect. For a cursed magic item, the DC is equal to the DC of the curse.Ok. Is Feeblemind an Enchantment? Yes, it is.
If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic or stone to flesh, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.Can Feeblemind be dispelled by dispel magic or stone to flesh? No.
Is it 5th level or lower? Yes.Everything in the description of Feeblemind says Break Enchantment will work, even the bit about the subject remainin in that state "until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind". That bit still means Feeblemind can't be dispelled by dispel magic or stone to flesh, hence Break Enchantment works.
Yes. But is Break Enchantment a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell? No.
So again, both arguments have merit. It's not clear via RAW.
So why are we even reading Feebleminds description? The act of using Break Enchantment removes all effects of Feeblemind including the pesky 'can only be fixed by' clause.Because we have a rules conflict. You cannot resolve a rules conflict by reading one rule and ignoring the other.
Would you say that your reasoning were still valid if Feeblemind explicitly stated that Break Enchantment did NOT remove Feeblemind? Would it still be OK, if that were the case, to say the act of using Break Enchantment removes all effects of Feeblemind including the pesky 'cannot be fixed by Break Enchantment' clause? Of course not. You'd be bound by that pesky clause to rule that Break Enchantment couldn't remove Feeblemind.
Likewise, you cannot simply ignore the pesky clause that actually is written; you must attempt to reach a solution and/or devise a house rule while considering that entirely applicable and not-at-all-ignorable pesky clause. You can, of course, rule that you don't care about the pesky clause and choose to ignore it, but that's personal ruling, not a logically prescribed presupposition.
Indeed. If we have an absolute approach and X says disregard Y, then it does not matter what Y was as long as we can get X.
Now, if Feeblemind actually said 'cannot be fixed by Break Enchantment' we would have a (clear) RAI (the text says Break Enchantment should not work) vs RAW (Break Enchantment still ignores all the pesky effects of Feeblemind) conflict.
Ever hear the question "Can an omnipotent god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" Your suggestion is that we stop at "omnipotent god create" and just answer "yes" while ignoring the rest of the question.
Of course he can! He is omnipotent; it is simply a matter of making a rock and then stripping himself of omnipotence and strength. It does not matter which conditions we attach, the god is omnipotent and therefore able to fulfil them by definition. (If he couldn't he would not actually be omnipotent!)
Basically, my reasoning is along the lines of these. As long as the Feeblemind text does not contain any 'Break Enchantment fails to activate if targeted onto Feebleminded subjects' anything it says on the topic is irrelevant since Break Enchantment removes it all once it activates.
YMMV obviously : )
I would say no
Feeblemind is a 5th level spell as is Break Enchantment
Notice that the only ways to remove the condition require a 6th or higher spell level?
Socrates says Athenians are liars.
Socrates is an Athenian.
So? Do we have a neverending, paradox circle?
Well, Socrates never said ALL Athenians were liars ALL the time.
It's the same here. Feeblemind states conditions that will remove its effect. It never states those conditions are the ONLY EVER that may remove it. While, Break Enchantment states in can cancel Feeblemind (given the conditions it's an 5th lv Enchantment which can't be negated by Dispel Magic); the only condition that could keep BE from cancelling FM is that it's not among the spells that FM states can remove it.
So we can either have a paradox of circular "special rule trumps special rule trump special rule trump...", OR we can step out of it noting that FM isn't completely armored (as it should: anybody should be able to create another spell, some day, that negates or suppresses FM, at a high enough level and with the right reasons, without needing the original spell to change its description), and by any other characteristic of it Break Enchantment should work
I would say no
Feeblemind is a 5th level spell as is Break Enchantment
Notice that the only ways to remove the condition require a 6th or higher spell level?
Not really a strong argument, given Break Enchantment specifically states it CAN cancel 5th level spells. It's into his power's reach, in that sense.
Nature's Exile is not a cut and paste from the 3.5 OGL. Feeblemind is. It's likely an oversight. If it's not, having a definitive answer would put this to bed. Hit the FAQ.This spell shows you why Break Enchantment does not work on Feeblemind.
Nature's exile can be removed with break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish.
If it is an oversight, it was overlooked for a long time. The D&D 3.5 PHB has the Feeblemind and Break Enchantment spells with no relevant differences from their Pathfinder versions.