|
Speaking of which, has anyone checked to official errata to see if this has been clarified? It might render the entire arguement moot if it has been. Just curious.
Does the feeblemind spell affect only a character’s base Intelligence score, or does the spell make the subject’s Intelligence score 1 regardless of magical bonuses? If the spell affects only base Intelligence, will any magic that boosts Intelligence (such as a potion of fox’s cunning) break the spell? Do you have to get your Intelligence to 3 or higher to break the spell?
A feeblemind spells reduces the subject’s Intelligence and Charisma scores to 1 (not just Intelligence). Of course, if the subject already has a score of 0, feeblemind doesn’t increase the score. The subject’s Intelligence and Charisma become 1 (or stay at 0) regardless of any enhancements or other increases to those scores.
A feeblemind effect remains until the subject receives a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell. The subject cannot benefit
from any effect that increases Intelligence or Charisma until the feeblemind effect is removed.
This is the closest thing that I could find. While the question is not really the subject at hand, the answer is related.
I agree with Sebastian, Saern and Jeremy here. If the description of the spell lists out specifically what spells affect it, then leave it at that. There are a lot of enchantment spells that don't list out spells that affect it. Why would feeblemind, geas, lesser geas, etc. list out the spells that would affect it if it wasn't a more limited list?
On a side note -- Why is feeblemind a "compulsion" spell? -- "I suddenly feel the need to have no intelligence and charisma."
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Your position boils down to saying that the list under feeblemind is meant to be exhaustive. Mine boils down to saying it is not, and that in fact there are other methods that can remove feeblemind already present in the rules. It's a judgement call which position you take, but neither one is inserting - or deleting - rules. Throwing out the "inserting rules" card amounts to attempting to force your position after your refutation has been rejected.
Nope. My interpretation is consistent with lesser geas. Yours is not. Therefore my interpretation is more correct. Simple as that. Your points have been refuted, you cannot resolve the discrepancy between lesser geas and feeblemind (and haven't even bothered to try). The best you've offered is that the text in lesser geas is unnecessary (which begs the question as to why it is htere) or that some magical new invisible text exists in Feeblemind that allows for consistency.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
This is the closest thing that I could find. While the question is not really the subject at hand, the answer is related.
A feeblemind effect remains until the subject receives a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell.
I think this is pretty much the nail in the coffin on this arguement. The rules presented in the book and the reiteration presented in the FAQ both indicate precisely which spells are capable of ending the effect and break enchantment is not featured in this list in either location. Spells presented in later supplements which include a specific mention of the feeblemind condition would similarly remove the effect but I believe there is now a sufficient body of evidence to support the idea that feeblemind is not cured by break enchantment.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'd suggest people research the 3.0 versions of discern location and mind blank for a great precendent here. You would also need to look at the 3.0 FAQ. The upshot is, the 3.0 PH said that only direct intervention from a deity could prevent discern location from working. Mind blank said it protected you against divinations. This led to arguments over which one trumped, the official ruling was that mind blank trumped, even though it was not listed under discern location as an effective counter-measure.
This is the core of why I don't trust spells to properly cross-reference all spell that can affect them. Instead, in the absence of specific naming of the spell in question, I fully read the text of the other spell, and make an informed decision based on that. The fact that there are spells that DO say break enchantment to me just strengthens the idea that failing to mention it one way or the other was an oversight, like mind blank and discern location in 3.0.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'd suggest people research the 3.0 versions of discern location and mind blank for a great precendence here. You would also need to look at the 3.0 FAQ.
A major reason why 3.5 even exists was to clarify situations like this. 3.0 is not a 'precedence' for such interpretations here. 3.5 cleaned up the rules set so that they were much more internally consistent, especially the core rulebooks (which both spells are present in). Using 3.0 as a basis for your arguement is a poor choice in this situation.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I think this is pretty much the nail in the coffin on this arguement.
How is an near-quote of the text in the PH any kind of nail? It is the same sentence with the words slightly rearranged. It still leaves the break enchantment spell unaddressed. This is really nothing new. The rules are filled with examples where two "absolutes" collide. Bit by bit, they get ruled on so you have consistency on which absolute wins.
Let's talk about more interesting matters, like whether or not negative levels affect grapple checks :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
A major reason why 3.5 even exists was to clarify situations like this. 3.0 is not a 'precedence' for such interpretations here. 3.5 cleaned up the rules set so that they were much more internally consistent, especially the core rulebooks (which both spells are present in). Using 3.0 as a basis for your arguement is a poor choice in this situation.
I'm using it as an example of conflicting specific rules entries, where there was eventually a ruling to clarify which won. That sort of situation still comes up in 3.5 - I pointed out the beguiler/golem example a few times already. Heck, this is actually at the core of some other rules arguments from 3.5, like whether or not a pearl 1st can restore an empowered magic missile (it can't), or whether or not multiple beads of karma stack (they don't). Cases of phrasing that seems absolute, but actually didn't consider enough special cases to be complete. Even apparently simple things like "unnamed bonuses always stack" aren't actually that simple in practice, because you'll have people argue that the "same source" rule only applies to spells, because it comes from the Magic Overview chapter.
So yes, a clear-cut case of spell conflict is relevant as an example of how such things happen. At that point, the person who hews blindly to the letter of the rules is going to get the wrong call quite often, which is in fact the core of why I reject pedantic rules arguments, and focus on a full reading of all rules.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So yes, a clear-cut case of spell conflict is relevant as an example of how such things happen. At that point, the person who hews blindly to the letter of the rules is going to get the wrong call quite often, which is in fact the core of why I reject pedantic rules arguments, and focus on a full reading of all rules.
What, you mean like reading two spells with similar exclusion clauses consistently? I guess I just focus on reading the full rules as they are actually written in addition to reading them in context. There's nothing pedantic about my argument, it is the way legal documents are interpreted generally.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
What, you mean like reading two spells with similar exclusion clauses consistently? I guess I just focus on reading the full rules as they are actually written in addition to reading them in context. There's nothing pedantic about my argument, it is the way legal documents are interpreted generally.
And using your logic in this thread, you would have been wrong on the mind blank ruling. Which is kind of my point in bringing it up. D&D rules are not a legal document, are not written like a legal document, and treating them like a legal document will lead you to incorrect rulings. In fact, treating them like a legal document would lead you right to that pearl of power problem I mentioned in that post, that is to say thinking a pearl of power restores spells based on the unadjusted level of the spell - because that is in fact the result of a literal reading of the rules, it is just the wrong answer.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And using your logic in this thread, you would have been wrong on the mind blank ruling. Which is kind of my point in bringing it up. D&D rules are not a legal document, are not written like a legal document, and treating them like a legal document will lead you to incorrect rulings. In fact, treating them like a legal document would lead you right to that pearl of power problem I mentioned in that post, that is to say thinking a pearl of power restores spells based on the unadjusted level of the spell - because that is in fact the result of a literal reading of the rules, it is just the wrong answer.
What, you mean like reading two spells with similar exclusion clauses consistently? I guess I just focus on reading the full rules as they are actually written in addition to reading them in context. There's nothing pedantic about my argument, it is the way legal documents are interpreted generally.
No. I wouldn't have been wrong. There was errata adopted to change the actual text, in the form of the FAQ. The rule was changed, not the interpretation.
The logic I've displayed in the thread will get you consistent results. The logic you've displayed is called house rules. If the text has a meaning other than what it says on its face, its either errata or a house rule. Truth is not determined through democracy, and the fact that other official interpretations exist that are inconsistent with the text, whether in 3.0 or 3.5, does not somehow imbue this manufactured inconsistency with legitimacy.
Or, if you prefer, a lot of newbies argue that sneak attack does not apply to all attacks. I'm afraid that your interpretation, which also reads extra text into omissions, like theirs, will lead to the wrong answer. Using your logic in this thread would (and does) lead to a lot of interpretations like not allowing sneak attack on iterative attacks.
I agree with Russ on this one. When you read the Break Enchantment description is meets the criteria to dispel a spell such as Feeblemind perfectly. That's enough for me since I, like Russ, also don't trust the developers to correctly cross reference every situation that could possibly come up. In this case I consider the list of effects which can get rid of Feeblemind under it's spell description to be the 'general' rule, while the description of the Break Enchantment spell is the specific rule which trumps the general rule.
Could you read it the other way? Sure. But my opinion is that this interpretation is more likely to be the correct one considering game balance and my opinion on developer intent.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
No. I wouldn't have been wrong. There was errata adopted to change the actual text, in the form of the FAQ. The rule was changed, not the interpretation.
The logic I've displayed in the thread will get you consistent results. The logic you've displayed is called house rules. If the text has a meaning other than what it says on its face, its either errata or a house rule. The fact that there are other interpretative issues is irrelevant to the correct interpretation in this scenario just as the number of perons who believe a falsehood is irrelevant to the truth of a verifiable statement. Truth is not determined through democracy, and the fact that other official interpretations exist that are inconsistent with the text does not somehow imbue this inconsistency with legitimacy.
And there we see the final defense of the pedantic rules argument: I wasn't wrong, because they changed it. As often as not, the purpose of errata is to make it clear how to read a rule, not to make a change to it. In the case of pearls, the sensible reader new the difference between the slot used to prepare a spell, and the spell's original level, and the spell's effective level, and knew that pearls of power worked on the minimum level to prepare, not the original level or the effective level. A small but vocal contigent argued this wasn't explicitly said, so it couldn't be right.
Sorry, but if you are one of the camp who can't believe in the possibility of vague text, there's really no more point in arguing with you. You'll never accept the possibility of any reading but you own, and in fact would still claim you were right even if the official rulings come down against you. That sort of thinking makes rational discourse impossible. (edit: slight change in tensing to make it clear I wasn't saying which way a ruling would go)
"You can't argue too long with a pedantic person" has only one possible reading, right? :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sorry, but if you are one of the camp who can't believe in the possibility of vague text, there's really no more point in arguing with you. You'll never accept the possibility of any reading but you own, and in fact will still claim you were right even when the official rulings come down against you. That sort of thinking makes rational discourse impossible.
Except it's not vague. And it's not obvious that the intent is to allow BE to work on Feeblemind.
The logical underpinnings of my argument are correct. You're argument is based on the assumption that the text is incorrect. As a question of textual interpretation, that requires more than just "I think it's incorrect," such as pointing to other portions of the text that support/refute your argument. You have failed to bring any level of logic to the table, instead providing anecdotal evidence ("other rulings exist") or subjective preferences.
At the end of the day, rationale discourse pays my mortgage, and my abilities in that regard speak for themselves.
It is pissing contests like this that will keep new editions rolling out every few years.
Give it a rest people.
What we have are two different view points on how to interpret a given set of rules.
Any reasonable person can read those rules and admit that either interpretation is possible. Note: Admitting the possibility does not include agreeing with the interpretation.
As far as which one is right? We will not know until 4th edition.
One side is assuming that there is consistency.
And the other is assuming that flexibility is allowed within the rules.
Both sides are distinctly correct, and incorrect in their assumptions.
Now, why don't you all make yourselves useful, and argue of the correctness of passages out of the Bible too.
And it's not obvious that the intent is to allow BE to work on Feeblemind.
Hey look, something you said I finally agree with. The problem for you is that it's also not obvious that Break Enchant should not work on Feeblemind.
At the end of the day, rationale discourse pays my mortgage, and my abilities in that regard speak for themselves.
There's a good way to win an argument. Nevermind my previous comments, you obviously are right!
In defense of Sebastian, though, if I understand him correctly he isn't saying that having Break Enchantment work against Feeblemind is absolutely wrong, just that you can't infer with certainty that the designers intended this to work when they wrote the spell descriptions. He has said that errata can come along and change things, or the like, but its not a given that if you read both spell descriptions that you know what the designers intended.
I tend to agree that if one description is broad in its description of what it can do, and the other is very specific, and the spell not listed as a remedy is included as a remedy in the more specific entry, then that spell doesn't get reversed without using a spell from the list given in the afflicting spell's description.
Hey look, something you said I finally agree with. The problem for you is that it's also not obvious that Break Enchant should not work on Feeblemind.
I hate to interpose myself here, but from reading what you have said and what Russ has said, you seem to be saying that you could interpret the spells to work that way, but Russ seems to be saying that you can logically deduce that the designers absolutely intended the spell to work this way in this instance.
I agree that someone could reasonably interpret it the way you see it, but I disagree that its obvious that the designers intended it to work this way, as Russ seems to be saying.
I hate to interpose myself here, but from reading what you have said and what Russ has said, you seem to be saying that you could interpret the spells to work that way, but Russ seems to be saying that you can logically deduce that the designers absolutely intended the spell to work this way in this instance.I agree that someone could reasonably interpret it the way you see it, but I disagree that its obvious that the designers intended it to work this way, as Russ seems to be saying.
Here is an excerpt from a Sebastian post on page 2:
Waitaminute. Break Enchantment is even a core spell. Okay, that settles it. Break Enchantment does not touch Feeblemind. If it did, Feeblemind would provide for it in its exceptions clause. Feeblemind provides a short list of high level spells that can bust it. I can't see how Break Enchantment is on par with Wish et al.
I could entertain the argument if Break Enchantment were in a non-core rules supplement (though even then, I would require that it say it can bust Feeblemind in the description). But as it stands, Feeblemind tells you how you can get rid of it, and Break Enchantment is not on that list.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I hate to interpose myself here, but from reading what you have said and what Russ has said, you seem to be saying that you could interpret the spells to work that way, but Russ seems to be saying that you can logically deduce that the designers absolutely intended the spell to work this way in this instance.I agree that someone could reasonably interpret it the way you see it, but I disagree that its obvious that the designers intended it to work this way, as Russ seems to be saying.
Thanks for the shout-out KEJr. Going strictly by the RAW (which was the basis for the discussion), the interpretation that BE effects Feeblemind is incorrect. I don't have any qualifiers for that. If someone wants to house rule it, that's their business, and I have no beef whatsoever with that given the marginal impact on game balance, but according to the RAW, BE does not effect Feeblemind.
Hey look, something you said I finally agree with. The problem for you is that it's also not obvious that Break Enchant should not work on Feeblemind.
I hate to interpose myself here, but from reading what you have said and what Russ has said, you seem to be saying that you could interpret the spells to work that way, but Russ seems to be saying that you can logically deduce that the designers absolutely intended the spell to work this way in this instance.
I agree that someone could reasonably interpret it the way you see it, but I disagree that its obvious that the designers intended it to work this way, as Russ seems to be saying.
I, too, have some reluctance to step into this thing (again; though I had no clue I was setting off such a storm with my first post regarding the matter).
But this gets at the heart of the matter. Sebastian's stance requires less inferal, although I submit that Russ's view could be RAW if the text of feeblemind was in error.
We cannot know for certain that it is in error (unless a statement to this effect was specifically made, which it has not been). Assuming that it is in error can then cast into doubt a large number of other issues; if the text here is incorrect, then how can we know for certain that any other rule in the PHB is actually written correctly and not just a typo?
Failure to adequately address all possible contingencies will result as a matter of due course in the growth of a complex system. However, if one assumes fallacy in the fundamental bedrock of the system, then one casts everything into doubt. I'm not saying it's impossible for that to happen; I'm simply stating the ramifications when it does.
If the game designers missed this possible subsystem, the interaction between break enchantment and feeblemind, an interaction that was bound to happen and painfully obvious, not only in 3.0 but also in 3.5 (and perhaps earlier editions, but I can't comment there since I have no experience with them), then the whole rest of the PHB is suspect.
That's all I've got to say, and I'm already regretting it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I hate to interpose myself here, but from reading what you have said and what Russ has said, you seem to be saying that you could interpret the spells to work that way, but Russ seems to be saying that you can logically deduce that the designers absolutely intended the spell to work this way in this instance.I agree that someone could reasonably interpret it the way you see it, but I disagree that its obvious that the designers intended it to work this way, as Russ seems to be saying.
Actually, what I'm saying is that based on my understanding of the rules, I feel it is the more reasonable resolution of what I perceive to be a conflict, since feeblemind doesn't mention break enchantment either way. I have no idea what the intent was, so I read both spells, and came up with what I believe to be the more reasonable ruling. Others may view it differently. This comes up much more often than you would think in the rules of the game.
Sebastion chooses to take that list as being more iron-clad than I feel it is was meant to be. It's a question of which set of conditions you view as having precedence. Personally, I think his ruling is pedantic, and pedantic readings have resulted in many people blowing other rules calls in the past, not just this one. I've listed several in this thread :)
It does boil down to opinion, not fact, no matter how many posts are made to try to bully people into submission on the altar of "Rules As Written" and "No Other Way to Read It".
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I, too, have some reluctance to step into this thing (again; though I had no clue I was setting off such a storm with my first post regarding the matter).
The irony is that I was going to give you a hard time about posting so boldly about the how your interpretation was RAW and other interpretations were house rules, but then as I looked into the matter, I realized you were correct.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It does boil down to opinion, not fact, no matter how many posts are made to try to bully people into submission on the altar of "Rules As Written" and "No Other Way to Read It".
Insofar as it is an opinion unfounded in logic and proper interprative technique, you are correct. You've still failed to explain the inconsistency between lesser geas and feeblemind except by asserting your conclusion (feeblemind is different because it is wrong).
You can be wrong until your blue in the face, but it's not going to change what the text says.
Let me ask you something Sebastian:
Aside from public display of personal ego stroking, to what end do you continue to post on the subject?
Is your personal life so unsatisfying that you have to be correct on a forum to give your life any meaning?
Or are you such an ass that you must have the last word, even on a subject that you admit has no real purpose since game balance isn't even at stake?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Let me ask you something Sebastian:
Aside from public display of personal ego stroking, to what end do you continue to post on the subject?
Is your personal life so unsatisfying that you have to be correct on a forum to give your life any meaning?
Or are you such an ass that you must have the last word, even on a subject that you admit has no real purpose since game balance isn't even at stake?
Dear Pot,
Best regards,
The Kettle
|
|
Let me ask you something Sebastian:
Aside from public display of personal ego stroking, to what end do you continue to post on the subject?
Is your personal life so unsatisfying that you have to be correct on a forum to give your life any meaning?
Or are you such an ass that you must have the last word, even on a subject that you admit has no real purpose since game balance isn't even at stake?
Dear Pot,
Best regards,
The Kettle
There will be a P&KA (Pots and Kettles Anonymous) meeting at 8:00 on Wednesday to help work out some of your (plural "your") issues...
"Hello -- My name is Moff and I am a Kettle"
"Hello Moff"
For a so called lawyer, you failed to answer the question.
But I'll let that slide.
Since you brought up the Escalating Armour Classes thread, maybe you would actually care to read it.
If you do, you will notice that after I stated that my interpretation was not over ruled by the RAW, I tried desperately to get every one to stop the discussion, even going so far as to insult people to try and break through their egos enough to get them to realize I wasn't arguing their interpretations.
And I'll be willing to do it again, if it will work on you too.
Besides, at least game balance was an issue in that thread...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For a so called lawyer, you failed to answer the question.
But I'll let that slide.
Since you brought up the Escalating Armour Classes thread, maybe you would actually care to read it.
If you do, you will notice that after I stated that my interpretation was not over ruled by the RAW, I tried desperately to get every one to stop the discussion, even going so far as to insult people to try and break through their egos enough to get them to realize I wasn't arguing their interpretations.
And I'll be willing to do it again, if it will work on you too.
Besides, at least game balance was an issue in that thread...
Thank you oh white knight! Please do! Dispense your justice, bring love and peace and, dare I say it, smurfiness to the land!
Did you ever know that you're my hero,
and everything I would like to be?
I can fly higher than an eagle,
for you are the wind beneath my wings.
Hmm, it looks like I'm late to the party here. I used to spend hours arguing the finer points of rules interpretation with my gaming buddies (in fact, I actually quite enjoyed it at one point), but after awhile it got old.
Anyway, I eventually reached a point where I don't care any more. I know from personal experience that 2 people can go back and forth on issues like these without ever convincing the other what the "official" rule actually is. In the end, I decided it didn't matter. Every time such a debate has a significant impact on the way the game is played, WotC eventually releases errata to clarify their intent. As for the other stuff, in the end it doesn't really matter what the "official" rule is, the only thing that matters is "what works better for you?"
On this particular issue, I would probably allow break enchantment to end feeblemind, and it wouldn't make that much of a difference to me whether or not my ruling was "correct" according to other rules lawyers or not. That's how it's played in my games, so that's the way it is. If other DMs do it differently, that's fine with me, and I'm perfectly willing to adapt my expectations to play in their games.
I've stated this before, and I'll say it again, the longer I play D&D, less I believe in any one "official" version of the rules.
True. I kind of have the mentality that if I'm not willing to use it on the players, I don't feel that they should have access to it to use against me (the DM).
Now here I pretty much agree with you. This particular spell does not really bother me but I really dislike any aspect of the game where you have players doing X and, as a DM, you can't play the same trick back on them because its too powerful. That sort of thing always sticks in my craw.
True. I kind of have the mentality that if I'm not willing to use it on the players, I don't feel that they should have access to it to use against me (the DM).Now here I pretty much agree with you. This particular spell does not really bother me but I really dislike any aspect of the game where you have players doing X and, as a DM, you can't play the same trick back on them because its too powerful. That sort of thing always sticks in my craw.
I agree. To me, that's a qualifier for the name "unbalanced."
To try (most likely in vain) to get this thread back on a semblance of topic, here's something that bugs me about Summoning vs. Calling.
I have trouble getting my mind around summoning. Is the creature there, or not? It's only sustained by the ongoing spell effect, right (and is thus affected by dispel magic)? And if it dies, it goes home unharmed? So, have you actually just conjured a spirit in the form of the creature? Or a real creature with an awesome insurance policy? Or did you, with perhaps as little as a 1st level spell, reach out to a creature on another plane, grant it the astral projection ability, and then force it to serve you? What gives?
It's made even more complicated when one considers Outsiders, who are a physical manifestation of a spirit, emotion, thought, or alignment. They have no separation between soul and body, so what are you calling and why does it go back safe and sound when slain?
All this is opposed to calling, where you get the real(?) thing. Calling I get and understand completely. That's like the traditional summoning that most people are familiar with. Unlike actual Summoning (the subschool) spells, which are just bizarre.
The last thing that I don't like about any form of summoning or calling is when it brings forth a being from the same plane (summon nature's ally, summon undead). Shouldn't that be a teleportation effect? And something just rubs me the wrong way about the thought that somewhere, on the same plane, a wolf just blinked out of existance and is now by your side (for a few seconds, and then it goes back). For some reason I don't have that problem with Outsiders (and/or fiendish/celestial creatures, though technically those aren't outsiders). Perhaps it's just because they're from another plane. Perhaps it's the traditional nature of the thing. Perhaps it's because strange things are expected where the Outsiders dwell; perhaps I assume they "know the drill" in regards to summoning. But, when other creatures are summoned, it just rubs me the wrong way.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Oh darn. That makes me a kettle too :)Dear Pot,
Best regards,
The Kettle
Not by the RAW! ;-)
And thanks for the debate. It kept me entertained today (probably too entertained given that I really shouldn't be posting this much right now). No hard feelings on my end and apologies for any offense caused.
And when they update the FAQ to say that BE dispels Feeblemind six ways to Thursday, feel free to print this thread, write HA! HA! I TOLD YOU SO on ever page and mail it to me with a big picture of you triumphantly grinning.
As for the others:
Feeblemind isn't way over the line. Clerics kill people with spells of similar levels. Etc.
Well, to be fair, I'm not extrordinarily fond of insta-dead spells in general, but that's a personal thing... which is more or less what this thread was for... >.> <.< >.>
I don't like "Make this one save... with no build up or wear down... or you get to play gameboy or roll up a new character the rest of the night" situations.
Anyway, I eventually reached a point where I don't care any more. I know from personal experience that 2 people can go back and forth on issues like these without ever convincing the other what the "official" rule actually is. In the end, I decided it didn't matter. Every time such a debate has a significant impact on the way the game is played, WotC eventually releases errata to clarify their intent. As for the other stuff, in the end it doesn't really matter what the "official" rule is, the only thing that matters is "what works better for you?"
I couldn't agree more.
In fact, outside of never DMing for "The World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game" again, I've decided that if I ever get behind the screen of another system (such as Star Wars Saga), I won't be afraid to exclude optional content and house-rule anything I think might be imbalanced, vague, or outside of the spirit of the game.
Wait a minute; I'm confused. If break enchantment must be specifically listed to affect a given spell, then WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DOES IT HAVE A LIST OF CONDITIONS? Purely to mislead us into thinking it will affect things that meet all of those conditions? Sebastian seemed to imply that any spell that can be affected must say so in its description, if any other spell is mentioned in that description. Yes?
If this interpretation were the "only" "legally" correct one, then the entire list of conditions given for break enchantment would be superfluous text: why not just list the ones affected, in that case? The addition of clear-cut, specific conditions to the spell description implies that those conditions are intended as the Lemon Test for the spell. And I shall so apply them henceforth. I'll admit that in my campaign I had up until now ruled as Sebastian does, but was willing to give the other view the benefit of the doubt on theoretical grounds when I saw it here. This ongoing argument has now changed my mind completely. Players: break enchantment now works on feeblemind, because feeblemind fulfills ALL the conditions of the newly-named Sebastian Test.
I, too, have some reluctance to step into this thing (again; though I had no clue I was setting off such a storm with my first post regarding the matter).
You think /you/ had no idea. I'm almost regretting I didn't just cut to the chase and say 'I don't like insta-dead' spells and be done with it...
...Except that Russ and Sebastian seem to be having so much fun!
My least favorite spell has to be Puppeteer, a spell that makes a target mimic your moves (the version I am familiar with is from Spell Compendium).
From the start I would have to describe the third level spell as stronger than Hold Monster. After that I would say that the spell is very vague if and how well a target can mimic your actions (if you have fast movement can you make they target move faster? Can you make attacks with the targets weapon? Do you even have to know how to use that weapon? etc... ).
Finally, the thing that first drew my fury toward it is that if the target is forced to perform a suicidal action the target gets a second save to not perform the action.
And then become helpless for a short period.
To reiterate: if the target makes the secondary save they become helpless.
So in combat the target can either take a suicidal action or become helpless and get a quick coup de grace.
Why does this third level spell seem like a save or die spell! RAGE!
Wait a minute; I'm confused. If break enchantment must be specifically listed to affect a given spell, then WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DOES IT HAVE A LIST OF CONDITIONS? Purely to mislead us into thinking it will affect things that meet all of those conditions? Sebastian seemed to imply that any spell that can be affected must say so in its description, if any other spell is mentioned in that description. Yes?
If this interpretation were the "only" "legally" correct one, then the entire list of conditions given for break enchantment would be superfluous text: why not just list the ones affected, in that case? The addition of clear-cut, specific conditions to the spell description implies that those conditions are intended as the Lemon Test for the spell. And I shall so apply them henceforth. I'll admit that in my campaign I had up until now ruled as Sebastian does, but was willing to give the other view the benefit of the doubt on theoretical grounds when I saw it here. This ongoing argument has now changed my mind completely. Players: break enchantment now works on feeblemind, because feeblemind fulfills ALL the conditions of the newly-named Sebastian Test.
So then does dispel magic work on spells that meet its conditions if the spell itself just says something like 'This spell can be broken by miracle or wish'? Presuming of course that the spell otherwise meets the conditions for dispel magic?
Take a look at Geas because this is the same sort of situation.
"A remove curse spell ends a geas/quest spell only if its caster level is at least two higher than your caster level. Break enchantment does not end a geas/quest, but limited wish, miracle, and wish do."
So presumably your position is the correct ruling is that dispel magic gets rid of geas right? I mean the spell does not address dispel magic one way or the other but the description under dispel magic indicates that it would seem to be able to git rid of this annoying condition.
My position is that in fact dispel magic is useless here simply by virtue of not being on the list. In this specific case I'm pretty sure its intentional that its not on the list, geas being a pretty powerful spell not normally cracked by having a mage take nothing but dispel magic for all his 3rd level slots until he breaks this thing.
This goes to the root of my position on break enchantment. Essentially spells with text saying how they are broken must meet the criteria in that text. Spells that don't address the issue are can be dispelled by any spell that otherwise meets the criteria on how to break them. Hence here I am sure that the correct reading of the RAW are that dispel magic will break a lot of spells - but it won't break this.
Hence I think that Break Enchantment would work on spells that don't have specific lists of spells that eliminate them included in their text. So break enchantment works fine on, say the 5th level spell planar binding, lesser. That spell does not list any exclusions whatsoever and therefore is open to being broken by any spell that otherwise meets the criteria to dispel it.
Damn you people for making me look it up.
Geas/Quest: States it functions similarly to Lesser Geas.
Lesser Geas cannot be affected by Dispel Magic, therefor that limitation is passed on to Geas.
Since Lesser Geas can be affected by Break Enchantment, and Geas is too high of a level, Geas needs to specify that that portion of Lesser Geas is not passed on to Geas. And it goes further to repeat that Limited Wish, Miracle, and Wish do just to prevent discussions like this. You know, "It says that Break Enchantment doesn't work... So does that mean the rest of that statement is false?"
And since I have been forced to think about it... The fact is that Lesser Geas can emulate the effects of Feeblemind. The Geas would be something like "Lose all mental faculties." (Assuming the target understood that.) The biggest difference is the duration, which would explain why Feeblemind is a higher level.
I'll let y'all follow that line of thought to it's conclusion, since how everyone thinks about it is already clear - there really isn't any reason to continue.
And since I have been forced to think about it... The fact is that Lesser Geas can emulate the effects of Feeblemind. The Geas would be something like "Lose all mental faculties." (Assuming the target understood that.) The biggest difference is the duration, which would explain why Feeblemind is a higher level.
How does someone lose all mental faculties other than taking a suicidal action?
So then does dispel magic work on spells that meet its conditions if the spell itself just says something like 'This spell can be broken by miracle or wish'? Presuming of course that the spell otherwise meets the conditions for dispel magic?
No; dispel magic provides no "Lemon test" of conditions. Break enchantment does. By your logic, there is no reason at all for that except sheer whimsy.
Wait a minute; I'm confused. If break enchantment must be specifically listed to affect a given spell, then WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DOES IT HAVE A LIST OF CONDITIONS? Purely to mislead us into thinking it will affect things that meet all of those conditions? Sebastian seemed to imply that any spell that can be affected must say so in its description, if any other spell is mentioned in that description. Yes?
If this interpretation were the "only" "legally" correct one, then the entire list of conditions given for break enchantment would be superfluous text: why not just list the ones affected, in that case? The addition of clear-cut, specific conditions to the spell description implies that those conditions are intended as the Lemon Test for the spell. And I shall so apply them henceforth. I'll admit that in my campaign I had up until now ruled as Sebastian does, but was willing to give the other view the benefit of the doubt on theoretical grounds when I saw it here. This ongoing argument has now changed my mind completely. Players: break enchantment now works on feeblemind, because feeblemind fulfills ALL the conditions of the newly-named Sebastian Test.
Break enchantment provides a general list of conditions under which it works. That is the "general" rule, since this spell is capable of affecting many, many cases.
Feeblemind has an exclusion clause. It provides a(n extremely clear) list of spells that get around it; break enchantment isn't one of them. It is also the specific case, since it is just one out of many possible instances where break enchantment might be considered for employment. The specific case trumps the general.
The geas spells have been brought into this as well, with the statement that they have an exclusion clause as well, only this one allows for break enchantment.
The fallacy of reasoning comes in here. The exclusion clause of the geas spells is being allowed to take precedence (and rightfully so), but the exclusion clause of feeblemind is being interpreted as incorrect simply because it differs and doesn't list break enchantment. So, in one case, the exclusion clause is supported, in another, it is not. There's the inconsistency. The justification has been the assumption that the rules are written incorrectly on feeblemind, despite a lack of evidence to support this.
Evidence for this position might come in the form of blatant typos in the text, casting the whole entry into doubt, or (more likely and conclusively) an official statement (errata) correcting the text; neither of which exist. Considering how prominent and likely a case this is, the fact that an errata or FAQ or statement of some form addressing it hasn't been released yet, after all this time, makes it very likely that the wording is correct.
If it's that big of a deal (or if anyone is simply confused), write the Sage. Then, whatever his answer is, it will be official.
|
|
I suspect the typo is probably in the Break Enchantment spell rather than Feeblemind, where it should probably say something like it is effective in the general circumstances outlined, unless otherwise specified in the description of the spell it is being used to neutralise.
Now, Feeblemind doesn't state specifically that break Enchantment doesn't work, and a lot is being read into that omission. But very few description state what does not effect a spell effect, given that there could be a very long list of spells. By stating what does effect, they are setting it out in the most efficient fashion.
I think it is foolhardy to read significance into the omissions, which are simply an absence of proof rather than evidence of it. Logically, both positions are probably reasonable, as the wording is not so precise as to avoid ambiguity. But what is written is highly suggestive that Break Enchantment doesn't work, simply because it isn't included in the list in Feeblemind. We are given the example of Mindblank, which is then expanded upon to suggest that all similar instances are due to errors. But given that Mindblank was clarified, and Feeblemind wasn't, likewise suggests that the spell may be as the designers intended after all.
My gut feel - actually, it seems reasonably maybe that Break Enchantment should work on Feeblmind. But it's a house rule, not a clear result from a supposedly forensic reading of the spell descriptions.
I emailed CustServ, but they'd apparently cast feeblemind on themselves already. Sadly, my casting ability isn't sufficient to get a break enchantment through the email server, so I couldn't give you a field-test. Sorry. :(
