Break Enchantment against Freeblemind

[shaka gl]

Question: does Break Enchantment dispel/cure Freeblemind?

[Jack_Simth]

Spell text is contradictory between the two. DM makes a call and runs with it.

Feeblemind specifies that the subject remains that way until a "heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish" is used, which pretty much precludes other solutions.

However, Feeblemind, the spell, fits all the requirements for a caster level check from Break Enchantment to fix it up.

DM picks one to "win" and moves on.

[daggaz]

I would rule that it doesn't.

1. Break enchantment isnt on the list.
2. That list includes the spells normally used for curing a permanent, major disability. Feeblemind doesnt have a limit in rounds... the magic effects you, your brain is feebled,.... and that is how you are from then on out. There is no lingering enchantment so to speak.. nothing to be dispelled... You have been permanently munged, much like a level drain. (Note the game mechanic "remembers your normal condition." Otherwise you could feasibly use spells to restore levels you never lost.)

[Jack_Simth]

I would rule that it doesn't.

1. Break enchantment isnt on the list.
2. That list includes the spells normally used for curing a permanent, major disability. Feeblemind doesnt have a limit in rounds... the magic effects you, your brain is feebled,.... and that is how you are from then on out. There is no lingering enchantment so to speak.. nothing to be dispelled... You have been permanently munged, much like a level drain. (Note the game mechanic "remembers your normal condition." Otherwise you could feasibly use spells to restore levels you never lost.)
Do note that, while Feeblemind is Instantaneous:

"Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect." and "If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower."
As Feeblemind is a 5th level Instantaneous Enchantment, it qualifies (as does Reincarnation; "Congratulations - you've just successfully undone the Instantaneous Transmutation effect of your friend being alive again").

[daggaz]

Yeah I know, but a)both spells are in the SRD, and the description of Feeblemind is specifically limited to wish, heal, limited wish, or miracle. Break Enchantment is simply just not on the list. It could be, but its not. This to me is the trump argument, and pretty hard to counter.

b)All of these spells are much higher CL than break enchantment.

c)The fluff just doesn't seem to fit for me... whether or not you can fix instantaneous effects aside... Feeblemind is a debilitating condition that must be cured, and the spells listed are the typical spells always listed for removing such conditions.

[shaka gl]

"Congratulations - you've just successfully undone the Instantaneous Transmutation effect of your friend being alive again"

LOL!

Thanks to all. Since they`re REALLY far away from the nearest cleric of +9lvl, i`ll rule it can dispel it. It would be too much to deviate from the whole campaign due to a kobold`s spell :smallbiggrin: And the Duskblade cannot afford to go walking with 1 INT for that long, neither.

[daggaz]

That seems like a pretty good DM call, man. Fun always trumps rules, in my book.

[Quietus]

As a DM, I'd say yes. Let it do so, because frankly, Feeblemind is just so over-the-top it's ridiculous. A fifth level spell, and you can't break it without a sixth level one? That means that SOMEHOW, you're expected to go through at least two full levels as a drooling, snivelling pseudo-animal... or get your friends to take you all the way back to civilization to pay to have you fixed.

[Tor the Fallen]

As a DM, I'd say yes. Let it do so, because frankly, Feeblemind is just so over-the-top it's ridiculous. A fifth level spell, and you can't break it without a sixth level one? That means that SOMEHOW, you're expected to go through at least two full levels as a drooling, snivelling pseudo-animal... or get your friends to take you all the way back to civilization to pay to have you fixed.

Well, in all fairness, at level 5, someone SHOULD have access to a teleport spell....

[Jack_Simth]

Well, in all fairness, at level 5, someone SHOULD have access to a teleport spell....
... like the Wizard who has to soak a -4 to his save?

Other than a travel-domain cleric (a domain which won't be in all parties, even with the classic four), who's going to do the Teleport once the Wizard forgets how to tie his shoes?

[Quietus]

Well, in all fairness, at level 5, someone SHOULD have access to a teleport spell....

If you're going for an optimized group, sure. Not everyone does. The same, however, could be said for everyone at level 5 having access to Break Enchantment.

[Tokiko Mima]

"Freeble (http://www.gruntledfunk.com/freeble.html)"-mind ?? :smalltongue:

A spell to make you more funkified, I guess! :smallwink:

[Khanderas]

Feeblemind. Does not go away/supressed in an antimagic field.
Means your brains are scrambled but the enchantment is gone.

The spell takes a metaphorical potatomusher and destroys the parts of the brain that has the smarts. Remove the potatomusher and the damage is still there.

DM is always boss though.

[Jack_Simth]

Feeblemind. Does not go away/supressed in an antimagic field.
Means your brains are scrambled but the enchantment is gone.

The spell takes a metaphorical potatomusher and destroys the parts of the brain that has the smarts. Remove the potatomusher and the damage is still there.

DM is always boss though.
Break Enchantment can specifically undo Instant Spells.

[Tokiko Mima]

Break Enchantment is a spell that is very targetted at curing *exactly* the type of condition Feeblemind causes.


Break Enchantment
Abjuration
Level: Brd 4, Clr 5, Luck 5, Pal 4, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: Up to one creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No

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 25.

If the spell is one that cannot be dispelled by dispel magic, break enchantment works only if that spell is 5th level or lower.

If the effect comes from some permanent magic item break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does frees the victim from the item’s effects.

Link: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/breakEnchantment.htm

I realize that Feeblemind specifies that certain spells cure it, but it doesn't say that ONLY these spells cure it. It is merely providing a list of spells which will fix the situation 100% of the time. Break Enchantment still needs a caster level check, unlike higher level spells which reverse the condition automatically.

[Aquillion]

I would say that Break Enchantment works. The thing is, Break Enchantment specifically says it can dispel any instant-duration spell of fifth-level or lower that Dispel Magic can't. My take on this is that they added Break Enchantment late in the development cycle, and were worried they might forget to add it to every single spell it could effect, so they just described a "trigger condition" under which it can break your spell. If a spell meets that condition, it's as good as having break enchantment on the list of things that can break it... and, sure enough, they forgot to list it on Feeblemind.

On top of that, note the bizarre wording on Feeblemind itself. Most spells say something like, specifically "X, Y, and Z cannot break this spell. Only a Wish, Limited Wish, or similar magic can yadda yadda." The omission of that text from Feeblemind strongly suggests that Break Enchantment works.

(Yes, it says that they 'remain in this state until...' But that clause is part of the Feeblemind, which is broken by Break Enchantment. Permanency says that it makes a spell 'permanent', but that doesn't stop you from dispelling it... listing an indefinite or infinite duration in a spell's text does not make it immune to any of the usual fixes, since that 'remain in this state until...' conditional duration is gone once a Break Enchantment hits home.)

[Yahzi]

A fifth level spell, and you can't break it without a sixth level one?
That seems so obviously... wrong.

[Aquillion]

To be fair, you can kill someone with a first-level spell, and you certainly need a higher-level spell than that to bring them back. :smalltongue:

[Aximili]

The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.
What's the whole point?
It mentions spells that can be used to end the effect, it doesn't say that feeblemind can't dispell it. Meanwhile, it falls under all the conditions specified by the BE spell description.

FM's description actually only mentions those spells so that players will know they can be used (since those spells are not ment for that purpose and don't specify it in their description), BE need not be mentioned for the same reason Mage Armor doesn't mention it can be dispelled by Dispel Magic.

[Overlard]

To me, it seems pretty cut & dry. Feeblemind lists the spells that can be used to restore the victim's mind, including the fairly-easy-to-come-by heal.

If I were to list the currencies accepted by my company as english pounds, american dollars and euros, would it be reasonable for someone to insist they can pay with brazilian reals as I don't say specifically that it can't be used?

When a of acceptable list is given, and doesn't include vague disclaimers are addendums like "and similar spells/effects", then that seems veery well defined to me. It's not like they're from separate splatbooks and the interaction between the two has never been considered, they're both from the PHB.

[ThorFluff]

To me, it seems pretty cut & dry. Feeblemind lists the spells that can be used to restore the victim's mind, including the fairly-easy-to-come-by heal.

If I were to list the currencies accepted by my company as english pounds, american dollars and euros, would it be reasonable for someone to insist they can pay with brazilian reals as I don't say specifically that it can't be used?

When a of acceptable list is given, and doesn't include vague disclaimers are addendums like "and similar spells/effects", then that seems veery well defined to me. It's not like they're from separate splatbooks and the interaction between the two has never been considered, they're both from the PHB.

heal still requires your caster to be lvl 9, while an encounter at lvl 7 can cast it on you. So a wizard should go through 2 lvls doing nothing?

[Tokiko Mima]

To me, it seems pretty cut & dry. Feeblemind lists the spells that can be used to restore the victim's mind, including the fairly-easy-to-come-by heal.

If I were to list the currencies accepted by my company as english pounds, american dollars and euros, would it be reasonable for someone to insist they can pay with brazilian reals as I don't say specifically that it can't be used?

If the transaction involved several million dollars, I believe yes, your company would very likely accept Brazilian reals. They would be silly not to. Money changing is not that hard, but it's inconvenient to do for small amounts.

In any case, heal is easy to come by in a high magic campaign, but in a low magic campaign you'll be out of luck for several levels. And that's assuming you have a traditional cleric in your party. Druids have to wait for their 7th level spells to get heal, while a sorcerer/wizard has to wait till 7th level to cure Feeblemind, then has to pay 300 XP to cure a 5th level spell that costs nothing for their foes to cast.


When a of acceptable list is given, and doesn't include vague disclaimers are addendums like "and similar spells/effects", then that seems veery well defined to me. It's not like they're from separate splatbooks and the interaction between the two has never been considered, they're both from the PHB.

To be clear, if it said 'only these spells' or it said 'Break Enchantment will not cure' then I'd be inclined to rule your way. But Break Enchantment is a spell designed to dispel Enchantments of any duration, even instantaneous, that are 5th level or lower. Feeblemind is a 5th level Enchantment of instantaneous duration. It's squarely in the bounds of spells Break Enchantment was meant to effect and dispel.

If BE was called 'Break Transformation,' and was meant to dispel transformations of 5th level or lower, then not having the cure listed in Baleful Polymorph would not mean that it wouldn't work.

[Khanderas]

Break Enchantment can specifically undo Instant Spells.
Fair enough, I have not read the Break Enchantment description since I don't activly play D&D, I just like to read about it.
But to me, if a magical effect has no duration (instant) in such a way that it wont be supressed in an anti-magic field the brains are physically scrambled as opposed to just jammed. The magic came, did the damage and dissapated leaving the victim with a broken brain and no magic to keep the feeblemind effect active.
Now if the duration was "permanent" meaning that the magic stays and continously keep a stupifying enchantment on the victim, sure. Antimagic field would supress it (not dispel) and Break Enchantment would make sense.

With no magic to be broken by Break Enchantment how does it work ?
Restoration magic would make much more sense to me, but it is problebly a level thing.


heal still requires your caster to be lvl 9, while an encounter at lvl 7 can cast it on you. So a wizard should go through 2 lvls doing nothing?
Except drool ofcourse :)

[Tokiko Mima]

I assume Break Enchantment doesn't just do a dispel for currently active magic. It probably also goes through a persons mind looking for damage from Enchantments, like Feeblemind, then reverses the damage and undoes the after-effects of spells. It's like like a reverse magical lobotomy!

[Overlard]

heal still requires your caster to be lvl 9, while an encounter at lvl 7 can cast it on you. So a wizard should go through 2 lvls doing nothing?
Or they could buy a scroll and use that. Or hire an NPC to cast it for you.


If the transaction involved several million dollars, I believe yes, your company would very likely accept Brazilian reals. They would be silly not to. Money changing is not that hard, but it's inconvenient to do for small amounts.
That's not really the point though. My example was that if a defined list is given, then claiming something not on that list will work because there's no list of specific spells that won't work seems like houseruling.

If you want another example, imagine you're putting a piece of furniture together. You see there are screws provided that need to be put in. The instructions say you need a flathead screwdriver. Would it be reasonable to assume you can use a crosshead screwdriver instead? After all, it's also used for putting in screws, so why wouldn't it work with the screws provided? It's not like there's a disclaimer saying specifically that crosshead screwdrivers don't work with flathead screws.


In any case, heal is easy to come by in a high magic campaign, but in a low magic campaign you'll be out of luck for several levels. And that's assuming you have a traditional cleric in your party. Druids have to wait for their 7th level spells to get heal, while a sorcerer/wizard has to wait till 7th level to cure Feeblemind, then has to pay 300 XP to cure a 5th level spell that costs nothing for their foes to cast.
Yep, so you'll be wanting a scroll or NPC then.


To be clear, if it said 'only these spells' or it said 'Break Enchantment will not cure' then I'd be inclined to rule your way. But Break Enchantment is a spell designed to dispel Enchantments of any duration, even instantaneous, that are 5th level or lower. Feeblemind is a 5th level Enchantment of instantaneous duration. It's squarely in the bounds of spells Break Enchantment was meant to effect and dispel.
And yet it's not in the defined list of spells given that will cure feeblemind, which says to me that it won't work. If it "The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, wish spell or similar spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.including these spells", then I'd agree with you.

[Aximili]

If I were to list the currencies accepted by my company as english pounds, american dollars and euros, would it be reasonable for someone to insist they can pay with brazilian reals as I don't say specifically that it can't be used?


That's the point. Let's say you were selling Metalworks, and (for whichever reason) brazillian Reals were internationaly and commonly used (and always accepted) when dealing with metalworks. (Heck, we could instead say that your country has a law stating that Brazillian money must be accepted in that specific case)
Then yes, I would believe it reasonable for someone to insist they can pay with brazillian Reals.

[DaMullet]

In this case, Overlard, it's not a case of "the book DIDN'T say no, so it must mean yes."

It's a case of "The first part book didn't say no, but a different part of the book said yes, and since the first part of the book didn't say no, we can assume that the book as a whole means yes."

[Tokiko Mima]

That's not really the point though. My example was that if a defined list is given, then claiming something not on that list will work because there's no list of specific spells that won't work seems like houseruling.

If you want another example, imagine you're putting a piece of furniture together. You see there are screws provided that need to be put in. The instructions say you need a flathead screwdriver. Would it be reasonable to assume you can use a crosshead screwdriver instead? After all, it's also used for putting in screws, so why wouldn't it work with the screws provided? It's not like there's a disclaimer saying specifically that crosshead screwdrivers don't work with flathead screws.

Not exactly an apt example, since everyone knows philips head screwdrivers don't work on flathead screws. It was designed not to work, in fact. Philips head screws were created because of the problems flathead screws have with slippage, and philips head screws align themselves better as they are driven in. So this would be an appropriate example if Feeblemind was explicitly stated not to work with Break Enchantment. However this is not the case.

Since Break Enchantment effects all enchantments (level 5 or lower) I think a more apt example would be to ask if a multitool would work on a flathead screw. It's not a flathead screwdriver specifically, but it was designed to cover many different situations wherein you might need to turn a screw. Very few instructions will include a multitool as a suggested solution, because it's generally best to have the right tool. Wish, Limited Wish, Heal, and Miracle are the "right" tools. They work instantly and automatically. Break Enchantment is a multitool. It's not 100% guaranteed to work the first time, but it's functional enough and less expensive than a collection of screwdrivers of all possible sizes.

Just because something is not on the list doesn't mean it won't work. It also doesn't mean it will. BE still needs a caster level check, after all.

If you need a D&D example, Shield is generally accepted to block Magic Missile. Why? Because it says so in Shields description. If you wanted to insist, you could pull the quote out of Magic Missiles description that says "Magic Missile strikes unerringly." However, Shield is a spell whose only utility is defense. If it could not block magic missiles a large part of it's functionaity would be gone. If you allow magic missile to be absorbed harmlessly by shield it doesn't significantly reduce the spells effectiveness. Not everyone will have shields up all the time, after all. So in this case defense trumps offense.

Feeblemind versus Break Enchantment is a similiar situation. The fewer spells Break Enchantment can effect the dramatically less useful a spell it is. Conversely, Feeblemind is not especially reduced in effectiveness if BE lifts it. There will always be utility in a spell that halts wizards in their tracks, as not everyone has a BE spell handy at all times.

Allowing Feeblemind to be lifted by BE actually solves a major balance issue: No one will want to play an Int 1 character for several levels, or have to stop an adventure to go back to the nearest metropolis to pay some NPC for a cure. So I'm going to have to say that it just makes sense from a larger perspective, regardless of debatable semantics.

[Overlard]

[quote]If you need a D&D example, Shield is generally accepted to block Magic Missile. Why? Because it says so in Shields description. If you wanted to insist, you could pull the quote out of Magic Missiles description that says "Magic Missile strikes unerringly." However, Shield is a spell whose only utility is defense. If it could not block magic missiles a large part of it's functionaity would be gone. If you allow magic missile to be absorbed harmlessly by shield it doesn't significantly reduce the spells effectiveness. Not everyone will have shields up all the time, after all. So in this case defense trumps offense.
Shield specifically states that it works against magic missile, as feeblemind specifically states what works against it. I'd say in both cases the specifics beat the more vague descriptions of the opposing spells.

BE is a multi-tool as you say, but multi-tools still don't work in every situation. There are still some jobs that you need specialised tools for.


Allowing Feeblemind to be lifted by BE actually solves a major balance issue: No one will want to play an Int 1 character for several levels, or have to stop an adventure to go back to the nearest metropolis to pay some NPC for a cure. So I'm going to have to say that it just makes sense from a larger perspective, regardless of debatable semantics.
Personally I think that if a DM has an NPC feeblemind a PC, with no way to reverse it in some way in the near future (either with another PC using a spell, a scroll that can be found, or access to something else that will help), then it's bad DMing. I've been in a game where a PC had a permenant hold person put on them, and for several game sessions the player had nothing to do as he was dragged around by the party in search for a cure. If the player had been going away for a few sessions, it would have been ideal, but as it was it was bad planning, and nearly led the the player leaving the group. But I digress...

Feeblemind lists the tools that can be used against it, all of them from the same chapter of the book as itself. If you think that there was an oversight and BE was accidentally left off of the list, then you should feel free to pencil it in (or use it as a house rule), but I don't think that's the case, and that part of the challenge presented by feeblemind is finding the specific tool needed to reverse it.

[lord_khaine]

i think this seems really simple as well, when Break enchantment says its even able to fix instantaneous effects, lv 5 and under, and feeblemind doesnt say it cant be fixed by break enchantment then it should remove feeblemind.