cleansing touch ends feeble mind

[Askeladd]

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?p=25034605

wanted to see more thoughts on this.
i beleive a paladins cleansing touch does end the effects of feeble mind, and that the paladin would in fact be able to attempt to cleanse it on himself.

if we were to read the wording on both the spell and the ability, there is nothing stopping cleansing touch from being used.
and secondly if we are to assume the wording "ends the spell" on feeble mind actually means "spell effects" then logically we too must assume the same goes for cleansing touch, afterall its not called dispelling touch.
some point out that the spell lists specifically which spells end it.. however it does not say only those spells end it rather lists them as examples.

as for those who say "spell duration is instantaneous" the spell says that every 30 days a saving throw can be used to end the spell.

no errata has also changed the wording of feeble mind for "clarification" so we are to assume that its written as intended. so the only conclusion is that cleansing touch can end the spell.

[MaxWilson]

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?p=25034605

wanted to see more thoughts on this.
i beleive a paladins cleansing touch does end the effects of feeble mind, and that the paladin would in fact be able to attempt to cleanse it on himself.

if we were to read the wording on both the spell and the ability, there is nothing stopping cleansing touch from being used.
and secondly if we are to assume the wording "ends the spell" on feeble mind actually means "spell effects" then logically we too must assume the same goes for cleansing touch, afterall its not called dispelling touch.
some point out that the spell lists specifically which spells end it.. however it does not say only those spells end it rather lists them as examples.

as for those who say "spell duration is instantaneous" the spell says that every 30 days a saving throw can be used to end the spell.

no errata has also changed the wording of feeble mind for "clarification" so we are to assume that its written as intended. so the only conclusion is that cleansing touch can end the spell.

Hmm. My initial thought was "Feeblemind is like Inflict Wounds or Plane Shift or Meteor Swarm: ending the spell doesn't help you (it's already over). You need Greater Restoration to fix the damage it did. Cleansing Touch isn't applicable."

However, you make a good point in bold there, well enough to persuade me that Feeblemind is sloppily written and that the RAW are incoherent. Therefore as DM I might as well interpret the ambiguity in a way that will make a player happy, so yes, you've convinced me that it should work.

[Evaar]

I was going to say the Duration of Feeblemind is Instantaneous so the spell is already over, the saving throw to recover your Int/Cha represents mental healing from the damage the spell did much like spending healing surges represents physical healing from the damage done by a Fireball.

However, as you note, Feeblemind says the following:

At the end of every 30 days, the creature can repeat its saving throw against this spell. If it succeeds on its saving throw, the spell ends.

So if you have another method of ending a spell, I guess it works.

[Angelalex242]

The real trick is, can the Paladin fix his own mind with cleansing touch?

That is what my original thread was about, after all.

Casting Feeblemind against a Paladin is a smart move for a mage, after all.

[CountDVB]

The real trick is, can the Paladin fix his own mind with cleansing touch?

That is what my original thread was about, after all.

Casting Feeblemind against a Paladin is a smart move for a mage, after all.

I would guess so. The fact they can still protect their friends indicate some sort of presence left of personality and given the supernatural nature of the Oath, I would think that would be enough,

[Kane0]

I was going to say the Duration of Feeblemind is Instantaneous so the spell is already over, the saving throw to recover your Int/Cha represents mental healing from the damage the spell did much like spending healing surges represents physical healing from the damage done by a Fireball.

However, as you note, Feeblemind says the following:


So if you have another method of ending a spell, I guess it works.

Cleansing Touch also adds onto the base healing thing paladins do anyways, so it would work either way unless you rule that feeblemind removes a section of your brain and needs regeneration/wish or whatever.

[quindraco]

Feeblemind has an error in its rules text, so your DM has to house rule to fix it. The spell claims it is instantaneous, and then later lists ways it can end later. That's impossible, by definition. An instantaneous spell ends as soon as it's cast. That's what instantaneous means. If the latter claim in Feeblemind is true, the spell is permanent, and can be dispelled or cleansing touched. If the former claim is true, the listed end conditions end the spell's effects but do not end the spell, and neither dispel nor cleansing touch will work. But RAW, Feeblemind contains a fundamental contradiction.

[Askeladd]

The real trick is, can the Paladin fix his own mind with cleansing touch?

That is what my original thread was about, after all.

Casting Feeblemind against a Paladin is a smart move for a mage, after all.
Casting feeble mind against any spellcaster is a smart move, however cleansing touch exists specifically to end spells like this one.

Why not. Int and charisma are 1 but your wisdom stays in tact. There are plenty of monsters with 1 int who still use their full arsenal of abilities. Paladins abilities that aren’t spells they are more reflexive rather than studied. They simply touch someone and will them to be healed.

Medicine is a wisdom skill after all, not affected by feeble mind.

[Valmark]

Cleansing Touch wouldn't remove Feeblemind's effect (imo) because like you said the spell is already gone and CT only removes spells, not magical effects in general.

There are features and/or spells that explicitely differentiate between spells and their effects- it's the case with Flame Arrows. As such it can be inferred that spells are different from their effects and something that removes only spells wouldn't remove a spell's effect if the spell has already ended.

Same thing if someone used something like Dispel Magic- the spell isn't there anymore so it wouldn't work. Further shown by the fact that Feeblemind lists the spells that can remove its effect and Dispel Magic doesn't figure in the list.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, I think it can end feeblemind.

If every aspect of the spell ended after it was cast then the part of the spell allowing you to save in 30 days would aslo have ceased to be in effect so you could never get rid of it.

There are explicitly listed spells that can end feeblemind - if it ended after "instantanious" then these could not end the spell. I think some of the wording/structure was to avoid dispell magic being a solution.

[ProsecutorGodot]

There are explicitly listed spells that can end feeblemind - if it ended after "instantanious" then these could not end the spell. I think some of the wording/structure was to avoid dispell magic being a solution.

It's that list of restrictions that make most believe Cleansing Touch would not work, not necessarily the duration of the spell.

I've personally ruled both ways, depending on the circumstances and players opinions.

[Valmark]

I think some of the wording/structure was to avoid dispell magic being a solution.

Dispel Magic and Cleansing Touch both end Spells though, with the difference that DM ends all spells while CT ends one spell at a time. How's CT a solution but DM isn't?

[Askeladd]

It's that list of restrictions that make most believe Cleansing Touch would not work, not necessarily the duration of the spell.

I've personally ruled both ways, depending on the circumstances and players opinions.

The spells it mentions are ways to cure it, but does not say they are the only way. Normally the spells it mentions don’t end spells


Dispel Magic and Cleansing Touch both end Spells though, with the difference that DM ends all spells while CT ends one spell at a time. How's CT a solution but DM isn't?
Dispell magic isn’t limited to a willing creature. Cleansing touch is meant to be recuperative, much like the spells mentioned that can end it that normally don’t end spells.




Cleansing Touch wouldn't remove Feeblemind's effect (imo) because like you said the spell is already gone and CT only removes spells, not magical effects in general.

There are features and/or spells that explicitely differentiate between spells and their effects-

Except the spell itself does not do that, at the bottom it mentions that passing a saving throw after 30 days ends it implying it’s still active.




lists the spells that can remove its effect and Dispel Magic doesn't figure in the list.

Much like I said to godots point.
It lists spells that can end it. Does not say “only these spells” normally most of those spells could not end spells.

[Valmark]

Dispell magic isn’t limited to a willing creature. Cleansing touch is meant to be recuperative, much like the spells mentioned that can end it that normally don’t end spells.

Except the spell itself does not do that, at the bottom it mentions that passing a saving throw after 30 days ends it implying it’s still active.

Much like I said to godots point.
It lists spells that can end it. Does not say “only these spells” normally most of those spells could not end spells.

Nothing there is a reason for Dispel Magic to not work if Cleansing Touch does, though.

True, but it's also an Istantaneous spell. So the question is- is it an error in the text and the spell already ended (so CT and DM wouldn't work) or is it an error in the duration (so DM and CT would work)?
Imo it's the former.

There's something to be said about making a list and intentionally leaving something out- that said, like above. Can DM dispel it (so it's not Istantaneous) and so can CT or can't DM do that?

[ProsecutorGodot]

The spells it mentions are ways to cure it, but does not say they are the only way. Normally the spells it mentions don’t end spells

There are two ways to read the restrictive list, first is that it gives those spells permission to do so since they don't have that permission by default (feeblemind is not covered by any of the conditions that greater restoration normally ends) and the other is that since it comes directly after the spells own conditions to end, these are the only allowed alternative methods.

For what it's worth, I know there is a tweet from JC that signifies the intent is for the latter (can't comb though Twitter at work) but again I'm willing to rule for or against that intent if the table demands it.

[JonBeowulf]

Cleansing Touch isn't a spell. No big surprise that Feeblemind doesn't include it in the list of spells that end it.

Death of the target also ends it... not listed.

[Valmark]

Cleansing Touch isn't a spell. No big surprise that Feeblemind doesn't include it in the list of spells that end it.

Death of the target also ends it... not listed.

But the fact that a list only includes spells doesn't mean that it's a spell list.

[Evaar]

There are two ways to read the restrictive list, first is that it gives those spells permission to do so since they don't have that permission by default (feeblemind is not covered by any of the conditions that greater restoration normally ends) and the other is that since it comes directly after the spells own conditions to end, these are the only allowed alternative methods.

For what it's worth, I know there is a tweet from JC that signifies the intent is for the latter (can't comb though Twitter at work) but again I'm willing to rule for or against that intent if the table demands it.

Here's the tweet:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/848956160333959170?lang=en

That said, this is RAI. RAW, I agree with Askeladd.

[BerzerkerUnit]

My reading is no. You can think of feeblemind like a damaging spell that deals Int-1 int damage and provides specific rules for how to recover the lost Int the same way a shadow’s strength drain attack does.

The fact it’s written poorly isn’t relevant to my interpretation. At the end of the day Imprison can’t be ended by cleansing touch either. I’m fine with straight level comparison being the bar. Feeblemind is a level 15 effect, Cleansing touch is a level 14 feature.

[Samayu]

The interpretation that CT (or Dispel Magic) won't end the effects, depends on the loss of mental faculty not being sustained by magical means. In other words, you just lose the brainpower, and the saving throw is not to end the magic, but just to organically regain your faculties.

Seems kinda strange that it's so all-or-nothing, though.

[Askeladd]

My reading is no. You can think of feeblemind like a damaging spell that deals Int-1 int damage and provides specific rules for how to recover the lost Int the same way a shadow’s strength drain attack does.

The fact it’s written poorly isn’t relevant to my interpretation. At the end of the day Imprison can’t be ended by cleansing touch either. I’m fine with straight level comparison being the bar. Feeblemind is a level 15 effect, Cleansing touch is a level 14 feature.



you assume automatically that it is written poorly in the sense that the duration is accurate, but if its written poorly it might be just so that in fact the duration is incorrect since its worded entirely opposite of the classified duration.
and yes cleansing touch is a level 14 feature, but seeing as nowhere in the description of cleansing touch does it limit it only to spells of a specific spell level, or character class level. but rather tailor suited to end spells that cause debilitating effects on willing allied creatures. then we must assume by raw that it includes feeble mind, since it is the exact purpose of the feature. your not going to say that all spells acquired after level 14 are now immune to cleansing touch?

if the spell was ability damage it would have said so. it does not. a shadows strength drain lasts only until a short rest, and is not the effect of a spell. whilst this one not only is the effect of a spell, but indicates that it is due to the spell still being active, since you must make continued saves vs the spell

and as for cleansing touch not being able to end imprisonment. i disagree entirely.

[RSP]

My reading is no. You can think of feeblemind like a damaging spell that deals Int-1 int damage and provides specific rules for how to recover the lost Int the same way a shadow’s strength drain attack does.

The fact it’s written poorly isn’t relevant to my interpretation. At the end of the day Imprison can’t be ended by cleansing touch either. I’m fine with straight level comparison being the bar. Feeblemind is a level 15 effect, Cleansing touch is a level 14 feature.

Not sure why level of ability matters: GR is a “9th level ability” and Heal an “11th level ability” though technically either could be cast off a scroll at a much lower level.

I’d say the level argument is completely moot.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The real trick is, can the Paladin fix his own mind with cleansing touch?


Yes...I think a good case can be made to allow exactly this. A Paladin is literally a Charismatic, in the academic, Comparative Religions sense of the term.

A being suddenly being restored to mental acuity, after a period mental diminishment, is an oft cited example of a Charismatic Spiritual Gift of Healing.

Feeblemind being able to be removed through Cleansing Touch, and a Paladin being able to use their Spiritual Gifts to heal themself, seems an ideal use based off theme alone.

[Unoriginal]

I don't think a Feebleminded Paladin would be smart enough to remember they can cure themselves.

Same way that a Feebleminded Cleric wouldn't remember they can attempt Divine Intervention.

[Valmark]

I don't think a Feebleminded Paladin would be smart enough to remember they can cure themselves.

Same way that a Feebleminded Cleric wouldn't remember they can attempt Divine Intervention.

Ironically I've done just that with my cleric. I would think that pleading to your god in your time of need doesn't require much thought since you're a cleric (meaning everything you can do comes from them).

Just like I think a paladin would remember they can cure themselves, since they've been doing that from level 1 (arguable wether they could distinguish between LoH and CT)- though like I said above I'm also of the mind that CT doesn't remove Feeblemind so it's a bit moot.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I don't think a Feebleminded Paladin would be smart enough to remember they can cure themselves.

Same way that a Feebleminded Cleric wouldn't remember they can attempt Divine Intervention.

Charismatic Spiritual Gifts are generally considered somewhat beyond the exact control of those blessed with the gift.

Sometimes, 'The Spirit' just works through people...without those people truly understanding nor exactly controlling what is going on.

My first reaction was similar to Unoriginal's but upon further reflection, thematically, the state of a Paladin's Reasoning ability is largely irrelevant vis a vis Charismatic Spiritual Gifts.

A '1 Intelligence' creature could still have an inchoate notion of Divine Providence, and gods, (or other Divine Analogues), don't necessarily need prayers to be formed in language.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Charismatic Spiritual Gifts are generally considered somewhat beyond the exact control of those blessed with the gift.

Sometimes, 'The Spirit' just works through people...without those people truly understanding nor exactly controlling what is going on.

My first reaction was similar to Unoriginal's but upon further reflection, thematically, the state of a Paladin's Reasoning ability is largely irrelevant vis a vis Charismatic Spiritual Gifts.

A '1 Intelligence' creature could still have an inchoate notion of Divine Providence, and gods, (or other Divine Analogues), don't necessarily need prayers to be formed in language.

It could be argued that lacking the ability to communicate in any intelligible way extends to your thoughts, you can't beseech your god for any specific aid regardless of your intentions because they can't understand what you want.

Of course, this doesn't apply to the vast majority of Paladin whose abilities aren't sourced from a God/Higher Power.

[Angelalex242]

Deities have intelligence and wisdom scores in the high 20s or even 30 flat.

Common sense would tell such a deity that the feebleminded Paladin probably wants to be cured.

If we're not using deities, however, you might consider Cleansing Touch more like white blood cells...you don't have to be intelligent for your immune system to function.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It could be argued that lacking the ability to communicate in any intelligible way extends to your thoughts, you can't beseech your god for any specific aid regardless of your intentions because they can't understand what you want.

While a Feeblemind spell should prevent Telepathic communication by preventing the subject of the spell from (to paraphrase), being able to "communicate or understand language"; nothing in the rules, that I am aware of would stipulate that it also prevents 'inchoate prayers'.

This type of thematic addition would be a particular ruling by a particular gaming group...(it is a cool idea, admittedly 👍), but is not mandated by the rules themselves.

Charismatic Spiritual Gifts, are in religious literature often granted to persons whom were not seeking, and might of even been opposed to the idea of receiving such gifts.

Just because a Paladin is dumbstruck, and lacking some agency doesn't mean that powerful forces in the multiverse won't cause Cleansing Touch to remove the effect.


Of course, this doesn't apply to the vast majority of Paladin whose abilities aren't sourced from a God/Higher Power.

The PHB describes the Paladin class as a "Holy Warrior" whom swear oaths. Divine, Sacred, Holy....these words and concept are primarily used in conjunction with the concept of Divinities.

I think it safe to say the concept of the Paladin class, also embraces those characters that serve Divine Forces, (5e just eliminates the mandate that a Paladin must serve Divine Forces).

Also, most Charismatic faiths found in the United States of America, are inclined to also believe in a "Divine Creator". I thought I had been somewhat transparent that I was viewing Charismatic Faith through the prism of how the term is used in the study of Religion, and not just the D&D ability score.
I must have been unclear, my apologies.....

[ProsecutorGodot]

While a Feeblemind spell should prevent Telepathic communication by preventing the subject of the spell from (to paraphrase), being able to "communicate or understand language"; nothing in the rules, that I am aware of would stipulate that it also prevents 'inchoate prayers'.

Divine Intervention requires the Cleric to implore their God for aid, they need to ask. They can't ask if they can't communicate.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Divine Intervention requires the Cleric to implore their God for aid, they need to ask. They can't ask if they can't communicate.

A cleric's Divine Intervention ability isn't the focus of the thread, but I will bite at the bait. 😉. I think the above quoted portion is a table ruling, and the Feeblemind spell does not necessarily preclude a cleric from using Divine Intervention.

Religious ideas are often clothed in poetic trappings, and in some cases religion is directly dealing with concepts that are ineffable.

Ineffable concepts, by definition, are concepts that one can't express very well in language. Poetically, one can implore with one's eyes. Wordless music is often used as a prayer, in many different cultures on Earth. (Bach🎼)

Nothing in the rules state, that a God of Secrets, (for example), needs language to "know the secrets of your heart".

Lastly, a Divine Force, is not limited to waiting for the 'Bat Signal' before intervening into the affairs of others. Greek Myth is replete with examples of Gods intervening into the lives of mortals without being asked.

I have, absolutely, no issue with a gaming group exploring the idea of the Feeblemind spell negating 'prayers'; I just don't believe such examination is mandated by the rules as written.

[RSP]

I don’t think CT requires much in the way of Int or Cha: it’s not like a Paladin has to figure out some sort of science that cancels out the effect.

However, I don’t think comparing CT with Divine Intervention works in this instance as DI requires the Cleric to “Describe the assistance you seek”. This is where Feeblemind might stop DI as I’m not sure any sort of description of the assistance is possible at 1 Int.

But again, there is no such requirement with CT.

[Thunderous Mojo]

However, I don’t think comparing CT with Divine Intervention works in this instance as DI requires the Cleric to “Describe the assistance you seek”.

I believe there are two ways to interpret the line: "Describe the assistance you seek".

One potential interpretation is the cleric is literally calling out:
"Calgon, take me away" when the cleric is desiring a miracle of teleportation.

The other interpretation is the instruction of "Describe the assistance you seek" is solely intended for the player of the cleric, and not an 'in game/ in character" action that is taken literally.

Either method works, and both methods are valid interpretations of the text. Which is why I refer to these type of questions and corresponding answers as "Table Rulings". The text itself does not precisely delineate all of the ramifications, leaving it up to the 'Table'...(or the DM), to fill in the details, and the corresponding ramifications.

Feeblemind blocking inchoate prayers, is a cool idea....and is absolutely, 'Street Legal'....but is not the only way to read the rules, in my opinion.

[RSP]

The other interpretation is the instruction of "Describe the assistance you seek" is solely intended for the player of the cleric, and not an 'in game/ in character" action that is taken literally.

I guess it could, but it doesn’t really make sense that way as the ability states “you can call on your deity to intervene on your behalf when your need is great.”

If read as only the Played needs to describe it, does that mean if Player A is a fighter in an area separated from his companions (one of those companions being an at least level 10 Cleric) and gets into trouble, then the Cleric Player can describe that they want to use DI to teleport the Fighter to them; even though the Cleric character has no idea the Fighter is in trouble?

That seems rather against the intent, if not the RAW of the ability.

[ProsecutorGodot]

A cleric's Divine Intervention ability isn't the focus of the thread, but I will bite at the bait. 😉. I think the above quoted portion is a table ruling, and the Feeblemind spell does not necessarily preclude a cleric from using Divine Intervention.


Must have been my misunderstanding, you've put so much emphasis on religion and deific intervention that I thought you were talking about Clerics. That or I responded to your comment, which was in itself a response to a comment about a Clerics ability to use divine intervention. It's unfair to call it bait, it is a part of the discussion.

I agree with Unoriginal's comment that spurred this tangent by the way, my main point being that the mechanics make it very much a choice of the character to use these effects and your conclusion that whatever divine source of power fuels the Cleric or Paladin can step in and cure it for them is not within the rules, and to a certain extent from what Rsp29a points out above (though I may be stretching their intent here a bit, apologies if so) metagaming in the guise of "my god wouldn't let this happen".

[Thunderous Mojo]

It's unfair to call it bait, it is a part of the discussion.

It was not my intention to imply that you had done anything untoward, nor was it my intent to insult you. If you received that impression P.G....please accept my apologies.

The sole intent of the line in my prior post was to indicate that I thought the course of the discussion was a bit tangential, but too fascinating to pass up.



If read as only the Played needs to describe it, does that mean if Player A is a fighter in an area separated from his companions (one of those companions being an at least level 10 Cleric) and gets into trouble, then the Cleric Player can describe that they want to use DI to teleport the Fighter to them; even though the Cleric character has no idea the Fighter is in trouble?

The example you gave Rsp29a, is rife with "player uses knowledge that their PC would not have", that I think many DMs would block the use, just as a Volleyball player might block a obviously telegraphed Spike attempt.

If player B wanted to use Dimension Door to teleport to the fighter in trouble, based purely off their 'metagame' knowledge many DMs would prohibit the action.

[RSP]

The example you gave Rsp29a, is rife with "player uses knowledge that their PC would not have", that I think many DMs would block the use, just as a Volleyball player might block a obviously telegraphed Spike attempt.


Well isn’t that the point: the character affected by feeblemind doesn’t have the knowledge the Player playing that character does.

If the “reading of the RAW” is that the ability works only by the Player describing what they want, absent the character needing to do so, then RAW, my previous example works, because everything is running off the Player and not the character.

[Valmark]

To be fair "describe the assistance you seek" could also mean the cleric goes "blbl" because Feebleminded and the god goes "Wtf do they want let me take a look" and acting accordingly.

That is what my DM ruled it out as, anyway.

[RSP]

To be fair "describe the assistance you seek" could also mean the cleric goes "blbl" because Feebleminded and the god goes "Wtf do they want let me take a look" and acting accordingly.

That is what my DM ruled it out as, anyway.

DMs can rule however they like, but “blbl” is not a description of what is wanted.

[Valmark]

DMs can rule however they like, but “blbl” is not a description of what is wanted.

It is if that is all you can say.
A wrong description is still a description (and tecnically it's not wrong since a Feebleminded person can't actually formulate anything more complicated then that).

A newborn going "Da!" And pointing at something because they want it is still describing what they want, they just aren't capable of anything more complete.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It is if that is all you can say.
A wrong description is still a description (and tecnically it's not wrong since a Feebleminded person can't actually formulate anything more complicated then that).

A newborn going "Da!" And pointing at something because they want it is still describing what they want, they just aren't capable of anything more complete.

Communicating in any intelligible way would certainly including pointing at what you want, Feeblemind renders you worse off than an infant. It's only by some miracle (or perhaps the designers didn't want the spell to be too debilitating) that you can recognize your friends and still act with their best interest in that empty void of a mind you have now.

Depending on how strict your DM wants to be even babbling nonsense isn't an option because, as you say, babbled nonsense is still a form of communication that people can interpret from.

[RSP]

It is if that is all you can say.
A wrong description is still a description (and tecnically it's not wrong since a Feebleminded person can't actually formulate anything more complicated then that).

A newborn going "Da!" And pointing at something because they want it is still describing what they want, they just aren't capable of anything more complete.

No it’s not. You’re literally describing not describing what you want and calling it a description of what you want.

If one walks into a dinner and when the waiter or waitress comes up and says “what would you like?” And you go “Bluuuurrrd” you have not described what you want and they will not know what you want.

[Valmark]

Communicating in any intelligible way would certainly including pointing at what you want, Feeblemind renders you worse off than an infant. It's only by some miracle (or perhaps the designers didn't want the spell to be too debilitating) that you can recognize your friends and still act with their best interest in that empty void of a mind you have now.

Depending on how strict your DM wants to be even babbling nonsense isn't an option because, as you say, babbled nonsense is still a form of communication that people can interpret from.
Oh yeah, it's entirely dependant on the DM- I did say it could mean that (which implies babbling could also not count).

No it’s not. You’re literally describing not describing what you want and calling it a description of what you want.

If one walks into a dinner and when the waiter or waitress comes up and says “what would you like?” And you go “Bluuuurrrd” you have not described what you want and they will not know what you want.

I most certainly have if that's all I can do- and if the waiter doesn't understand (which makes sense) it doesn't mean I haven't. Nor does it mean a god wouldn't understand or wouldn't improvise (getting rid of Feeblemind would likely work and also be the suggested effect of Divine Intervention, by casting one of the relevant spells).

[Thunderous Mojo]

Well isn’t that the point:

So your intention, or point was to make a Strawman Argument? 🃏
I'm a fairly lenient DM, when it comes to meta-gaming, but your conjectured situation is just a prime example of a player showing 'bad form' in play.

It lacks serious probative value...akin to this:

"Imagine Skynet was the self driving algorithm on a Tesla vehicle. Now that you have imagined this, you understand why self driving cars are bad".


Communicating in any intelligible way would certainly including pointing at what you want, Feeblemind renders you worse off than an infant. It's only by some miracle (or perhaps the designers didn't want the spell to be too debilitating) that you can recognize your friends and still act with their best interest in that empty void of a mind you have now.

Examining the (legislative)history of the Feeblemind spell, might shed some light on the design intent. In 1e AD&D, the Feeblemind spell was intended to disrupt spell casters alone, and render the "victim's brain to become like that of a, (trigger warning), "moronic child"
(This is an exact quote from the 1e AD&D spell. Sorry the 1970s were a non enlightened time)

Clerics received a +1 bonus to their Saving Throws against the spell, all other casters received a malus, with Illusionists receiving -5 adjustment to their saving throw, and Magic Users receiving a -4 adjustment.

Clearly, Gary Gygax didn't think clerical spellcasting relied upon logic or reason.🥸

Fast forward to 5e and the Feeblemind spell is an Intelligence save, (as opposed to the old category of 'Save vs Spell'), and since all cleric spells have Verbal Components, not being able to speak, nor cast spells, and with Feeblemind now targeting a non proficient save of the cleric....
.......I would say the spell went from being more dangerous against Intelligence casters, and weaker against clerics...to being the opposite.

If you feel the spell should block prayers in addition to the changes made over the years from the original incarnation of Feeblemind....that is cool.

Yet, I have to ask...does the 5e Feeblemind spell need to be enhanced vis a vis 'wrecking the cleric class' anymore than it has been?

Should Feeblemind also prevent a Druid from Wildshaping, or any other caster from being able to use their subclass/class features that do not directly involve spellcasting and language?

A cleric with 20 Wisdom, but 1 Intelligence and 1 Cha due to the Feeblemind spell is still "Strong with the Force".

Feeblemind, 'realistically', should make Hexblade's and Arcane Tricksters doorstops with 1 Int and 1 Cha...unable to attack...especially sneak attack....yet a Hexblade could still, by RAW, Eldritch Smite while subjected to a Feeblemind spell.

Does having Feeblemind block prayers seem an equitable ruling given this?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Does having Feeblemind block prayers seem an equitable ruling given this?

I think I've been pretty clear that I'm willing to separate what I think is a correct reading and what the players at my table might find appropriate. I absolutely think that Feeblemind should render a Cleric unable to use Divine Intervention, I think the text on both make it clear that their is a form of communicating intent required for Divine Intervention to happen and that Feeblemind prevents a Cleric from doing that for themselves.

Would I be willing to rule differently? I've already said as much for Cleansing Touch (reminder that the possible limitation for Cleansing Touch isn't entirely on ability to use it, but whether the ability is permitted to end the effect) I don't see why I can't make an exception here if it came to whether or not the group found it more appropriate. I'm allowed to use a ruling whether I think it's more appropriate or not.

And a final note, on the cut portions of the quote, I don't see much if any value to gauging rulings for any edition on how things were in prior editions. This is 5E, how things were done in any previous edition doesn't change how they are written for this edition.

[RSP]

So your intention, or point was to make a Strawman Argument? 🃏
I'm a fairly lenient DM, when it comes to meta-gaming, but your conjectured situation is just a prime example of a player showing 'bad form' in play.

A poster stated one way to read the RAW is that all that is required is the Player describing what they want. If that is the argument of the RAW, then RAW, all one would need do is say what they want. Any further restrictions would be a DM adding restrictions that don’t exist in the RAW.

I don’t believe this is what the rule intended: I believe the intend is the character describes what they want, however, if one makes the argument that it’s only just the Player, then my example works, RAW.

[RSP]

I most certainly have if that's all I can do- and if the waiter doesn't understand (which makes sense) it doesn't mean I haven't. Nor does it mean a god wouldn't understand or wouldn't improvise (getting rid of Feeblemind would likely work and also be the suggested effect of Divine Intervention, by casting one of the relevant spells).

No, you haven’t. Describing something to the best of your ability is not the same thing as describing what you want. Trying to say they are the same thing is just wrong.

[Valmark]

No, you haven’t. Describing something to the best of your ability is not the same thing as describing what you want. Trying to say they are the same thing is just wrong.

If you think that describing something is completely different from describing something (assuming the something is the same) I don't really know what to tell you. I still think that's a valid RAW reading, so we'll agree to disagree I guess.

[RSP]

If you think that describing something is completely different from describing something (assuming the something is the same) I don't really know what to tell you. I still think that's a valid RAW reading, so we'll agree to disagree I guess.

Blbl isn’t a description of anything though; you’re just claiming it is while admitting it’s not. Further, per the spell description of Feeblemind, any intelligent communication is impossible, so by RAW blbl cannot mean anything in this context.

[Valmark]

Blbl isn’t a description of anything though; you’re just claiming it is while admitting it’s not. Further, per the spell description of Feeblemind, any intelligent communication is impossible, so by RAW blbl cannot mean anything in this context.

No? I never said it's not. What I said is that a cleric can try to communicate and just go "blbl" (or some other form of gibberish)- they are explaining what they want, it's just incomprehensible and the god will act accordingly.

Also note that intelligent communication isn't mentioned- it's intelligible communication. Whatever you say while Feebleminded can have meaning, it's just incomprehensible to others.

For all the spell cares you could go "Aunt the bam sword omelette" trying to say "Help me I'm drowning"- it's still unintelligible, even if it has actual words.
Or rather, I think it's unintelligible- I have no idea how one could get to the second sentence from the first one, could be wrong though.

[RSP]

No? I never said it's not. What I said is that a cleric can try to communicate and just go "blbl" (or some other form of gibberish)- they are explaining what they want, it's just incomprehensible and the god will act accordingly.

Also note that intelligent communication isn't mentioned- it's intelligible communication. Whatever you say while Feebleminded can have meaning, it's just incomprehensible to others.

For all the spell cares you could go "Aunt the bam sword omelette" trying to say "Help me I'm drowning"- it's still unintelligible, even if it has actual words.
Or rather, I think it's unintelligible- I have no idea how one could get to the second sentence from the first one, could be wrong though.

So again, there’s a difference between trying to communicate and communicating. You’re describing unsuccessful attempts at communicate and incorrectly describing them as descriptions of what they want. In the example you give, the sentence stated does, in no way, describe what they want, as you yourself stated by showing the intent.

[Thunderous Mojo]

And a final note, on the cut portions of the quote, I don't see much if any value to gauging rulings for any edition on how things were in prior editions. This is 5E, how things were done in any previous edition doesn't change how they are written for this edition.

So you are a D&D Textual "Originalist"😁.
I have to admit, for someone whom comes across in their posts as being intellectually curious, (which you do come across as P.G.), your lack of interest in history, in the legislative record of the past that informs and created the game of today, is disappointing.

(Don't worry I'm sure I will get over it)🃏

D&D design is evolutionary, not a singular instance of 'Intelligent Design' that occurs afresh for each "new" edition.

Jeremy Crawford, I assume, played a prior edition of D&D.
Chris Perkins has worked on D&D since the late TSR/Early WotC days of 1997.
Steve Winters...whom has worked on several 5e products harkens back to TSR, notably the Complete Psionicist and Dark Sun.
WotC editor Kim Mohan has edited D&D products from early days of TSR.

So the designers of 5e D&D, (the only edition you may care about), design with an experiential background steeped in game history. Not understanding that history, to my mind, puts one at a disadvantage, in trying to accurately gauge designer intent.

Heck, Dialectal Materialism doesn't declare the "End of History" until the revolution is complete. 🃏🤭

Conceptually, outside of the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic, nearly everything else in 5e is recycled. Ignoring what came before, just strikes me as foolish.
The game revolution isn't complete yet.🃏😁

I've never played OD&D..but I love to read those old pamphlets and Strategic Reviews....just for the context of history at least.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So you are a D&D Textual "Originalist"😁.
I have to admit, for someone whom comes across in their posts as being intellectually curious, (which you do come across as P.G.), your lack of interest in history, in the legislative record of the past that informs and created the game of today, is disappointing.

I genuinely don't understand what you're saying, I'm more than happy to learn how things worked in the past but no amount of old rules should color my perception of how 5E is run, if I wanted to emulate those rules I can play those editions.

Why has the discussion gone from "do the rules of DND 5E allow this" to "ProsecutorGodot isn't interested in the fundamentals of OD&D and that's sad." exactly?

[Angelalex242]

On Divine Intervention:

Give the deity some credit:

IF the Cleric is levels 10-19, and the 'prayer' isn't answered, then you can rule that the deity wasn't going to bother paying attention to bfdhsfhfdshf!

If the Cleric is level 20, or the percent chance is rolled for 10 to 19, the deity goes, "Hmmm. What's going on with my servant down there? He doesn't normally speak gibberish." After the 30 Int, 30 Wisdom Deity assesses a feeblemind, they go, "Well. Can't have that. Let me just fix that real quick..."

[RSP]

On Divine Intervention:

Give the deity some credit:

IF the Cleric is levels 10-19, and the 'prayer' isn't answered, then you can rule that the deity wasn't going to bother paying attention to bfdhsfhfdshf!

If the Cleric is level 20, or the percent chance is rolled for 10 to 19, the deity goes, "Hmmm. What's going on with my servant down there? He doesn't normally speak gibberish." After the 30 Int, 30 Wisdom Deity assesses a feeblemind, they go, "Well. Can't have that. Let me just fix that real quick..."

A DM can certainly rule this way, but I don’t believe it’s the RAW. By using this thought process of the deity stepping in sans description of what’s wanted, why doesn’t said deity just do this if the Cleric dies, or is in some other bind. “He isn’t normally dead. Well, can’t have that.” “He’s in over his head in this encounter. Well, can’t have that.”

It’s changing the PC’s ability to be the Deity choosing to step in.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Why has the discussion gone from "do the rules of DND 5E allow this" to "ProsecutorGodot isn't interested in the fundamentals of OD&D and that's sad." exactly?

To be exact I was referencing AD&D, (1e)...not OD&D. 😀 More importantly, don't place too much importance on what anonymous posters think..especially me.

I think history and context are important. History and context may not trump the text itself, but I believe knowing both helps lead to better interpretations of text.

You don't feel that way..which again I find a bit disappointing...not sad.
There is certainly nothing untoward or inherently wrong with your holding a different view.

I generally think ahistorical viewpoints have too limited a scope...though I freely concede that is only my own personal perspective, and other need not feel as if they should be bound by my viewpoint, as I certainly don't feel others should be bound by my view.



It’s changing the PC’s ability to be the Deity choosing to step in.

The ability is Divine Intervention...the ability at it's essence is always about the Deity choosing to step in. The rolling of percentile dice is just a gamist element used to represent that divinities are busy, and rarely chose to intervene.

(It also is a nod to pages 111-112 of the 1e AD&D DMG, which discusses Divine Intervention)

The player makes the call to use the ability, because, (as we all know), the PC is a bit of imaginative fiction. A DM can decide that a player's decision to use the ability, automatically succeeds...no dice rolls required...just like any other roll in the game.

[RSP]

.
The ability is Divine Intervention...the ability at it's essence is always about the Deity choosing to step in. The rolling of percentile dice is just a gamist element used to represent that divinities are busy, and rarely chose to intervene.

(It also is a nod to pages 111-112 of the 1e AD&D DMG, which discusses Divine Intervention)

The player makes the call to use the ability, because, (as we all know), the PC is a bit of imaginative fiction. A DM can decide that a player's decision to use the ability, automatically succeeds...no dice rolls required...just like any other roll in the game.

If your point is the DM can make DM calls, I don’t think anyone is arguing against that.

If, however, you’re saying “don’t use the RAW” because the name of the ability makes you think it should work differently, well then, yes, I’ll arguing you’re trying to put your houserule in place of RAW.

The RAW states what it does, regardless of what you want it to do because of its name, the AD&D DMG, or whatever else.

[Angelalex242]

Divine Intervention is also on a weekly timer.

It takes 7 long rests for it to recharge.

If the Cleric feels the need to burn his once a 7 long rests charge of Divine Intervention on fixing his feeble mind, then let him.

"The Lord thy God decidethed it wasn't in His best interest to leave you with your ID 10 T error, so he's gonna fix that for you."

[Valmark]

A DM can certainly rule this way, but I don’t believe it’s the RAW. By using this thought process of the deity stepping in sans description of what’s wanted, why doesn’t said deity just do this if the Cleric dies, or is in some other bind. “He isn’t normally dead. Well, can’t have that.” “He’s in over his head in this encounter. Well, can’t have that.”

It’s changing the PC’s ability to be the Deity choosing to step in.

You seem to be under the impression (correct it if I'm wrong) that Divine Intervention has some hard rule on how the assistance is given. It doesn't- absolutely none at all.

Even if the player was capable of describing it well the god could still do something that isn't what the cleric wants.

For those examples there is a rather obvious explanation- the cleric isn't using a Divine Intervention.

[Avonar]

In the interests of getting things back on topic...

I wouldn't allow Cleansing Touch to fix Feeblemind. Cleansing Touch allows you to end a spell on a willing creature yes, but I don't read Feeblemind as an ongoing spell. It's not a curse or enchantment or anything like that, it's a quick magical attack that breaks a creature's mind. The save every 30 days is to see if they manage to start regaining it, for their mind to fix the damage done, not to break out of the grip of the spell.

It's damage to the mind rather than the body. Cleansing Touch can't fix damage done by a fireball to the body, so it can't fix damage done to the mind by Feeblemind.

That said I have only ever employed Feeblemind once as a DM, knowingly done with a side quest to fix the PC in mind. It's not something I would do to unless I had an idea for them to deal with it. (Or unless they can just fix it themselves with Greater Restoration).

[RSP]

You seem to be under the impression (correct it if I'm wrong) that Divine Intervention has some hard rule on how the assistance is given. It doesn't- absolutely none at all.

Even if the player was capable of describing it well the god could still do something that isn't what the cleric wants.

For those examples there is a rather obvious explanation- the cleric isn't using a Divine Intervention.

No, assistance is up to the DM. What I’m backing is the RAW of needing to describe the assistance desired. You seem to be saying that’s not needed, just some sort of attempt to describe is required. My point is: that’s not the RAW.

In my opinion, once you start going down the road of “well let’s get rid of the describing part because the deity will want to intervene on their cleric’s behalf” you change the ability from “Cleric requests —>god responds” to “cleric in trouble—>god responds.”

Again, DMs will obviously rule as they like, but that’s not what my point is. My point is affirming the RAW.

[Valmark]

No, assistance is up to the DM. What I’m backing is the RAW of needing to describe the assistance desired. You seem to be saying that’s not needed, just some sort of attempt to describe is required. My point is: that’s not the RAW.

In my opinion, once you start going down the road of “well let’s get rid of the describing part because the deity will want to intervene on their cleric’s behalf” you change the ability from “Cleric requests —>god responds” to “cleric in trouble—>god responds.”

Again, DMs will obviously rule as they like, but that’s not what my point is. My point is affirming the RAW.

No- nobody ever said that it isn't needed (at least none that I can see), just that it doesn't have to be clearly stated. Nothing in the book says that, so it's left up to a DM's ruling. You're adding words by needing it to be well-stated and understandable (note: a perfectly fair reading, but not one required by the text).

And of course since you need to actively call your god and describe what you need you can't really change the ability that way (well, without actively rewriting the feature).

[RSP]

No- nobody ever said that it isn't needed (at least none that I can see), just that it doesn't have to be clearly stated. Nothing in the book says that, so it's left up to a DM's ruling. You're adding words by needing it to be well-stated and understandable (note: a perfectly fair reading, but not one required by the text).

And of course since you need to actively call your god and describe what you need you can't really change the ability that way (well, without actively rewriting the feature).

The RAW absolutely says you “Describe the assistance you seek.” Speaking jibberish is not a description of the assistance you seek. You’re saying an attempt to describe is enough, but that’s not what it says.

Let’s go back to your previous example:


No? I never said it's not. What I said is that a cleric can try to communicate and just go "blbl" (or some other form of gibberish)- they are explaining what they want, it's just incomprehensible and the god will act accordingly…

…For all the spell cares you could go "Aunt the bam sword omelette" trying to say "Help me I'm drowning"- it's still unintelligible, even if it has actual words.
Or rather, I think it's unintelligible- I have no idea how one could get to the second sentence from the first one, could be wrong though.

What you state here is that the description of the assistance the Cleric seeks is “Help me I’m drowning.” If they say that, they have fulfilled that part of the ability’s requirement.

However, they didn’t state that. They stated “Aunt the bam sword omelette.” “Aunt the bam sword omelette” is in no way a description of the assistance sought. Saying it is, is just false (side note: a 1 Int creature under Feeblemind probably can’t even form words so this isn’t an example of that.)

[Valmark]

The RAW absolutely says you “Describe the assistance you seek.” Speaking jibberish is not a description of the assistance you seek. You’re saying an attempt to describe is enough, but that’s not what it says.

Let’s go back to your previous example:

What you state here is that the description of the assistance the Cleric seeks is “Help me I’m drowning.” If they say that, they have fulfilled that part of the ability’s requirement.

However, they didn’t state that. They stated “Aunt the bam sword omelette.” “Aunt the bam sword omelette” is in no way a description of the assistance sought. Saying it is, is just false (side note: a 1 Int creature under Feeblemind probably can’t even form words so this isn’t an example of that.)

Like I said what the RAW doesn't say is "Describe the assistance you seek clearly" or some other variation of that, which you seem to be insisting is the text but it really isn't.

And again I didn't say that attempting to describe something is enough- I said that describing it in an incomprehensible way it's still describing it. The fact that we (in case we were the non-Feebleminded characters) don't understand it doesn't mean they aren't describing it (last time I explain it- there isn't much of a point in restating the same thing over and over).

[RSP]

Like I said what the RAW doesn't say is "Describe the assistance you seek clearly" or some other variation of that, which you seem to be insisting is the text but it really isn't.

And again I didn't say that attempting to describe something is enough- I said that describing it in an incomprehensible way it's still describing it. The fact that we (in case we were the non-Feebleminded characters) don't understand it doesn't mean they aren't describing it (last time I explain it- there isn't much of a point in restating the same thing over and over).

“Describe the assistance you seek” has a meaning. Not describing the assistance you seek does not fulfill the meaning of that phrase. The RAW doesn’t have to say “clearly” because the phrase itself already is defined as such.

Speaking gibberish is not “describe the assistance you seek.” It may be an attempt to describe the assistance you seek, but, as you’ve pointed out, the RAW doesn’t say “attempt” it says to do it.

If you can’t do it, than you haven’t fulfilled that condition of activating the ability.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: can we get back on topic, please? If you want to discuss Divine Intervention, please start a new thread.

[Askeladd]

I don't think a Feebleminded Paladin would be smart enough to remember they can cure themselves.

Same way that a Feebleminded Cleric wouldn't remember they can attempt Divine Intervention.

except medicine is based off of wisdom and not intelligence.
intelligence doesnt dictate instinct and self perservation, and situational awareness. even perception is a wisdom stat.
feeble mind reduces charisma and int to 1 but wisdom stays in tact. so if its 12 its still 12.

cleansing touch and lay on hands arent spells. spells must be cast, by preparing them, saying the right thing and making the right hand gestures and using the right materials.
cleansing touch and lay on hands though work purely on willingness to heal and cleanse and then touching the person.
many animals tends to their wounds and have 1 intelligence, a paladin would do the same.


In the interests of getting things back on topic...

I wouldn't allow Cleansing Touch to fix Feeblemind. Cleansing Touch allows you to end a spell on a willing creature yes, but I don't read Feeblemind as an ongoing spell. It's not a curse or enchantment or anything like that, it's a quick magical attack that breaks a creature's mind. The save every 30 days is to see if they manage to start regaining it, for their mind to fix the damage done, not to break out of the grip of the spell.

It's damage to the mind rather than the body. Cleansing Touch can't fix damage done by a fireball to the body, so it can't fix damage done to the mind by Feeblemind.

That said I have only ever employed Feeblemind once as a DM, knowingly done with a side quest to fix the PC in mind. It's not something I would do to unless I had an idea for them to deal with it. (Or unless they can just fix it themselves with Greater Restoration).

but ability damage never actually stays "permanently" in the rules except for when this spell hits. thus there is still a magic spell at play. you "repeat" the save every 30 days "against the spell. and when it passes it "ends the spell".
there is no fireball spell that says "your max hp and con is reduced to 1 and cant go any higher until the spell ends after 30 days if you pass a con save. if not then it continues another 30 days." so its not the same in any way.
it literally says that the save is for the spell, and that the spell ends. if we are to assume that is incorrect, we are taking a larger leap of faith in saying that the text was wrong on multiple places (3) stating its still in ongoing, but it was not wrong in one place (duration).
to sumerise, we agree that the spell has errors, either it has 3 errors. or it has just 1.

cleansing touch was intentially made for ending spells like this one. so if we must rewrite the rules ourselves due to intention, then thats all i would have to say to that.

[Avonar]

but ability damage never actually stays "permanently" in the rules except for when this spell hits. thus there is still a magic spell at play. you "repeat" the save every 30 days "against the spell. and when it passes it "ends the spell".
there is no fireball spell that says "your max hp and con is reduced to 1 and cant go any higher until the spell ends after 30 days if you pass a con save. if not then it continues another 30 days." so its not the same in any way.
it literally says that the save is for the spell, and that the spell ends. if we are to assume that is incorrect, we are taking a larger leap of faith in saying that the text was wrong on multiple places (3) stating its still in ongoing, but it was not wrong in one place (duration).
to sumerise, we agree that the spell has errors, either it has 3 errors. or it has just 1.

cleansing touch was intentially made for ending spells like this one. so if we must rewrite the rules ourselves due to intention, then thats all i would have to say to that.

See, I read it differently. From my interpretation, the only issue here is that it says on a succesful save, the spell ends rather than spell effect ends. But that might just be because this is a bit of a unique one. If Cleansing Touch works, so should things like Dispel Magic, and then I think that Feeblemind has lost the thing that makes it the most interesting.

Also, see this: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/30/can-paladins-cleansing-touch-end-feeblemind/

I know people put varying levels of stock in things like this, but in this case I agree.

[Angelalex242]

That would only be 'as intended.'

Which is clearly not 'as written.'

[Valmark]

if we are to assume that is incorrect, we are taking a larger leap of faith in saying that the text was wrong on multiple places (3) stating its still in ongoing, but it was not wrong in one place (duration).
to sumerise, we agree that the spell has errors, either it has 3 errors. or it has just 1.

cleansing touch was intentially made for ending spells like this one. so if we must rewrite the rules ourselves due to intention, then thats all i would have to say to that.

But wouldn't the largest leap of faith be to ignore any hint at the intent behind the spell? There's two tweets and a SAC ruling that make Feeblemind not healable by Cleansing Touch. Nothing the other way around. So it would be more natural to consider the three errors as actual errors and not the one in the duration.

Like Avonar said there's also the thing that if Cleansing Touch works then Dispel Magic does too. Which could make sense but I've yet to hear anybody address this- only thing that was said was that Dispel Magic doesn't require willingness and isn't meant to be restorative which... Has nothing to do with the question.

[Askeladd]

See, I read it differently. From my interpretation, the only issue here is that it says on a succesful save, the spell ends rather than spell effect ends. But that might just be because this is a bit of a unique one. If Cleansing Touch works, so should things like Dispel Magic, and then I think that Feeblemind has lost the thing that makes it the most interesting.

Also, see this: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/30/can-paladins-cleansing-touch-end-feeblemind/

I know people put varying levels of stock in things like this, but in this case I agree.
i dont think it would lose anything. someone who casts it would cast it on the people who can dispell it in the first place.. no one can dispel magic themselves with feeble mind on them. and only paladin would be able to cleanse off themselves, if they havent used cleansing touch that day (as the uses would drop down to 1 due to charisma) and would take an entire action anyways.

as for the sage advice it says "can be ended" so even the sage is saying its not instantaneous. again this would fall into the realm of "intent vs wording" and even for that cleansing touch has a verry definitive intent which is to cleanse debilitating magical spells.



But wouldn't the largest leap of faith be to ignore any hint at the intent behind the spell? There's two tweets and a SAC ruling that make Feeblemind not healable by Cleansing Touch. Nothing the other way around. So it would be more natural to consider the three errors as actual errors and not the one in the duration.

Like Avonar said there's also the thing that if Cleansing Touch works then Dispel Magic does too. Which could make sense but I've yet to hear anybody address this- only thing that was said was that Dispel Magic doesn't require willingness and isn't meant to be restorative which... Has nothing to do with the question.

i dont think its a larger leap of faith, since its verry much like ignoring the intent behind the ability cleansing touch. so if we were to ignore wording for intent, then its kind of a double standard to ignore the intent of one ability, for the intent of another. the reason restoration and heal work in "ending the spell" is because they are meant to be restorative, exactly as cleansing touch is supposed to be. the wording also doesnt state "only these spells may end it" but rather says "may also be ended by" and lists spells that usually dont dispell, spells.

why should feeble mind get its own special treatment? i have only really seen a single tweet, which also reads " feeblemind can be ended" meaning that even the tweet implies that the spell is ongoing nowhere in that tweet does it explain the duration, if so wouldnt he mean "it can be healed" . i can only imagine that the sage was confused and mistaken in both making the spell, and writing that tweet.
no SAC ruling i have seen has mentioned that feeblemind is not healable by cleansing touch. like i said, as far as im concerned its only been the single conflicting tweet whose sage is no longer official anyways. course if you know of more sources id like to see them.

[Valmark]

as for the sage advice it says "can be ended" so even the sage is saying its not instantaneous. again this would fall into the realm of "intent vs wording" and even for that cleansing touch has a verry definitive intent which is to cleanse debilitating magical spells.

i dont think its a larger leap of faith, since its verry much like ignoring the intent behind the ability cleansing touch. so if we were to ignore wording for intent, then its kind of a double standard to ignore the intent of one ability, for the intent of another. the reason restoration and heal work in "ending the spell" is because they are meant to be restorative, exactly as cleansing touch is supposed to be. the wording also doesnt state "only these spells may end it" but rather says "may also be ended by" and lists spells that usually dont dispell, spells.

why should feeble mind get its own special treatment? i have only really seen a single tweet, which also reads " feeblemind can be ended" meaning that even the tweet implies that the spell is ongoing nowhere in that tweet does it explain the duration, if so wouldnt he mean "it can be healed" . i can only imagine that the sage was confused and mistaken in both making the spell, and writing that tweet.
no SAC ruling i have seen has mentioned that feeblemind is not healable by cleansing touch. like i said, as far as im concerned its only been the single conflicting tweet whose sage is no longer official anyways. course if you know of more sources id like to see them.

Again, the fact that it's meant to heal debilitating effects has no impact on the subject. You could use Cleansing Touch to remove a buff from an ally, so it's a moot point.

No, the reason for why Heal and Greater Restoration can heal Feeblemind is because they are specified in the text. The intent has nothing to do with it.

Ruling out Cleansing Touch does not defy any intent- it's meant to remove spells, and the point is that Feeblemind is already up as a spell.

The tweet says that Feeblemind can only be healed by the methods specified- at the same time the SAC says that any spell who's duration has finished cannot be removed by effects that target spells, like Dispel Magic and Cleansing Touch.

They were indeed mistaken in writing the spell, but if you take into account what has been said afterwards everything rules out the duration as an error.

[Askeladd]

Again, the fact that it's meant to heal debilitating effects has no impact on the subject. You could use Cleansing Touch to remove a buff from an ally, so it's a moot point.

No, the reason for why Heal and Greater Restoration can heal Feeblemind is because they are specified in the text. The intent has nothing to do with it.

Ruling out Cleansing Touch does not defy any intent- it's meant to remove spells, and the point is that Feeblemind is already up as a spell.

The tweet says that Feeblemind can only be healed by the methods specified- at the same time the SAC says that any spell who's duration has finished cannot be removed by effects that target spells, like Dispel Magic and Cleansing Touch.

They were indeed mistaken in writing the spell, but if you take into account what has been said afterwards everything rules out the duration as an error.

so we ignore intent altogether? either we ignore the intent of both spells and therefore ignore the tweet, or we take into consideration the intent of both spells.
i dont see why the need to nitpick one over the other.

if feeblemind is already up as a spell, why does it not reflect that in the wording? because it is not up as a spell. if not then the effects end instantaneously as well. there would be no save every 30 days because the spell already ended.

heal and greater restoration is specified in the text as additions,
no, the tweet reads, and i quote: "The intent is that feeblemind can be ended only by the methods specified in the spell"
key words are: "intent" and "ended"
it does not say "heal"

there is no SAC ruling against cleansing touch ending feeblemind. yes, instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled because the spell ends as soon as its cast, except this spell does not end when its cast, and you can tell because the wording explains as such, even the tweet explains as such. therefore it can be dispelled.

if you take into account the entire wording of the spell including the tweet, then there is no reason for cleansing touch to not end it.

[Valmark]

so we ignore intent altogether? either we ignore the intent of both spells and therefore ignore the tweet, or we take into consideration the intent of both spells.
i dont see why the need to nitpick one over the other.

if feeblemind is already up as a spell, why does it not reflect that in the wording? because it is not up as a spell. if not then the effects end instantaneously as well. there would be no save every 30 days because the spell already ended.

heal and greater restoration is specified in the text as additions,
no, the tweet reads, and i quote: "The intent is that feeblemind can be ended only by the methods specified in the spell"
key words are: "intent" and "ended"
it does not say "heal"

there is no SAC ruling against cleansing touch ending feeblemind. yes, instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled because the spell ends as soon as its cast, except this spell does not end when its cast, and you can tell because the wording explains as such, even the tweet explains as such. therefore it can be dispelled.

if you take into account the entire wording of the spell including the tweet, then there is no reason for cleansing touch to not end it.

Think I'll agree to disagree- if we can't even agree on what "can be ended only by the methods specified in the spell" means then it feels like there isn't much to discuss.

For whatever it's worth I wasn't nitpicking one over the other- I was discarding all of them. The tweets and the SAC only matter (and even then it's dubious) in terms of gauging wether the error is in the duration or in the text.

[Askeladd]

Think I'll agree to disagree- if we can't even agree on what "can be ended only by the methods specified in the spell" means then it feels like there isn't much to discuss.

For whatever it's worth I wasn't nitpicking one over the other- I was discarding all of them. The tweets and the SAC only matter (and even then it's dubious) in terms of gauging wether the error is in the duration or in the text.

i mean we can disagree, im just pointing out theres a double standard when you say intention doesnt matter, but then attempt to make an arguement for rules as intended rather than as written.

and yes, choosing what to discard,(much like you changed the context of the tweet itself. by saying "healed") by definition is nitpicking.
the single tweet does the same as the wording of the spell by presenting the spell as something that has not ended yet. and no SAC has ruled anything against cleansing touch dispelling feeble mind directly.
by raw it dispells it.
by rai it debatably does as well. if you ignore intention then you go by raw.

you seem to be discarding select things, and im taking everything into consideration. no, the only thing that matters is what the DM thinks. and they will base this off of things like this thread. and whoever they agree with.

[Avonar]

why should feeble mind get its own special treatment? i have only really seen a single tweet, which also reads " feeblemind can be ended" meaning that even the tweet implies that the spell is ongoing nowhere in that tweet does it explain the duration, if so wouldnt he mean "it can be healed" . i can only imagine that the sage was confused and mistaken in both making the spell, and writing that tweet.
no SAC ruling i have seen has mentioned that feeblemind is not healable by cleansing touch. like i said, as far as im concerned its only been the single conflicting tweet whose sage is no longer official anyways. course if you know of more sources id like to see them.

So dissecting the wording of a spell is one thing, dissecting the wording of a tweet is something else entirely. You claim that he was "confused and mistaken", when the far more likely scenario is that he knows exactly what he's talking about but didn't think to word it in super tight legalese.

If you want to make Feeblemind healable by Cleansing Touch in your game, do it. No one is stopping you. But it's not the intent.

[Askeladd]

So dissecting the wording of a spell is one thing, dissecting the wording of a tweet is something else entirely. You claim that he was "confused and mistaken", when the far more likely scenario is that he knows exactly what he's talking about but didn't think to word it in super tight legalese.

If you want to make Feeblemind healable by Cleansing Touch in your game, do it. No one is stopping you. But it's not the intent.

so intent does matter afterall?

let me get this straight.
you want me to take the tweet more seriously than the text on the spell.
but take the wording less seriously on the tweet than the spell.

i think this is probably exactly why crawfords tweets became unofficial either way.

so im sure you can rule it out of your game. but, that'd be a houserule since its not as its written, or intended.

[PhantomSoul]

so intent does matter afterall?

let me get this straight.
you want me to take the tweet more seriously than the text on the spell.
but take the wording less seriously on the tweet than the spell.

i think this is probably exactly why crawfords tweets became unofficial either way.

so im sure you can rule it out of your game. but, that'd be a houserule since its not as its written, or intended.

As they say, all rules are rulings! :)