If that is what the results are, then that's what the results are, but I'm not saying that.

Are you trying to distance yourself from the consequences of your theorem? If only instantaneous spells of 5th level or lower can be reversed by break enchantment, as you claim, then it is an unavoidable corollary that no instantaneous spell above 5th level can be reversed by break enchantment. There's no "if" about it.

prospero63 said:

I explained how the spell works per the SRD citing the examples from the appropriate parts of the SRD.

And I used the more informative PHB to show that you have misinterpreted the SRD.

prospero63 said:

The SRD makes no reference to flesh to stone. The PHB may (and does) but the SRD does not:

That's why the PHB is a better source to rely on. It has more information about how the game is intended to work.

prospero said:

For that matter, the actual PHB says "Break enchantment can reverse even an instantaneous effect, such as flesh to stone". It doesn't say it can reverse flesh to stone, end of story (as you imply), rather is uses flesh to stone to illustrate an example of an instantaneous effect spell.

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating it directly: the spell description says break enchantment can reverse flesh to stone, among other instantaneous effects.

It does not use flesh to stone as an example of an instantaneous effect. It uses flesh to stone as an example of an instantaneous effect that can be reversed by break enchantment.

prospero said:

That's hardly "more reasonable", it's simply a more liberal interpretation that requires one insert language into the spell that doesn't exist.

On the contrary, it requires that one not ignore the language that does exist. The spell description doesn't simply say "cannot be dispelled," it says "cannot be dispelled by dispel magic." Since no instantaneous effect can be dispelled, period, without an explicit exception (such as that called out by break enchantment), the additional words "by dispel magic" must add some meaning to the text. Your interpretation would treat "by dispel magic" as a meaningless redundancy.

One of the fundamental tenets of statutory interpretation is that whenever possible, rules should be read so as to give meaning to all of the words used in them. My interpretation does so; yours does not. (Of course, the PHB authors are not legislators and we are not judges, but when debating what is "RAW," the goal is identical and the same principles can be applied to achieve consistent results.)

Now, I don't expect that anything I've said is going to change your mind about this, and that was never my purpose. I really just wanted to disprove your statement that Stonegod was "absolutely and unequivocally incorrect." And (since there's at least one other reasonable interpretation besides yours) I've done that, so unless anyone else cares to weigh in on the subject, this will be my last word on it. <tips hat>

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7prrWqKmlnF6kv6h706GpnpmUqHyjvsSaomadnpi1orrTppynrF2rwG61zayYp6GkrntzgJVsbWpn