"On a failed save, the creature’s Intelligence and Charisma scores become 1. The creature can’t cast spells, activate magic items, understand language, or communicate in any intelligible way. The creature can, however, identify its friends, follow them, and even protect them."
vs cleansing touch:
"Beginning at 14th level, you can use your action to end one spell on yourself or on one willing creature that you touch. You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Charisma modifier (a minimum of once). You regain expended uses when you finish a Long Rest."
Cleansing touch isn't a spell or magic item. It doesn't require any spoken language or communication - there's no activation word for instance. A creature under the effect of feeblemind can identify its friends, presumably they can identify themselves and can tell that something is wrong, even if they can't tell what. And a feebleminded creature can act to protect their friends, so it's safe to say that they can take actions, so long as those actions aren't casting spells or activating magic items. With a cha of 1 you have a big charisma penalty, but you can still use cleansing touch a minimum of once per day.
So from the rules text alone, yeah, it looks like a paladin under feeblemind can absolutely use cleansing touch to clear the effect.
However, a DM might house rule that an int 1 paladin isn't smart enough to even conceive of the idea that they could be under the effect of a spell in the first place, so they wouldn't be able to form the idea of trying to use cleansing touch on themselves. IMO this would be an unnecessary nerf to a high level class ability that already maybe isn't as strong and versatile as it should be. However, the DM is, as always, the final arbiter of the rules at your table, regardless of what's written in the books, so you should talk to them about how it will work in your game.
Incorrect. Feeblemind has a duration of instantaneous, the spell ends immediately after it is cast
This is true. To clarify and expand a bit.
The problem is that the spell itself says, "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." And, "The spell can also be ended by greater restoration, heal, or wish."
The spell is slightly odd in its wording; its similar to Leomund's Secret Chest. Apparently, at least according Crawford, the intent was that the spell would instantly end, but effect would be ongoing and could only be restored by those listed spells. You couldn't, for instance, use Dispel Magic, which Cleansing Touch is basically a variation of. Plus, spells that can be dispelled, like magic jar actually say "until dispelled."
Of course, Crawford is no longer official, but I think that, in this case, it makes sense for Feeblemind to not be dispelled so easily.
Incorrect. Feeblemind has a duration of instantaneous, the spell ends immediately after it is cast
This is true. To clarify and expand a bit.
The problem is that the spell itself says, "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." And, "The spell can also be ended by greater restoration, heal, or wish."
The wording and the concept is strange. They should have written "At the end of every 30 days, the creature can repeat its saving throw against the effects of this spell." Writing only "against this spell" implies that the magic of the spell is still active and thus liable to be dispelled or nullified via Cleansing Touch.
Okay, I think there is a fundamental misconception going on here. People are saying that the spell ends when it is cast because it has a duration of instantaneous, and that the spell is written badly and what is really meant is "the effects of the spell." There are two problems with this. Firstly, people are ignoring the plain meaning of the spell's text. If they wanted it to say "the spell's effects," they would have done so. The fact that they didn't, combined with the absence of Errata on this issue and a Sage Advice that made it into the compendium, very clearly demonstrates that they meant for the saving throw to be against the spell itself. Secondly, while there is a Sage Advice that says spells that have an instantaneous duration cannot be dispelled, because the effect is no longer magical, this exception clearly does not apply to Feeblemind. The example given in the Sage Advice is Animate Dead, which creates a zombie. A zombie is a creature statblock, not a magical construct. In this instance, the magic is gone because the spell has accomplished its job, creating the zombie. In the case of Feeblemind, the spell's job is not done, as it needs to keep the target's INT at 1 through repeated saves. This is supported through the Sage Advice itself, which reads:
For example, the instantaneous spell animate dead harnesses magical energy to turn a corpse or a pile of bones into an undead creature. That necromantic magic is present for an instant and is then gone. The resulting undead now exists without the magic’s help. Casting dispel magic on the creature can’t end its mockery of life, and the undead can wander into an antimagic field with no adverse effect.
Here, it is very clearly stated that the reason the spell cannot be dispelled is because the undead now exists without the magic's help. However, in the case of Feeblemind, one's INT does not stay at 1 without the help of the magic, as evidenced by the 30 day save to make "the spell end." The spell still holds sway over the person the entire time, regardless of the fact that the duration is instant. This is an example of a specific rule trumping a general rule, which is part of 5e's core design philosophy. The Sage Advice on this matter was intended to clear up the issue generally, not apply this rule regardless of all other considerations.
As for the argument that Feeblemind is only to be ended by the three things listed in its description, that argument also doesn't really hold up. The Crawford tweet that indicated this is no longer official, as it was excluded from the Compendium. Had they meant to fully instantiate that rule into 5e, they would have included it along with other official rulings. The fact that they did not is telling of its inaccuracy. Furthermore, the reason that Feeblemind lists those three things is because those spells, based only on their text, do not end Feeblemind. The effect of greater restoration is as follows:
You imbue a creature you touch with positive energy to undo a debilitating Effect. You can reduce the target's Exhaustion level by one, or end one of the following Effects on the target.
• One Effect reducing the target's hit point maximum
None of these listed effects end Feeblemind. Similarly, when one looks at Heal:
Choose a creature that you can see within range. A surge of positive energy washes through the creature, causing it to regain 70 Hit Points. The spell also ends blindness, deafness, and any Diseases affecting the target. This spell has no Effect on Constructs or Undead.
Nothing here ends Feeblemind either. Now, with Wish, the case is slightly more muddled. Wish is not included here because of its ability to just do anything. One of the listed effects of wish that the DM is not allowed to screw players over with is:
You allow up to twenty creatures that you can see to regain all Hit Points, and you end all Effects on them described in the Greater Restoration spell.
Thus, Wish can act analogously to Greater Restoration. However, the wording here does not indicate that Wish casts Greater Restoration, but that it ends the effects described in Greater Restoration. Because Feeblemind is not included in that list, rules as written, it would not end Feeblemind. However, in order to prevent that confusion, 5e includes Feeblemind in the Wish-Greater Restoration effect by listing Wish as able to end Feeblemind. This lack of Feeblemind coverage by the wording of these three spells is why they are included as ways to end the spell. The reason Cleansing Touch was not included in this list is because it already covers Feeblemind by ending any spell placed on someone. It would be redundant to give Cleansing Touch total coverage and include it in the Feeblemind spell, and would likely create confusion.
Now, one could argue that, in 5e, specific rules (like the Feeblemind description) trump general rules (like Cleansing Touch) when there is a conflict between the two. However, if one looks carefully, there is no contradiction between the two rules. Feeblemind does not specify that the three listed spells are the only thing that ends Feeblemind, merely that they do. This is akin to the contract doctrine that, if one specifies certain authorized means of contract acceptance, they are not the only means allowed unless the contract specifically states such. There are also examples of this in 5e. For example, take the Nightwalker. If it kills you, no resurrection spell will work on you. The only way to be brought back to life is the Wish spell. To be specific, it reads:
A creature reduced to 0 hit points from damage dealt by the nightwalker dies and can't be revived by any means short of a wish spell.
Here, the rule clearly stipulates that there is only one acceptable means of resurrection, which is Wish. Feeblemind does not do this, indicating that the three spells listed are not meant to be exclusionary (once again, the Crawford tweet that states otherwise is not official and was not included in the Sage Advice Compendium) and rather are meant to be extensions of Greater Restoration, Heal, and Wish's powers.
Finally, for those saying that Feeblemind should not be able to be ended that easily, it seems clear that this is not the case. Cleansing Touch is a 14th level ability, meaning it comes only a level before a Wizard could pick up Feeblemind. Secondly, it is an entire action, meaning the high damage Paladin must give up a turn of attacking. Thirdly, it seems fairly clear, to me at least, that Cleansing Touch was likely designed with Feeblemind in mind. Feeblemind is incredibly damning to a Paladin, as it sets their CHA to 1, making their Channel Divinity pitiful and reducing the number of Cleansing Touches that they have to 1. Cleansing Touch thus provides a way for the Paladin to not be made utterly impotent against a Wizard by giving them an out from what is nearly a game-ending spell. This is hardly an "easy" end, nor is it one that strays too far from fundamental game balance to be acceptable.
Apologies for the long message, but I wanted to make it very clear why Cleansing Touch does indeed end Feeblemind.
This Sage Advice is no longer official. It does not appear in the Compendium, nor has it ever done so. That means this tweet is not part of the rules.
Crawford's tweet gives us the Rules As Intended. The tweet is from April 2017. The tweet where he announced that his comments are not official rulings anymore is January 2019.
Since Crawford is the principle rules designer for 5e, I would think his opinion is important in determining how this should be resolved. Until we have something better to go by i.e. rules clarification, this would be my answer.
your answer if you were dm. but as a raw and rules standpoint its just a homebrew rule and interpretation.
Actually the RAW is that Dispel Magic does not work on spells with a duration of Instantaneous.
Instantaneous Spells cannot be dispelled and the effect persists as non-magic alteration. The saving throw after X days, is the mind breaking through of the effect.
If this was intended to dispellable, the duration would be "until dispelled". The duration being Instantaneous is a deliberate choice.
Since this fits the language used, the RAW and has been clarified by the designers both as a Sage Advice tweet AND in the Compendium:
Can you use dispel magic on the creations of a spell like animate dead or affect those creations with antimagic field?
Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic. The magic flares for a split second and then vanishes. For example, the instantaneous spell animate dead harnesses magical energy to turn a corpse or a pile of bones into an undead creature. That necromantic magic is present for an instant and is then gone. The resulting undead now exists without the magic’s help. Casting dispel magic on the creature can’t end its mockery of life, and the undead can wander into an antimagic field with no adverse effect.
Another example: cure wounds instantaneously restores hit points to a creature. Because the spell’s duration is instantaneous, the restoration can’t be later dispelled. And you don’t suddenly lose hit points if you step into an antimagic field !
The rules and compendium are clear: you can dispel only when the duration is not Instantaneous. If a spell has duration of Instantaneous it cannot be dispelled or affected by Antimagic FIeld.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Feeblemind has fundamentally self-contradictory rules text that hasn't been errataed. Note that cleansing touch and dispel magic both work or neither do.
Your DM needs to select which rule is true and which is false:
True: Duration Instantaneous. False: the spell ends under the listed ways for it to end; the spell's effects end under those conditions, but the spell ended when it was cast. Result: cleansing touch does not work on Feeblemind.
False: Duration Instantaneous; it is Duration Permanent. True: The spell ends under the listed ways for it to end. Result: cleansing touch works on Feeblemind.
Right now the RAW says the spell ia instantaneous but ends later, under some conditions. That's by definition (of instantaneous) impossible, so at least one claim has to be invalidated to render the spell operable.
.And I would say Instantaneous wins out RAW, because it is explicitly a rule in the SAC that Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled, but I've yet to seen anyone quote a rule that states spells that have a end condition can always be dispelled no matter what.
Thus it stands to reason that RAW the instantaneous ruling would win out. The existence of a rule is more specific than a rule that isn't explicitly written.
Unless there actually is a rule like the above "spells that have a end condition can always be dispelled no matter what", in which case I probably should of skimmed the PHB magic rules before posting.
As for if the above makes sense in a like, verisimilitude sense? Uh, I guess you can say that the magic just did a instantaneous effect of destroying their brain and the saving throw is how long it takes the brain to naturally repair itself after the spell has been cast (or just cast a healing spell because who has time for natural healing)? That kind of works for me? I mean it's still a bit awkward cause the effect of going from very little intelligence straight to what it was before doesn't seem very natural, but there has to be some suspension of disbelief somewhere I guess.
Actually just checked the Feeblemind page and it seems someone has the same idea, link. Not going to quote it cause it's the same idea but it shows I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Not only does Instantaneous win out. But the Wording of Feeblemind wins out.
There is a concept that is actually supported through spells. Dispel magic does not work on anything. And any spell through specificity can dictate exactly what ends it. Which does not have to include Dispel Magic. Another example of this is Wall of Force, and there are other high level spells you will find as well thta function under this same restriction. It's not new and it is in the rules. The Spells themselves are listing their End Conditions that are more Specific than Dispel Magic which is more general. Just as it is with the many spells that say they can only be undone with something like Wish.
This means Cleansing Touch would not work on any of them should they even be targetable by it because they specifically leave Dispel Magic out of the ways they can be undone.
And the Argument that Greater Restoration Doesn't work is also faulty for the same reason. The Spell of Feeblemind is actually extending a new specific interaction for Greater Restoration through it's specificity. It does not have to be listed in Greater Restoration itself to work. It's an extension of the function of Greater Restoration to Restore a single Attribute to it's proper value. But even if that was not there. That would not stop it from working because Feeblemind states that it does and being more specific would be the prevailing rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello.
Can i take out Feeblemind debuff with Cleansing Touch?
Feeblemind:
"On a failed save, the creature’s Intelligence and Charisma scores become 1. The creature can’t cast spells, activate magic items, understand language, or communicate in any intelligible way. The creature can, however, identify its friends, follow them, and even protect them."
vs cleansing touch:
"Beginning at 14th level, you can use your action to end one spell on yourself or on one willing creature that you touch. You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Charisma modifier (a minimum of once). You regain expended uses when you finish a Long Rest."
Cleansing touch isn't a spell or magic item. It doesn't require any spoken language or communication - there's no activation word for instance. A creature under the effect of feeblemind can identify its friends, presumably they can identify themselves and can tell that something is wrong, even if they can't tell what. And a feebleminded creature can act to protect their friends, so it's safe to say that they can take actions, so long as those actions aren't casting spells or activating magic items. With a cha of 1 you have a big charisma penalty, but you can still use cleansing touch a minimum of once per day.
So from the rules text alone, yeah, it looks like a paladin under feeblemind can absolutely use cleansing touch to clear the effect.
However, a DM might house rule that an int 1 paladin isn't smart enough to even conceive of the idea that they could be under the effect of a spell in the first place, so they wouldn't be able to form the idea of trying to use cleansing touch on themselves. IMO this would be an unnecessary nerf to a high level class ability that already maybe isn't as strong and versatile as it should be. However, the DM is, as always, the final arbiter of the rules at your table, regardless of what's written in the books, so you should talk to them about how it will work in your game.
Incorrect. Feeblemind has a duration of instantaneous, the spell ends immediately after it is cast
This is true. To clarify and expand a bit.
The problem is that the spell itself says, "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." And, "The spell can also be ended by greater restoration, heal, or wish."
The spell is slightly odd in its wording; its similar to Leomund's Secret Chest. Apparently, at least according Crawford, the intent was that the spell would instantly end, but effect would be ongoing and could only be restored by those listed spells. You couldn't, for instance, use Dispel Magic, which Cleansing Touch is basically a variation of. Plus, spells that can be dispelled, like magic jar actually say "until dispelled."
Of course, Crawford is no longer official, but I think that, in this case, it makes sense for Feeblemind to not be dispelled so easily.
The wording and the concept is strange. They should have written "At the end of every 30 days, the creature can repeat its saving throw against the effects of this spell." Writing only "against this spell" implies that the magic of the spell is still active and thus liable to be dispelled or nullified via Cleansing Touch.
Okay, I think there is a fundamental misconception going on here. People are saying that the spell ends when it is cast because it has a duration of instantaneous, and that the spell is written badly and what is really meant is "the effects of the spell." There are two problems with this. Firstly, people are ignoring the plain meaning of the spell's text. If they wanted it to say "the spell's effects," they would have done so. The fact that they didn't, combined with the absence of Errata on this issue and a Sage Advice that made it into the compendium, very clearly demonstrates that they meant for the saving throw to be against the spell itself. Secondly, while there is a Sage Advice that says spells that have an instantaneous duration cannot be dispelled, because the effect is no longer magical, this exception clearly does not apply to Feeblemind. The example given in the Sage Advice is Animate Dead, which creates a zombie. A zombie is a creature statblock, not a magical construct. In this instance, the magic is gone because the spell has accomplished its job, creating the zombie. In the case of Feeblemind, the spell's job is not done, as it needs to keep the target's INT at 1 through repeated saves. This is supported through the Sage Advice itself, which reads:
For example, the instantaneous spell animate dead harnesses magical energy to turn a corpse or a pile of bones into an undead creature. That necromantic magic is present for an instant and is then gone. The resulting undead now exists without the magic’s help. Casting dispel magic on the creature can’t end its mockery of life, and the undead can wander into an antimagic field with no adverse effect.
Here, it is very clearly stated that the reason the spell cannot be dispelled is because the undead now exists without the magic's help. However, in the case of Feeblemind, one's INT does not stay at 1 without the help of the magic, as evidenced by the 30 day save to make "the spell end." The spell still holds sway over the person the entire time, regardless of the fact that the duration is instant. This is an example of a specific rule trumping a general rule, which is part of 5e's core design philosophy. The Sage Advice on this matter was intended to clear up the issue generally, not apply this rule regardless of all other considerations.
As for the argument that Feeblemind is only to be ended by the three things listed in its description, that argument also doesn't really hold up. The Crawford tweet that indicated this is no longer official, as it was excluded from the Compendium. Had they meant to fully instantiate that rule into 5e, they would have included it along with other official rulings. The fact that they did not is telling of its inaccuracy. Furthermore, the reason that Feeblemind lists those three things is because those spells, based only on their text, do not end Feeblemind. The effect of greater restoration is as follows:
You imbue a creature you touch with positive energy to undo a debilitating Effect. You can reduce the target's Exhaustion level by one, or end one of the following Effects on the target.
• One Effect that Charmed or Petrified the target
• One curse, including the target's Attunement to a Cursed magic item
• Any reduction to one of the target's Ability Scores
• One Effect reducing the target's hit point maximum
None of these listed effects end Feeblemind. Similarly, when one looks at Heal:
Choose a creature that you can see within range. A surge of positive energy washes through the creature, causing it to regain 70 Hit Points. The spell also ends blindness, deafness, and any Diseases affecting the target. This spell has no Effect on Constructs or Undead.
Nothing here ends Feeblemind either. Now, with Wish, the case is slightly more muddled. Wish is not included here because of its ability to just do anything. One of the listed effects of wish that the DM is not allowed to screw players over with is:
You allow up to twenty creatures that you can see to regain all Hit Points, and you end all Effects on them described in the Greater Restoration spell.
Thus, Wish can act analogously to Greater Restoration. However, the wording here does not indicate that Wish casts Greater Restoration, but that it ends the effects described in Greater Restoration. Because Feeblemind is not included in that list, rules as written, it would not end Feeblemind. However, in order to prevent that confusion, 5e includes Feeblemind in the Wish-Greater Restoration effect by listing Wish as able to end Feeblemind. This lack of Feeblemind coverage by the wording of these three spells is why they are included as ways to end the spell. The reason Cleansing Touch was not included in this list is because it already covers Feeblemind by ending any spell placed on someone. It would be redundant to give Cleansing Touch total coverage and include it in the Feeblemind spell, and would likely create confusion.
Now, one could argue that, in 5e, specific rules (like the Feeblemind description) trump general rules (like Cleansing Touch) when there is a conflict between the two. However, if one looks carefully, there is no contradiction between the two rules. Feeblemind does not specify that the three listed spells are the only thing that ends Feeblemind, merely that they do. This is akin to the contract doctrine that, if one specifies certain authorized means of contract acceptance, they are not the only means allowed unless the contract specifically states such. There are also examples of this in 5e. For example, take the Nightwalker. If it kills you, no resurrection spell will work on you. The only way to be brought back to life is the Wish spell. To be specific, it reads:
A creature reduced to 0 hit points from damage dealt by the nightwalker dies and can't be revived by any means short of a wish spell.
Here, the rule clearly stipulates that there is only one acceptable means of resurrection, which is Wish. Feeblemind does not do this, indicating that the three spells listed are not meant to be exclusionary (once again, the Crawford tweet that states otherwise is not official and was not included in the Sage Advice Compendium) and rather are meant to be extensions of Greater Restoration, Heal, and Wish's powers.
Finally, for those saying that Feeblemind should not be able to be ended that easily, it seems clear that this is not the case. Cleansing Touch is a 14th level ability, meaning it comes only a level before a Wizard could pick up Feeblemind. Secondly, it is an entire action, meaning the high damage Paladin must give up a turn of attacking. Thirdly, it seems fairly clear, to me at least, that Cleansing Touch was likely designed with Feeblemind in mind. Feeblemind is incredibly damning to a Paladin, as it sets their CHA to 1, making their Channel Divinity pitiful and reducing the number of Cleansing Touches that they have to 1. Cleansing Touch thus provides a way for the Paladin to not be made utterly impotent against a Wizard by giving them an out from what is nearly a game-ending spell. This is hardly an "easy" end, nor is it one that strays too far from fundamental game balance to be acceptable.
Apologies for the long message, but I wanted to make it very clear why Cleansing Touch does indeed end Feeblemind.
No, it can't remove it.
Can Paladin’s cleansing touch end feeblemind? | Sage Advice D&D
This Sage Advice is no longer official. It does not appear in the Compendium, nor has it ever done so. That means this tweet is not part of the rules.
Crawford's tweet gives us the Rules As Intended. The tweet is from April 2017. The tweet where he announced that his comments are not official rulings anymore is January 2019.
Since Crawford is the principle rules designer for 5e, I would think his opinion is important in determining how this should be resolved. Until we have something better to go by i.e. rules clarification, this would be my answer.
your answer if you were dm.
but as a raw and rules standpoint its just a homebrew rule and interpretation.
Actually the RAW is that Dispel Magic does not work on spells with a duration of Instantaneous.
Instantaneous Spells cannot be dispelled and the effect persists as non-magic alteration. The saving throw after X days, is the mind breaking through of the effect.
If this was intended to dispellable, the duration would be "until dispelled". The duration being Instantaneous is a deliberate choice.
Since this fits the language used, the RAW and has been clarified by the designers both as a Sage Advice tweet AND in the Compendium:
The rules and compendium are clear: you can dispel only when the duration is not Instantaneous. If a spell has duration of Instantaneous it cannot be dispelled or affected by Antimagic FIeld.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Feeblemind has fundamentally self-contradictory rules text that hasn't been errataed. Note that cleansing touch and dispel magic both work or neither do.
Your DM needs to select which rule is true and which is false:
True: Duration Instantaneous. False: the spell ends under the listed ways for it to end; the spell's effects end under those conditions, but the spell ended when it was cast. Result: cleansing touch does not work on Feeblemind.
False: Duration Instantaneous; it is Duration Permanent. True: The spell ends under the listed ways for it to end. Result: cleansing touch works on Feeblemind.
Right now the RAW says the spell ia instantaneous but ends later, under some conditions. That's by definition (of instantaneous) impossible, so at least one claim has to be invalidated to render the spell operable.
.And I would say Instantaneous wins out RAW, because it is explicitly a rule in the SAC that Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled, but I've yet to seen anyone quote a rule that states spells that have a end condition can always be dispelled no matter what.
Thus it stands to reason that RAW the instantaneous ruling would win out. The existence of a rule is more specific than a rule that isn't explicitly written.
Unless there actually is a rule like the above "spells that have a end condition can always be dispelled no matter what", in which case I probably should of skimmed the PHB magic rules before posting.
As for if the above makes sense in a like, verisimilitude sense? Uh, I guess you can say that the magic just did a instantaneous effect of destroying their brain and the saving throw is how long it takes the brain to naturally repair itself after the spell has been cast (or just cast a healing spell because who has time for natural healing)? That kind of works for me? I mean it's still a bit awkward cause the effect of going from very little intelligence straight to what it was before doesn't seem very natural, but there has to be some suspension of disbelief somewhere I guess.
Actually just checked the Feeblemind page and it seems someone has the same idea, link. Not going to quote it cause it's the same idea but it shows I'm not the only one who thinks this.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Not only does Instantaneous win out. But the Wording of Feeblemind wins out.
There is a concept that is actually supported through spells. Dispel magic does not work on anything. And any spell through specificity can dictate exactly what ends it. Which does not have to include Dispel Magic. Another example of this is Wall of Force, and there are other high level spells you will find as well thta function under this same restriction. It's not new and it is in the rules. The Spells themselves are listing their End Conditions that are more Specific than Dispel Magic which is more general. Just as it is with the many spells that say they can only be undone with something like Wish.
This means Cleansing Touch would not work on any of them should they even be targetable by it because they specifically leave Dispel Magic out of the ways they can be undone.
And the Argument that Greater Restoration Doesn't work is also faulty for the same reason. The Spell of Feeblemind is actually extending a new specific interaction for Greater Restoration through it's specificity. It does not have to be listed in Greater Restoration itself to work. It's an extension of the function of Greater Restoration to Restore a single Attribute to it's proper value. But even if that was not there. That would not stop it from working because Feeblemind states that it does and being more specific would be the prevailing rule.