Feeblemind and Spell-like abilities

[Lord Pendragon]

kreynolds: note that it does lump arcane casters and creatures with spell-like abilities into a single group when assigning that -4 to the saving throw, though. That might be taken to mean that the two groups also suffer equally in terms of being hindered by the intelligence drop. Then again, it might not.

I'd say it all comes down to how spell-like abilities work. If it's something like a wizard's spell, or a sorcerer's spell--as in something that requires concentration to activate--I'd say that it becomes un-functional. If it's instinctual, then I'd say it still works.

Spell-like abilities can be disrupted like spells, so they do require a certain amount of concentration to activate. This may indicate that they can't be activated by a creature that no longer knows how to concentrate on the ability.

 

[kreynolds]

Spell-like abilities can be disrupted like spells, so they do require a certain amount of concentration to activate. This may indicate that they can't be activated by a creature that no longer knows how to concentrate on the ability.

That's a good point. Hmmm...I think I'll sleep on that.

 

[gfunk]

I'll be damned...still no mention of spell-like abilities...

...did you actually have an argument here?

I'm afraid that you didn't read my post in its entirety. The last sentence of the Feeblemind spell (re-posted for your convenience) is:

"Creatures who can cast arcane spells, such as sorcerers or wizards, or use arcane like spell-effects suffer a -4 penalty to their saving throws."

Now, it just may be me, but why on God's green earth would a creature who can cast "arcane like spell-effects" (e.g. a Marilith) get a -4 to her save if she would not also lose the ability to cast said "arcane like spell-effects" if she fails her save?

 

[hong]

Now, it just may be me, but why on God's green earth would a creature who can cast "arcane like spell-effects" (e.g. a Marilith) get a -4 to her save if she would not also lose the ability to cast said "arcane like spell-effects" if she fails her save?

Because the spell doesn't say so.

Given that they've already explicitly made an allowance for spell-like abilities in the description, this says to me that the way it works now is how it's intended to work. If they'd wanted spell-like abilities to be negated just like actual spellcasting, the description would have said so. It's hard to argue that it's an oversight in moving from 2E to 3E, when the spell description has obviously been updated.

It would be reasonable to rule that SLAs are negated like spells, but that would quite obviously be a house rule.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I don't think it's a house rule so much as it is simple logic.

While it may take a reduction of Intelligence to 0 to put a character into a stupor, reducing Intelligence to 1 seems rather likely to rob the creature of the mental capacity required to activate a spell-like ability. As Lord Pendragon says, SLAs require Concentration and provoke AoOs like spells, which indicates that there is some exercise of will to them. I'm not willing to concede to hong on the exception issue; it's quite possible that the designers lumped together spells and SLAs for one purpose and omitted doing so for another inadvertently, rather than on purpose.

 

[hong]

I don't think it's a house rule so much as it is simple logic.

Thinking too hard about fantasy is bad, remember. And whether or not it's "logic", implementing something that directly contradicts the published spell description certainly counts as a house rule in my book.

While it may take a reduction of Intelligence to 0 to put a character into a stupor, reducing Intelligence to 1 seems rather likely to rob the creature of the mental capacity required to activate a spell-like ability. As Lord Pendragon says, SLAs require Concentration and provoke AoOs like spells, which indicates that there is some exercise of will to them.

Feeblemind doesn't destroy your will, it destroys your capacity to reason. Even lizards and other creatures with Int 1 have a will, as represented by their Wisdom and Charisma scores. I see no reason to suppose that feeblemind should do more than what the spell description says it does.

 

[ruleslawyer]

"Directly contradicts the published spell description"?

You're kidding, right?

"The creature is unable to cast spells, use Intelligence-based skills, or communicate coherently."

Implying a loss of the ability to use SLAs from the loss of abilities to cast spells, use Intelligence-based skills, and communicate coherently isn't exactly "directly contradict[ing] the spell description." It's a liberal interpretation of the spell effect, but not a contradictory one.

I'm not attempting to "think[] about fantasy too hard"; quite the opposite. I'm just applying a coherent explanation of the spell based on the above quote and on the fact that creatures with the ability to use SLAs are just as vulnerable to the spell as spellcasters for save purposes, which implies that the spell is meant to target those individuals as well. And yes, destroying the capacity of a creature to reason to the point of crippling that creature's ability even to communicate coherently would indicate to me that the creature also would be incapable of invoking its SLAs.

Would you rule that feeblemind didn't affect a psion's ability to manifest his powers (SLA)? A wizard's ability to cast spells prepared using the Innate Spell feat? Where do you stop with this one?

 

[Michael Tree]

"The creature is unable to cast spells, use Intelligence-based skills, or communicate coherently."

Implying a loss of the ability to use SLAs from the loss of abilities to cast spells, use Intelligence-based skills, and communicate coherently isn't exactly "directly contradict[ing] the spell description." It's a liberal interpretation of the spell effect, but not a contradictory one.

It's a house rule, ruleslawyer.

The rule does not in any way imply the loss of ability to use SLAs. It explicitly mentions that a feebleminded character loses the ability to cast spells, and explicitly does not mention that characters lose the ability to use SLAs.

The spell affects what it says it affects, and does not affect what it doesn't say it affects. Charm person doesn't imply that it also affects Monstrous Humanoids because it affects humanoids. They're two different types of things, just like spells and SLAs are. If the spell was supposed to affect SLAs, it would say that it affects SLAs. 3E is remarkably precise that way.

Now, making it affect SLA's is a reasonable house rule, especially since psionics are SLAs, but it *is* a house rule. By the rules as written, feeblemind does not inhibit the ability to use SLAs.

 

[CRGreathouse]

By the rules as written, feeblemind does not inhibit the ability to use SLAs.

Ah, but that's not what we're arguing. We're arguing if the creature could realize it has spell-like abilities, know how to use them and on whom, and concentrate on them.

 

[Voadam]

Well question #1 was asking whether it physically could use its SLAs. #2 is asking could it think to use them if it can use them, and #3 is what about its physical attacks.

It's interesting that the srd version doesn't even exclude sorcerers:

"The subject’s Intelligence score drops to 1. Still, the creature knows who its friends are and can follow them and even protect them. The creature remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effects. Creatures who can cast arcane spells or use arcane spell-like effects suffer a –4 penalty on their saving throws."

From this description only abilities requiring intelligence (like wizard and one type of psi power, but not sorcerer spells) are prohibited by feeblemind's one itelligence. Sorcerers being able to cast and SLAs being viable makes as much sense as clerics still being able to cast.

Since the PH text specifically mentions arcane spells but not divine spells or spell like abilities then I would say the latter two are not prohibited.

If they forgot to include them then they did not include them and changing the spell to match their intent is still changing the spell as written. A reasonable house rule but still a house rule.

As far as whether a 1 intelligence creature can use their abilities, I would say they could use anything not dependent rules wise on the intelligence stat. The concentration skill is constitution based anyway, not intelligence based so I don't see that as a rule basis for denying them the ability. They can recognize their friends, and protect them so I think they can use their abilities, they become animal intelligence, not amnesiac about their abilities and there are no rules (that I am aware of) prohibiting animal
intelligence characters from using their abilties

As for #3 if you are house ruling then only allow animal like natural weapon attacks and deny monks their improved unarmed attacks and all characters their weapons divine spells and spell like abilities. However, I don't think there is any effect under the rules as written except that you can not use things like the expertise feat which requires a minimum intelligence.