Feeblemind and Spell-like abilities

[Michael Tree]

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.

There were some arguments about whether feeblemind render the target physically unable to use SLAs like it does spells.

I would say that the creature could realize that it has spell-like abilities, since most of them are either innate racial abilities, or class abilities that are trained to be instinctual and reflexive. Whether the creature would use them *well* is another question entirely. With an Int of 1, the creature wouldn't have the reasoning or planning ability to choose the best option for the circumstance, and will largely act out of instinct, doing whatever is most obvious at the time, regardless of how bad the eventual outcome is. Fireballing an enemy at point blank range is a good example.

Int doesn't have much to do with concentration, so I see no reason why a feebleminded creature wouldn't be able to concentrate.

 

[hong]

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 you are using that explanation to produce in-game effects that go beyond what the rules allow for, which is the exact problem with "thinking too hard". It's one thing to have a good handwave/rationale for exactly how magic functions in your world, or why dragons don't rule the world, or whatever. It's another thing to apply that handwave/rationale in a way that contradicts the ruleset. This can be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, depending on how consistent the ruleset is to begin with, but with 3E, I'm inclined to say it's usually (not always) a Bad Thing.

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.

Why?

Would you rule that feeblemind didn't affect a psion's ability to manifest his powers (SLA)?

As it turns out, yes, although as said before, he probably wouldn't use them to best effect. That's not to say that the opposite is unreasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that it would still be a _house rule_.

A wizard's ability to cast spells prepared using the Innate Spell feat? Where do you stop with this one?

An SLA is not a spell; it's that simple. If I was really worried about new additions to the game blurring the distinction between the two, I wouldn't allow these new additions in my campaign.

(As it happens I probably won't allow psis or the Innate Spell feat anyway, but that's for other, unrelated reasons.)

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Spell Like Ability (sp): A special ability with effects that resemble those of a spell. In most cases, read unless it explicitly says otherwise a spell like ability works just like read EXACTLY like the spell of the same name usually as if cast by a sor/wiz/cleric/druid of a given level.

The only real reason a given ability may be listed as spell like and not an actual spell is that some creatures do not have the "human like hands" needed to cast them - but still "use the abilties"

so yes - Spell like abilities are denied by a feebleminding and your marlith could NOT have teleported off.

Lord Pendragon et al -

Your point is good, but if you have a "spell like ability" that is "instinctual" or "natural for that monster" such as that of a basklisk's gaze - you have a supernatural ability or an Extraordinary ability- not a spell like one.

A monster extraordinary or supernatural ability is sometimes described in the MM in using a spell - see the description of the Bargest's alternate form and pass without trace "powers". for examples of this. I have not seen a spell like ability that HAS NOT been described in terms of a spell as yet... if you know of one please do show me. I am working on a section of ironic definitions.

Commence rant -----

This is just another reason that feeblemind - as a spell, is ABSOLUTELY BROKEN AND UNBALANCING.

1. it sets an ability score, something a spell is not supposed to do

2. it grants an "effective drop" to an ability score that in the case of most High level wizards is in excess of 20 points to a single ability score.

3. it retains a special "penalty to the save clause" that renders the spell nigh impossible to avoid.

4. It dictates the EXACT means of POSSIBLY undoing the effect

5. The spell duration is "instantaneous" - yet the magic "compels" the character to have and act in a fashion consistent with an intelligence of 1.

6. the spell could be encountered as early as 9th character level - but DEMANDS a spell to undo its effects that cannot be cast by a character who is not AT LEAST 11th level.

7. Creatures with intelligence scores of less than three are not viable player characters - meaning that such creatures actions are determined exclusively by instinctual thought patterns, and that if I use this spell against a PC, I have to run your character for you.

8. A spell of similar level - to wit mind fog - cannot do NEARLY as much damage as this nightmare of a spell.

and that is only the beginning.....

- end rant -

 

[Number47]

Tricky situation. I would treat the creature as having all the abilities, but not necessarily reasoning them well. Consider the creature to only consider the last few seconds in deciding what to do, and not consider what will happen as a result of its actions.

This spell is very awful bad for gnomes. Virtually all gnomes have spell-like abilities, no matter what class, so you don't have to wait for them to try to cast a spell to hit them with it. -4 to save, guys.

 

[hong]

The only real reason a given ability may be listed as spell like and not an actual spell is that some creatures do not have the "human like hands" needed to cast them - but still "use the abilties"

SLAs also don't need to be prepared, cannot be metamagicked, and don't need V, S, M or F components. Some are also usable at will, every round.

so yes - Spell like abilities are denied by a feebleminding and your marlith could NOT have teleported off.

Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't what's in the PHB or SRD.

Your point is good, but if you have a "spell like ability" that is "instinctual" or "natural for that monster" such as that of a basklisk's gaze - you have a supernatural ability or an Extraordinary ability- not a spell like one.

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

hong -

your additions about sla's are noted - they don't need components, can't be metamagicked, and some are "at will"

as far as exact evidence of the previous point -

See MM description of Basklisk skill for My previous example concerning "extrordinary" or "supernatual" abilities.


The line that "kills" this is simple:

The Creature is unable to cast spells, use intelligence-based skills, or communicate coherently.

While concentration is in and of itself not an intelligence based score - you have to have enough intelligence to KNOW to concentrate, which you don't have at a score of 1.

It would also seem to Me that "SLA's are "cast" or in the case of psionic abilities "manifest" - but that a monster can use them despite the lack of V,S,M,F,DF or "human like hands" - sometimes even at will, and without preparation.

 

[hong]

as far as exact evidence of the previous point -

See MM description of Basklisk skill for My previous example concerning "extrordinary" or "supernatual" abilities.

That's _your_ interpretation of what Ex and Su abilities are, and frankly, I think it's a silly one. The distinction between different types of special abilities is there basically to allow different activation mechanics, and counters to them -- antimagic works on Sp and Su, but not on Ex; you get AoOs against Sp but not Su; and so on. There's nothing in the rules that specifies exactly how these special abilities are gained, or what justifies their presence in any particular creature.

In fact, in many creatures (if not most), it makes perfect sense to think of Sp abilities as being innate. A marilith doesn't have to learn to teleport or throw unholy blights; it's a part of its demonic essence. A gnome doesn't have to learn how to speak with burrowing animals either; it's part of being a gnome. Having your Int reduced to 1 doesn't have any effect on your innate essence, and so should not impact Sp abilities.

The line that "kills" this is simple:

The Creature is unable to cast spells, use intelligence-based skills, or communicate coherently.

While concentration is in and of itself not an intelligence based score - you have to have enough intelligence to KNOW to concentrate, which you don't have at a score of 1.

Chapter and verse, please.

It would also seem to Me that "SLA's are "cast" or in the case of psionic abilities "manifest" - but that a monster can use them despite the lack of V,S,M,F,DF or "human like hands" - sometimes even at will, and without preparation.

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Extraordinary Ability(Ex): a nonmagical special ability as opposed to a spell like or supernatural ability

natural ability: a non-magical ability

supernatural Ability(Su): A "magical power" that produces a particular effect, as opposed to a natural, extraordinary, or spell like ability. Using a supernatural ability does not necessarily provoke an AoO. Supernatural abilities are not subject to dispelling, disruption or SR, but do not function in AMF or similar areas.

spell: A one time magical effect. The primary categories are arcane and divine.

Now... given that you have to swallow the definition of spell:


Note on definition of spell - it does NOT say that the only categories of spell are arcane and divine.

Psionic "manifestations" are therefore also be considered spells in the strictest sense of the word.

"one time magical effects" - useable at will or otherwise - are considered "spells".

If the ability is both supernatural and CONTINUOUS - different matter, but we are concerned about wether or not something can ... teleport? - yes?





now.... with feeblemind...
the creature can't cast spells

Using the law of identity
The creature can't cast one time magical effects

Now - I would say that this "ability" to teleport is a one time magical effect, and therefore not allowed... but - since you want exact chapter and verse...

Marilith's SLA's:
at will - (several powers listed) THESE ABILITIES ARE AS THE SPELL CAST BY A !3TH LEVEL SORCERER.

Feeblemind:
The creature can't cast spells.

Any questions?

Note - you will find the "as the spell cast by" wording on nearly all SLA's - matter of fact... I don't know of one that you won't find it on.... kinda need it that way to BE a SLA.


By the way hong - if you want to attack the definitions and change them - you can't - if you do, you are breaking the defined game terms... and in breach of D20 license

 

[hong]

supernatural Ability(Su): A "magical power" that produces a particular effect, as opposed to a natural, extraordinary, or spell like ability. Using a supernatural ability does not necessarily provoke an AoO. Supernatural abilities are not subject to dispelling, disruption or SR, but do not function in AMF or similar areas.

spell: A one time magical effect. The primary categories are arcane and divine.

Uhm.... so?

Now... given that you have to swallow the definition of spell:


Note on definition of spell - it does NOT say that the only categories of spell are arcane and divine.

Psionic "manifestations" are therefore also be considered spells in the strictest sense of the word.

Great, except that they're explicitly defined as _spell-like_ abilities.

"one time magical effects" - useable at will or otherwise - are considered "spells".

Even if they're not. Right.

If the ability is both supernatural and CONTINUOUS - different matter, but we are concerned about wether or not something can ... teleport? - yes?

The point of "one time magical effect" is that _casting_ a spell is a one time effect. A spell is cast, and produces an effect, which may then be instantaneous or continuing. Other than that, I'm not sure why you're bothering to post all these superfluous definitions.

Just because spells are one-time magical effects doesn't rule out other special abilities also being one-time magical effects; in fact, given that spell-like abilities are defined to mimc spells (hence the name, duh) it's quite clear that spells are not the only possible "one-time magical effects". I suppose things like energy drain, ability drain and other such instantaneous supernatural abilities would also count as "spells" by your definition, but hey, if you want to dig yourself a deeper hole, that's your prerogative.

Now - I would say that this "ability" to teleport is a one time magical effect, and therefore not allowed... but - since you want exact chapter and verse...

Marilith's SLA's:
at will - (several powers listed) THESE ABILITIES ARE AS THE SPELL CAST BY A !3TH LEVEL SORCERER.

Exactly. They're spell-like abilities that have effects that emulate certain spells. This doesn't change the fact that they're _defined_ as spell-like abilities, not spells.

Feeblemind:
The creature can't cast spells.

Any questions?

Yes. Did you think all this up on your own, or were pharmaceuticals involved?

Note - you will find the "as the spell cast by" wording on nearly all SLA's - matter of fact... I don't know of one that you won't find it on.... kinda need it that way to BE a SLA.

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this demonstration of non-Euclidean logic, except to say that you really need to stop looking through those ancient texts with skulls and human skin bindings. So far, you've done nothing except quote a bunch of irrelevant stuff from the PHB glossary, which doesn't support any ludicrous notion of spells and spell-like abilities being identical.

By the way hong - if you want to attack the definitions and change them - you can't - if you do, you are breaking the defined game terms... and in breach of D20 license

Please stop. You're making my head hurt, and then _I'll_ need pharmaceuticals. Believe me, you don't want that.

 

[kreynolds]

By the way hong - if you want to attack the definitions and change them - you can't - if you do, you are breaking the defined game terms... and in breach of D20 license

Say what!?! I'm confused as to what the hell the point of that statement is.