-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Feeblemind and Spell-like abilities
- Thread starter android
- Start date
Shard O'Glase
First Post
I'm going to say it doesn't effect spell like abilities for two reasons, it isn't specifically mentioned, and I just don't want powerful creatures crippled that easily.
But there is a strong argument for it effecting spell like abilities as well as spells. SP are defined as generally working just like spells. They are not defnined as working just like the spell except when we don't want them to be like spells. So if feeblemind effects spells it makes sense for it to effects things that work just like spells. There can be lots of reasons why they didn't specifically mention SP, it could be because they didn't want them to be effected, or it could be because they assumed we knew SP were just like spells so there was no need to specifically mention them more than once.
But there is a strong argument for it effecting spell like abilities as well as spells. SP are defined as generally working just like spells. They are not defnined as working just like the spell except when we don't want them to be like spells. So if feeblemind effects spells it makes sense for it to effects things that work just like spells. There can be lots of reasons why they didn't specifically mention SP, it could be because they didn't want them to be effected, or it could be because they assumed we knew SP were just like spells so there was no need to specifically mention them more than once.
kreynolds
First Post
Shard O'Glase said:
I agree. The problem you would run into by allowing Feeblemind to affect spell-like abilities is that the creature's CR would need to be dropped by 2 to 4 points, IMO, as you are taking away a very influential aspect of the creaure's CR, and you're doing it with only a 5th level spell.
Last edited:
Magus_Jerel
First Post
But there is a strong argument for it effecting spell like abilities as well as spells. SP are defined as generally working just like spells. They are not defnined as working just like the spell except when we don't want them to be like spells. So if feeblemind effects spells it makes sense for it to effects things that work just like spells. There can be lots of reasons why they didn't specifically mention SP, it could be because they didn't want them to be effected, or it could be because they assumed we knew SP were just like spells so there was no need to specifically mention them more than once.
- I was wondering when someone would say this.
If you read thru any of the arguments for treating "spell-like" abilities in their own category - they basically rely upon the sentence highlighted in bold. Since PC's never get SLA's - it cries out "killer GM" in that the GM is not operating under the same rules as the players.
The primary reason for the existence of spell-like abilities is that not every creature need "cast" spells like a humanoid - let alone a PC. These powers are each explicitly defined - and factored into the creature's CR.
SLA's are designed to allow the GM to do several things:
First, the GM can have the creature use its abilities without having to figure out what spells it has "prepared" or "memorized" or "learned" in the fashion of a PC. This allows the GM to play a monster with much more ease by simplifying life for the GM.
Second, the GM can design and use creatures with SLA's and not have to worry about things like V, S, F, DF or M components to spells. The creature simply activates its power, much as a wizard simply "casts" a spell.
Third, It provides the GM with an easy way to define how a creature's powers work - without adding another set of things to worry about. If the power works "just like something else" - then you can easily determine what it can and can't do.
Fourth, it lets the player fighting the given monster that the creature can do AB and C and not necessarily XY and Z - providing consistency.
However, there is something that SLA's were NOT designed to do. They were not designed as a way for the GM to create a category of things where the GM can use things that are identical in effect of "spells" against a party - and not treat them as spells.
If you don't want feeblemind "shutting down a powerful monster that easily" - then CHANGE FEEBLEMIND - not how every spell like ability in the game works. Start thinking about the consequences of that decision - and then let me show you something.
hold person
hold monster
silence
Dispel Magic
Spell Turning
Mordenkainen's Disjunction
Does an SLA work even if I put the monster under a hold monster? Even if it can't make a sound? Can I use dispel magic to counterspell it's "ability"? Can I use spell turning to try and give the monster a taste of its own medicine? Can I use Disjunction to end the effect? - and this is just the tip of the iceberg of ruling that feeblemind shuts down spells, but not something that is a SLA. To those of you who are even arguing that SLA's aren't shut down "just like spells" - do you realize the logical implications of what you are saying? If something walks like a duck, looks like a duck, acts like a duck, flies like a duck, and sounds like a duck... are you going to call it a llamasu? (well... you might call it a llamasu polymorphed into a duck... but...)
If something looks like a spell, acts like a spell, does things just like a spell, and hurts or helps creatures like a spell - are you going to treat it as a spell? - Consistency and fairness in being referee requires that you do so - does it not?
--------------
Evidently, there are those people who can't seem to get the principles of logical thought, and there are definitely those who want to ignore the rules and the nature of how people think when it comes to the way they decide things are going to be. While it is the GM's perrogative to change the rules, those changes MUST be made consistently. WOTC has set certain game terms in stone - SLA's are one of those things. To change those game terms, is to cease playing the game - plain and simple.
There is NO logical argument for stating that a SLA would be useable by a creature that was under the effects of a feeblemind spell. Sure, there is the argument that we don't WANT a spell doing this to a monster, for the sake of game balance - but think about the following for a moment.
These same individuals, if feeblemind were not published in their holy grail called the PHB, would call the spell unbanced for this reason - among many others. They would then change the SPELL - not the GAME - to balance things. The problem, is something called dogmatism. People like a well defined set of rules for life - let alone playing a game. Things that seem to point out contradictions in their book make them upset.
Fortunately for them, there IS "chapter and verse" about what to do if an apparent conflict in the rules arises. I edit the words somewhat, as I remove them from their context. My edits to their holy writ are italicized.
pg 9 DMG
First, Look to any similar situation that IS covered in a rulebook. Then, try and to extrapolate what you see presented there and apply it to the given circumstance.
If this fails and you have to make something up, stick with it for the rest of the campaign. Consistency keeps players satisfied and gives them the feeling that they adventure in a stable, predictable universe and not in some random, nonsensical place subject only to the DM's whims.
The major problem I see here, is that people don't want to treat SLA's as "like spells" because they don't want the bad guy being beaten THAT easily - and it really bugs the **** out of Me. Because they don't like the first part... they are letting their whim "I don't want to lose tis bad guy that fast." override their mind.
Logic people... simple questions.
Is what happens to a creature's ability to use an SLA under feeblemind spelled out? No.
Is there a similar situation that IS covered. yes.
SLA's are by definition like spells.
Creatures under the effects of feeblemind cannot cast spells.
Therefore, it would seem to follow that creatures cannot use SLA's when subjected to feeblemind.
If that shouldn't be for the sake of game balance fine. Matter of fact, I agree with the sentiment. But, we are discussing what IS the rule, not what should be the rule. What is "wrong" if this clear fact is unbalancing is not the rules concerning SLA's - but the SPELL.
People are inclined to say logic is wrong because they don't want their precious little book to have printed a *gasp* unbalancing spell. LOSE THE BRAINWASHING AND THINK.
- I was wondering when someone would say this.
If you read thru any of the arguments for treating "spell-like" abilities in their own category - they basically rely upon the sentence highlighted in bold. Since PC's never get SLA's - it cries out "killer GM" in that the GM is not operating under the same rules as the players.
The primary reason for the existence of spell-like abilities is that not every creature need "cast" spells like a humanoid - let alone a PC. These powers are each explicitly defined - and factored into the creature's CR.
SLA's are designed to allow the GM to do several things:
First, the GM can have the creature use its abilities without having to figure out what spells it has "prepared" or "memorized" or "learned" in the fashion of a PC. This allows the GM to play a monster with much more ease by simplifying life for the GM.
Second, the GM can design and use creatures with SLA's and not have to worry about things like V, S, F, DF or M components to spells. The creature simply activates its power, much as a wizard simply "casts" a spell.
Third, It provides the GM with an easy way to define how a creature's powers work - without adding another set of things to worry about. If the power works "just like something else" - then you can easily determine what it can and can't do.
Fourth, it lets the player fighting the given monster that the creature can do AB and C and not necessarily XY and Z - providing consistency.
However, there is something that SLA's were NOT designed to do. They were not designed as a way for the GM to create a category of things where the GM can use things that are identical in effect of "spells" against a party - and not treat them as spells.
If you don't want feeblemind "shutting down a powerful monster that easily" - then CHANGE FEEBLEMIND - not how every spell like ability in the game works. Start thinking about the consequences of that decision - and then let me show you something.
hold person
hold monster
silence
Dispel Magic
Spell Turning
Mordenkainen's Disjunction
Does an SLA work even if I put the monster under a hold monster? Even if it can't make a sound? Can I use dispel magic to counterspell it's "ability"? Can I use spell turning to try and give the monster a taste of its own medicine? Can I use Disjunction to end the effect? - and this is just the tip of the iceberg of ruling that feeblemind shuts down spells, but not something that is a SLA. To those of you who are even arguing that SLA's aren't shut down "just like spells" - do you realize the logical implications of what you are saying? If something walks like a duck, looks like a duck, acts like a duck, flies like a duck, and sounds like a duck... are you going to call it a llamasu? (well... you might call it a llamasu polymorphed into a duck... but...)
If something looks like a spell, acts like a spell, does things just like a spell, and hurts or helps creatures like a spell - are you going to treat it as a spell? - Consistency and fairness in being referee requires that you do so - does it not?
--------------
Evidently, there are those people who can't seem to get the principles of logical thought, and there are definitely those who want to ignore the rules and the nature of how people think when it comes to the way they decide things are going to be. While it is the GM's perrogative to change the rules, those changes MUST be made consistently. WOTC has set certain game terms in stone - SLA's are one of those things. To change those game terms, is to cease playing the game - plain and simple.
There is NO logical argument for stating that a SLA would be useable by a creature that was under the effects of a feeblemind spell. Sure, there is the argument that we don't WANT a spell doing this to a monster, for the sake of game balance - but think about the following for a moment.
These same individuals, if feeblemind were not published in their holy grail called the PHB, would call the spell unbanced for this reason - among many others. They would then change the SPELL - not the GAME - to balance things. The problem, is something called dogmatism. People like a well defined set of rules for life - let alone playing a game. Things that seem to point out contradictions in their book make them upset.
Fortunately for them, there IS "chapter and verse" about what to do if an apparent conflict in the rules arises. I edit the words somewhat, as I remove them from their context. My edits to their holy writ are italicized.
pg 9 DMG
First, Look to any similar situation that IS covered in a rulebook. Then, try and to extrapolate what you see presented there and apply it to the given circumstance.
If this fails and you have to make something up, stick with it for the rest of the campaign. Consistency keeps players satisfied and gives them the feeling that they adventure in a stable, predictable universe and not in some random, nonsensical place subject only to the DM's whims.
The major problem I see here, is that people don't want to treat SLA's as "like spells" because they don't want the bad guy being beaten THAT easily - and it really bugs the **** out of Me. Because they don't like the first part... they are letting their whim "I don't want to lose tis bad guy that fast." override their mind.
Logic people... simple questions.
Is what happens to a creature's ability to use an SLA under feeblemind spelled out? No.
Is there a similar situation that IS covered. yes.
SLA's are by definition like spells.
Creatures under the effects of feeblemind cannot cast spells.
Therefore, it would seem to follow that creatures cannot use SLA's when subjected to feeblemind.
If that shouldn't be for the sake of game balance fine. Matter of fact, I agree with the sentiment. But, we are discussing what IS the rule, not what should be the rule. What is "wrong" if this clear fact is unbalancing is not the rules concerning SLA's - but the SPELL.
People are inclined to say logic is wrong because they don't want their precious little book to have printed a *gasp* unbalancing spell. LOSE THE BRAINWASHING AND THINK.
AGGEMAM
First Post
Magus_Jerel, I'm not sure where you think it says that you can't cast spells when you are reduced to animal-like intelligence or that you even need more than that to cast (sorcerous) spells.
Sure it affects wizards but not bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, or sorcerors.
It is after all possible to teach an animal tricks and, wouldn't you know, the day or a year after it still remembers and can perform those tricks.
Sure it affects wizards but not bards, clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, or sorcerors.
It is after all possible to teach an animal tricks and, wouldn't you know, the day or a year after it still remembers and can perform those tricks.
Last edited:
