Feeblemind and Spell-like abilities

[Magus_Jerel]

for spells
you have this thing called verbal components.
verbal components require speaking... or some sort of coherent sound. Under feeblemind - you can't make that sound.

The minimum intelligence required for communication to be possible without magical means is 3.

Some of the druidic "speak with animals" spells excepted - I don't see much hope here.

Remember - with feeblemind, your intelligence is a 1

 

[AGGEMAM]

And how does that exclude SLAs (and any other spell) that doesn't have a V component?

The only you really need to cast spells is the ablility to concentrate and IIRC there is a skill that resembles that ability, oh yes, it is Concentration which is tied to Con.

That seemed odd to me in the beginning but I'm sure that it is because a low Int (even a very low Int) shouldn't impeede with your spellcasting ability, if your spellcasting wasn't tied to that ability.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Concentration is a reflection of your ability to focus enough to think coherently WHILE ENDURING PAIN.

Keep in mind - undead have no con scores, but can still cast spells. Any spellcaster could have a con as low as 1 - and still cast the mightiest of spells with relative ease.

With an intelligence of one - you lack the ability to focus - period, without regard to how much pain you are suffering or not suffering. That is why SLA's are denied.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Actually that is not quite true, is it?

PHB, page 65.

Concentration (Con)
You are particularly good at focusing your mind.

MM, page 10.
Intelligence: Any creature that can think, learn, or remember has at least 1 point of Int.

There are several examples in the Conc description that doesn't entail being damaged at all.

 

[kreynolds]

You could make the same argument with Hold Monster against high level Fighters and Feeblemind against high level Wizards and Sorcerers. That's the nature of the spell to render one creature helpless (or vitually so).

You're right. You could make that argument. But I didn't.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

IMHO, this is quite silly. There are a number of spells of equal level (or lower) that not only shut down a creature's abilities but outright kill them.

Phantasmal Killer is a 4th level spell.
Slay Living is a 5th level spell (I'd say that takes away a very influential aspect of a creature's CR)
Dismissal is a 4th level spell for clerics and a 5th level spell for wizards.

Keep in mind that while Feeblemind will usually require a more difficult save than the other spells listed here (and works at range unlike Slay Living), it is less useful against opponents without spells or spell like abilities (animals, dire animals, constructs, some undead, fighters, rogues, etc). Phantasmal Killer and Slay Living work against most of these creatures.

Dismissal is perhaps a better example as it completely eliminates the vast majority of creatures that actually have spell like abilities.

The nail in the coffin of this CR based theory however, is the wizard: a wizard has a CR equal to his level. Feeblemind doesn't just remove a portion of the wizard's CR however--it almost completely eliminates the wizard as a threat. Under the logic of this post, that would mean that wizards CRs need to be dropped by 2 to 4 points across the board.

As the silliness of that conclusion demonstrates, however, there's nothing wrong with a 5th level spell eliminating a creature as a threat. That's what spells are for. (And what do magic missile, fireball, cone of cold, and even meteor swarm do if not eliminate threats)?

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.

 

[kreynolds]

IMHO, this is quite silly.

IMHO, you're silly, and you should by a tootoo. Look, I just disagree, and you're argument doesn't convince me. That's all. No big deal.

 

[hong]

But there is a strong argument for it effecting spell like abilities as well as spells.

Of course there is. It's just not what is written in the PHB.

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.

What a good thing that's not how Sp abilities are defined, then.

A Sp ability is something that has exterior effects that mimic a spell. It is _not_ a spell, it just _affects things_ like a spell. A duck is a small feathered creature that lives in water and leaves yucky green droppings on the grass. So is a goose. That doesn't make a duck a goose, or vice versa. If Sp abilities were meant to be completely, totally, 100% identical to spells, then they would be _called_ spells, and there would be no reason to have a category of abilities called "spell-like" in the first place. The very fact that they're called "spell-like" is something that seems to have eluded you.

So if feeblemind effects spells it makes sense for it to effects things that work just like spells.

That's because when you've been dosed to the eyeteeth on happy pills, many things make sense.

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.

Regardless, the fact remains that feeblemind, _as written_, does not affect Sp abilities. Hence any ruling that feeblemind _should_ do so is a house rule, however reasonable it may be. There's nothing wrong with house rules, but they shouldn't be passed off as what's in the book.

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.

Irrelevant nonsense.

(reams of incoherent gibberish snipped)

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.

In order: yes; yes; no; no; yes. For spells, the answers are: no, unless the spell has no components; ditto; yes; yes; yes. Your point is what, exactly?

(more reams of incoherent gibberish snipped)

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.

The irony is killing me. At this rate, I'm going to need some happy pills too, before long.

 

[Al]

Having trawled through the pages, I'm inclined to say that Feeblemind does remove the ability to use spell-like abilities.

The opposite camp have four principal arguments:
A. It would reduce the CR of the creature if this were the case.
B. It doesn't say so in the PHB.
C. Spell-like Abilities are different to Spells.
D. It would make Feeblemind too powerful.

A. is a meaningless and illogical argument. As mentioned before, certain spells (most notably Slay Living) can remove a proportion of the creature's CR. That a top-level fighter can be Dominated does not reduce his CR, neither does the presence of Feeblemind reduce a wizard's CR.

B. is stronger, but tragically short-sighted. The PHB may have created a loophole, but the MM states (p.9): These creatures are subject to the same spellcasting rules as creatures are...now flick back to the Feeblemind description: The creature is unable to cast spells. So if SLAs are treated by the same rules as spells, and Feeblemind prevents spellcasting, then the logic is that Feeblemind prevents SLAs. Use a combination of books to achieve maximum effect

C. See above, p.9 of the MM makes it fairly clear how to treat SLAs.

D. Not true. Feeblemind is powerful, but Dominate can not just reduce or eliminate a threat, but actually convert them to your side; Slay Living eliminates a threat; Hold Person near as damn it does; Polymorph Other etc.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that SLAs are to be treated with the 'same spellcasting rules' and hence are vulnerable to being Feebleminded.

 

[hong]

B. is stronger, but tragically short-sighted. The PHB may have created a loophole, but the MM states (p.9): These creatures are subject to the same spellcasting rules as creatures are...now flick back to the Feeblemind description: The creature is unable to cast spells. So if SLAs are treated by the same rules as spells, and Feeblemind prevents spellcasting, then the logic is that Feeblemind prevents SLAs. Use a combination of books to achieve maximum effect

Here is the complete text of the bit you quoted:

"Spells (Sp): Some creatures can cast arcane or divine spells just as members of a spellcasting class can (and can activate magic items accordingly). These creatures are subject to the same spellcasting rules as characters are." [MM p.9]

So what you've just quoted effectively says that spells should be treated the same as spells. A staggering revelation, I'm sure you'll agree. Moving on to something a bit more relevant to this thread, here is the first sentence in the definition of _Spell-like abilities_:

"Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (although they are not spells, and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance." [MM p.7]

I don't know how much clearer it can be that Sp abilities are not spells, although they share many of the same characteristics. In fact, I'm not sure how this whole argument came about in the first case.

Unless you are, of course, a TROLL! This is all just a CUNNING PLAN to make people dig out their rulebooks, isn't it, "Al", if that is your REAL NAME? In which case, IHBT, IHL. Oh well.