Feeblemind and Spell-like abilities

[gfunk]

To humour you some more (and because I still have much happy fun love to share), just because a Sp ability "works like" a spell doesn't imply it _is_ a spell. A Chevy works like a Ford, but a Chevy is not a Ford.

An interesting analogy. However, if you slash the tires of either vehicle, it sure as hell will be disabled.

 

[hong]

I prefer not to start wars - I just finish them shard.

Yeah, yeah, that's what they ALL say.

Now - I do need to learn not to react to the troller posting and getting me to bite.

Yeah, yeah, that's what they ALL say.

Make up your mind. Do you want to "finish" the war, or do you want not to "react"?

"is just like something but isn't it" makes no sense at all.

Only to those who have got lost in the labyrinthine passages of the rulebooks, and strained their brain cells as a result.

With SLA's the differences are what the monster does to generate the ability - and because of that V-S-M-F-XP component and "human-like hands rules" are suspended. It is because the generation differs that you cannot counterspell an SLA, or be counterspelled with one. Counterspelling is also NOT disruption of casting.

Is there a point to this, or is it just more stream-of-consciousness posting on your part?

SLA's can be disrupted, just like spells can be - mm pg 8 upper left corner - column 1.

Feeblemind disrupts spells

Chapter and verse, please. Cite _exactly where_ feeblemind is supposed to mimic disrupting concentration for casting spells.

But of course, you can't. This is an extrapolation on _your_ part regarding the spell's internal processes, and one that isn't based on the spell description as given. Whether or not it's a reasonable extrapolation, or one that's balanced, is beside the point. The point is that, _as written_, feeblemind does not affect spell-like abilities, and there's no reason to suppose otherwise. The fact that you're having to resort to muddying the difference between spell-like abilities and actual spells should be a clue to this.

 

[hong]

An interesting analogy. However, if you slash the tires of either vehicle, it sure as hell will be disabled.

Very true. And similarly, if you reduce a creature with spell-like abilities to zero hit points, it will be disabled, just the same as if you reduce a spellcaster to zero hit points. All that remains is to demonstrate, using the rulebooks, that feeblemind should have an analogous effect.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I prefer not to start wars - I just finish them shard.

I don't give a crap who started it, all I know is I'm dropping out of this thread because people refuse to be civil.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Hong is correct.

Spell-like abilities are not the same as spells. There are several differences. If Feeblemind was intended to affect SLAs, it would say so. It doesn't say that, so it doesn't.
It mentions SLAs later on when it says who gets save penalties. If they mentioned them there, it can't be that they forgot to mention them earlier.

Geoff.

 

[android]

i'm away from home right now

Wow, quite the response I see. This whole discussion has turned rather heated. But it has also opened up lots of other questions about feeblemind.

Does anyone feel like summarizing these issues that have risen and sending them off to the sage for some sort of response? I think it would be a good viewpoint to have in deciding.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Feeblemind's -4 kicks in only if your effects are ARCANE - not divine as in the examples you have mentioned.

Gnomes however, DO get the absolute shaft.

Gnomes don't have spell-like abilities (unless they're a paladin or experienced monk or druid), they have spells. The PH calls them spells; additionally, the Sage has varified that they are not spell-like abilities.

 

[Jairami]

1. Can the Marilith cast any of her spell-like abilities?
2. Can she think well enough to be able to use them effectively if she can cast them?
3. What effect (if any) would a feeblemind have on the Marilith's physical combat abilities?
   [/list=1]

1. 
   
   1) *Opinion* Not in our games. Spell-Like Abilities, especially ones that duplicate spells, take concentration or at least some sort of manipulation of eldritch forces that probably requires intelligence. Why? I dunno. Our understanding of how magic works.
   
   2) *Opinion* If a drooling idiot can cast spells even though she has less intelligence than your average carnivore and only slightly more than your average rock, I'd say rudimentary, instinctual uses only. Close your eyes and be home to get away from the scaries, no buffs, indirect attacks, teleporting for combat positioning, etc.
   
   3) *Opinion* For a creature with an animalistic attack routine, I'd say it wouldn't have any effect. A feebleminded dragon (or a below average White ) is still a very good predator. However, swordsmanship requires considerable intelligence. Coordinating six arms using exotic combinations of weapons while fighting off the attacks of different creatures with different arms and retailiating would require intense concentration and be taxing in the extreme to a creature with six arms and 6 intelligence. With 1 intelligence, I'd probably limit it to half or less attacks as it becomes more defensive and fails to use all of it's limbs. But that's me. The way I'd differentiate is by determining whether the creature was born with the fighting style or probably had to learn it. But feel free to throw that right out the window if you like.
   
   *Opinion* Feeblemind and any other drastic effect spell (disintegrate, dominate person, phantasmal killer) can be very hard for a DM to swallow sometimes. It's extremely difficult to watch carefully orchestrated events to be seen as neatly handled. But if heroes can't be clever and things can't go their way (anyone can tell you they won't sometimes) sometimes, the game can become more work than play. Grim and gritty. If that's your goal, than feel free to ignore this.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Thank you, Jairami.

Hong: I think that the most sensible conclusion that can be reached regarding the effect of the feeblemind spell on SLAs is that the spell description is unfortunately silent on the matter. Saying that an interpretation of the spell's effects that disables SLAs is directly contradictory is, as I said before, a bit extreme and reflects a highly mechanistic perspective on the rules. As stated earlier, SLAs are either "just like spells" and therefore can be affected by feeblemind, or are "not spells" and therefore are not affected by feeblemind. However, the spell description's failure to describe the effect of the spell on SLAs is not an affirmative rule per se, much as we lawyers understand that legislative silence cannot be inferred to create direct legal rules.

House rule or not, IMHO, spells and SLAs should be affected the same way by feeblemind, for the reasons and flavor suggested by Jairami. Bowing out now...

 

[Michael Tree]

I'm amazed that there is so much controversy over such a simple, straightforward rule.

The rule is that a feebleminded creature is unable to cast spells. Using a spell like ability is not casting a spell. End or argument. It's that simple.

From the PH glossary. "spell-like ability (Sp): A special ability with effects that resemble those of a spell. In most cases, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of the same name."

Spell-like abilities have the same effects as spells, but no where does it mention that they are used the same way. Using SLAs and casting spells are distinct and different actions, but create the same outcome. Feeblemind does not affect the outcome, but the process of casting spells.

As a further argument, since spells are listed as being spell-like abilities in the MM, spells are a subset of spell like abilities. Spells are just one type of spell-like ability. However, just because something afects the subset, it does not logically follow that the whole is similarly affected.