Feeblemind and Spell-like abilities

[Magus_Jerel]

MM pg 7 would seem to indicate that the ONLY difference between SLA's and spells is the text in parentheticals.

like spells (though they have no V S M F or XP components)

 

[gfunk]

Well guys, I think I've solved our problem. Thanks to hong we have the following quote:

"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]

Soooooooo . . . in other words SLAs "... work just like spells ..." but "... they are not spells ..."

This is quite a self-contradicting load of bullsh*t.

SLAs are LIKE spells in that:
a) They can be disrupted with damage and/or failed Concentration checks
b) They use the same formula for saves (with regard to DC and caster level)
c) They can be Spellcrafted (albeit with penalites for lack of components)
d) They cease to function in an anti-magic field
e) They are subject to SR

SLAs are NOT LIKE spells in that:
a) They cannot be counter-spelled or used to counter-spell
b) They require no components

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, quite simply if you WANT to argue that Feeblemind knocks out SLAs, simply quote that SLAs, "... work just like spells ..."

On the other side, simply point out that SLAs "... are not spells ..."

Clear as mud!

I think we should chalk this thread up to poor writing in the core books on the topic at hand.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

well - they got the text right - but their punctuation wrong.

Read that line without the parentheticals.

Spell like abilities are magical and work just like spells, though they are not spells and have no V, S, M, F or XP components.

If you (eliminate) the (mud) of the (parentheticals)
- it becomes as clear as day.

 

[bret]

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.

Just wanted to point out that some character do get Spell Like Abilities.

Tome & Blood has the Innate Spell feat. Under the normal rules, this would only be useable with a 0 level or 1st level spell since it requires permanently loosing a spell slot eight levels higher. When the Epic Level Handbook comes out, that is most likely going to change.

The following character powers are listed as spell like abilities:
Wild Shape (Druid)
Abundant Step (Monk)
Detect Evil (Paladin)
Remove Disease (Paladin)


Now this does open up a whole new can of worms, since that means that Feeblemind gives the -4 penalty to any one with these class features. Still, it is not correct to say that players never get spell like abilities.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

um - it doesn't open up a can of worms at all.

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.

There is anoter bit of text that I note here...

... such as sorcerers or wizards, or use arcane spell like effects ...

hmm...
is an arcane "spell like ability" a "spell like effect"?
I would hope so - which means they not only get the -4, but also have their abilities shut down like the wizard and the sorcerer.

Given the "ideal" target of a creature who uses arcane "effects" - this spell has a base DC of 19 - before modifiers for intelligence, feats, or what have you are applied. In effect, it is a ninth level spell cast out of a fifth level slot when it comes to saving against it.

That makes it broken as all hell in and of itself.

now - give Me any other fifth level spell that can knock a creature's ability score down by 35 points.

(take 20th level wizard with the following mods base 18 +2 race +5 levels +5 inherent +6 item enhancement = 36, then feeblemind him - dropping the ability score by a WHOPPING 35 points).

Now - the counter argument I see here is that you COULD do some hideous damage to someone's con score with something like the poison spell (druid 3 - and evil bad and wicked - who says druids don't have teeth) or a dose of black lotus poison (IIRC the primary and secondary damages are 3d6 con each).

yet - con damage hits all monster and characters EQUALLY. Now - if you don't have a con score (undead, construct) - well, you are immune to poisions.

Hitting intelligence - especially with the "you can use SLA's while feebleminded" interpretation - ONLY hurts true spellcasters - and maims wizards.

I still say the spell is unbalancing as written.

 

[hong]

Clear as mud!

Only to those few people who fail to comprehend the fact that spell-like abilities are not spells. Whether or not they "work like spells" is a complete red herring; the backstory for how various abilities work is something outside the scope of the rules. All that matters as far as the rules are concerned is the designator: Ex, Su, or Sp. The last are themselves quite distinct from actual spellcasting, regardless of the rationale that may be applied in-game for how they work.

Given that _spells_ themselves are defined as spell-like abilities, in fact, suggests that the relationship is hierarchical: spells are a subset of Sp abilities, but Sp abilities are more general than spells.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

ahem...

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

Spell-Like ability: 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.

PHB glossary

vs

... to those few people who fail to comprehend that spell-like abilities are not spells

hong

Hmmm... Does anybody see the problem manifest here?

Given that _spells_ are defined as spell like abilities in fact, suggests that the relationship is hierarchical; spells are a subset of Sp abilities, but Sp abilities are more general than spells

And I am the one that is on "happy pills"...

As you can see in the PHB glossary, spell like abilities are defined as similar to SPELLS - not the friggin other way around as certain persons so vehemently insists. Of course, definitions are superfluous when dealing with imbeciles who refuse to read them.

Now - if you make brilliant geinus' inference about "hierarchial relationships" in the correct hierarchy - then it follows that feeblemind DOES deny SLA's.

It would not of necessity do this to Ex or Su abilities.

 

[hong]

Hmmm... Does anybody see the problem manifest here?

Yes. Do you?

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.

All that the various definitions mean is that Sp abilities have _effects_ that are, for all practical purposes, identical to the spells they mimic -- thus things like save DCs, areas of effect, ranges, etc, are as given for the spell descriptions. There are many, many instances besides feeblemind where Sp abilities differ from actual spells, in terms of their mechanics; all you have to do is review this thread to see what some of these instances are. These alone should be conclusive evidence that Sp abilities are not spells, no matter how much you would like to confuse the issue with spurious quotes from the SRD.

And I am the one that is on "happy pills"...

Well, they don't seem to be working. You need to be HAPPY! BE HAPPY, DAMMIT!

Now - if you make brilliant geinus' inference about "hierarchial relationships" in the correct hierarchy - then it follows that feeblemind DOES deny SLA's.

I only have one question.

Why do you capitalise references to the first person (Me, My, etc) in your posts?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Man people are really getting nasty in this thread, when what it comes down to is a difference in opinion on what they mean when they say spell like abilities are just like spells.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

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

As to My capitalization tendency - It has to do with the fact that working on German while typing does this to me - grrr...

In one sentence - you have managed to identify the source of the argument.

Now - I do need to learn not to react to the troller posting and getting me to bite. My real "bone to pick" with this whole mess is that to say something.

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

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.

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

Feeblemind disrupts spells... ergo - it disrupts SLA's.