The Sage rules on Feeblemind and Spell-like abilities

[Jairami]

Hey! Whaddya know? The Sage's timid answer is in my favor this time.

<timid w00t>

Yay me.

I had my fingers crossed on this one because it would cheapen my longest lived character's greatest acheivements. 4 dragons slain in her career, all more powerful than her, and all through manipulation and diversion instead of firepower. Dragon's greatest strength? Cunning and Patience. Raw Power and resources. What if the dragon is feeblemind? Really dangerous Godzilla, but much more manageable. Now if they'll just fail that save.

But anyone who knows me, knows there is a very strong possibility it will.

Makes me feel a little more secure in her Grace the Duchess of Quan's licensing rights within the bard guilds.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Well...there is also the little matter of spell resistance. Starting around CR8, a dragon starts getting SR. As you go up the age categories, the chances of affecting the beast with Feeblemind get weaker and weaker...

Still, if you do manage it, all you have to worry about are its 5 attacks and breath weapon every 1d4 rounds.

 

[Jairami]

SR is rarely a problem for that particular character. Admittedly, the SR 40 recurring baddie was a problem, but he was supposed to be. And if it weren't for his AC of 50, I'd have said let the fighters take him... But I digress.

Yes, but as B.A.D.D. will tell you, d12 hit dice, 6 attacks per round, big strength, and a reloading cannon are great. But 1 intelligence (or acting like having 1 intelligence) will mean dragon steak for dinner everytime.

<Edit: Thank goodness for aid another and flanking (and that the guy didn't have whirlwind attack, great cleave, or the sense to kill the little nothings around him) those +2's add up quick and vorpal is vorpal is vorpal.>

 

[hong]

That cannot be reliably determined from the written material. The PHB, DMG, and MM state that spell-like abilities "work just like spells but are not spells". Is working like a spell enough to be rendered ineffective by the same things that will render a spell ineffective?

As you say yourself....

Yet you can't counterspell a spell-like ability, or use one to counterspell.

Since there exists a counterexample to the proposition that "all things that negate spells also negate Sp abilities", said proposition is false. Therefore, there's no reason (except perhaps the label "spell-like", which is neither here nor there, and the single phrase "work just like spells") to suggest that spells and Sp abilities should be lumped together for all purposes. Therefore, there's no reason, except perhaps on the grounds of reasonableness, to infer that feeblemind should do anything over and above what's written.

IIRC, nowhere in the core rulebooks does D&D make any explicit
rulings on the nature of magic. Exactly how magic works, and how people control it, is something that's up to the individual DM -- as far as the rules are concerned, the only thing that matters is the observable effect of using magic. There's nothing to stop people from supposing that Sp abilities really are just like spells in every way, except for some mechanical details like components. There's also nothing to stop people from supposing that Sp abilities involve manipulating magic in a completely different manner -- they just happen to share many of the same outward characteristics.

Because of that, it's true that either ruling of how feeblemind works could be reasonable, from the point of view of campaign consistency (in a campaign where spells and Sp abilities are the same, it negates both; in a campaign where they're different, it only negates spells). Pick whichever ruling fits your concept of magic, and run with it; the major point of contention has been what the spell's written effects are supposed to be. And from that point of view, the spell description is quite clear.

 

[twjensen]

Inclination

I'm inclined to agree with the Sage.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Hey, I'm just happy that Caliban agrees that the rule is unclear.