Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 134034" data-attributes="member: 537">As you say yourself....Since there exists a counterexample to the proposition that &quot;all things that negate spells also negate Sp abilities&quot;, said proposition is false. Therefore, there's no reason (except perhaps the label &quot;spell-like&quot;, which is neither here nor there, and the single phrase &quot;work just like spells&quot;) 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&amp;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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hong, post: 134034, member: 537"] As you say yourself.... 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification