The Sage rules on Feeblemind and Spell-like abilities

gfunk

First Post
Just received the reply today:



----------
From: *edited for my protection*
Posted At: Sunday, March 31, 2002 11:38 AM
Conversation: Feeblemind and Spell-like abilites
Subject: Feeblemind and Spell-like abilites

>Dear Skip,
>
> This question recently came up on the EN boards and has >insipred
>vigorous debate:
>
>Does Feeblemind prevent the use of spell-like abilites?

I'm inclined to suggest that it does (supernatural abilities still work, though).

Skip Williams
RPG R&D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To those who *KNEW* Feeblemind did not effect spell-like abilities with such vigor and rancor . . . EAT IT!


:D ;) :p
 

log in or register to remove this ad


"I'm inclined to suggest that it does (supernatural abilities still work, though). "

Inclinded to suggest? What crap is that. That is not a definitive answer. That is so wishy washy. That's not a ruling, that's how people one the fence talk when they are trying not to ruffle either side's feathers. :mad:
 

Crothian said:
"I'm inclined to suggest that it does (supernatural abilities still work, though). "

Inclinded to suggest? What crap is that. That is not a definitive answer. That is so wishy washy. That's not a ruling, that's how people one the fence talk when they are trying not to ruffle either side's feathers. :mad:

Inclined to suggest means 'yes' but it means that certain elements of the boards won't go around ranting about how stupid and ridiculous the Sage's rulings are...

Instead they rant about how wishy-washy he is and how he's not saying anything really substantive...
 

I never rant when he puts his foot down and says the rules work like this. That's his job. When asked a question he should state the answer, not some maybe answer.

Besides, I find it hard to believe that he actually cares what we say about him here.
 

Crothian said:
Besides, I find it hard to believe that he actually cares what we say about him here.

I don't. He's a regular person, and I'm sure he cares what folks say about him, even if he does not lose sleep ove it.
 

I got a reply back too.

Subject: Feeblemind.

Dear Sage,

I'm sorry to bother you yet again. I have a question which I hope you can answer:

If a demon fails its save vs. Feeblemind, is it still able to use its spell-like abilities?


I suggest no.
Supernatural abilities still work, though.


My reading of it is that the Rules Council hasn't made a definite decision on it yet, and there's enough discrepancy in the description that the Sage doesn't know what the official rule is. Remember, he's no longer capable of making rulings on his own, it has to go through the Council. So when he's sure what a rule is (as in, what the Rules Council has decided,) he says so. When there's more room for interpretation and he hasn't got a sense for the Council's decision, he gives you how he'd rule it, and leaves it at that.

I'm particularly inclined to believe this, because both I and gfunk got similar answers to the same question, (suggestion, rather than rule,) but I've gotten clear rulings in the past (regarding familiars.)
 

I think it comes down to how similar you think spells and spell-like abilities are.

It's clear that they are related to each other, and are similar for most (but not all) purposes.


The question is: "Are spell-like abilities close enough to spells that being feeble-minded will prevent you from activating them?"

The rules simply aren't clear on the issue, so it's the DM's opinion. The Sage has given you his.
 
Last edited:

The rules are clear.
Feeblemind as written does not prevent SLAs. Since they mention SLAs later on (for who gets the -4 penalty) it's not like they forgot about them.

Also, there are creatures with no Intelligence and SLAs, so it is clear that Int is not a requirement.

If the Sage isn't going to make a ruling, why did he bother replying?

Geoff.
 

Geoff Watson said:
The rules are clear.

I disagree. This is why I didn't participate in the earlier thread on this subject.

Feeblemind as written does not prevent SLAs.

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? You can disrupt spell-like abilities just like you can disrupt a spell (i.e. by damaging the creature using it). Yet you can't counterspell a spell-like ability, or use one to counterspell.

You have an opinion about which side of the line spell-like abilities fall on. The sage has a different one, and he was careful to phrase it as a suggestion, not a ruling.

The text simply doesn't provide strong support for either position. With errata that might change.

Since they mention SLAs later on (for who gets the -4 penalty) it's not like they forgot about them.

You are making an assumption. They have overlooked simple things before (like the Shield bonus not being defined as an armor bonus).

Also, there are creatures with no Intelligence and SLAs, so it is clear that Int is not a requirement.

Naturally lacking an attribute is different than having an attribute reduced to the point of uselessness. Undead have no Con score, yet can still make concentration checks using their Charisma instead. The same principle may be in play for unintelligent creatures with spell like-abilities. (And they would be immune to feeble-mind, since they have no Int to reduce.)

If the Sage isn't going to make a ruling, why did he bother replying?

Geoff.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

And with that, I'm bowing out. In my opinion it's up to the individual DM's. I can find support in the rules for both positions.
 


Write your reply...
Remove ads

Top