Utilizing spells while Feebleminded [3.5]

[maestro78]

Had to make a rules judgment a few days ago in a game that I DM .

Spoiler

Show

Situation: The BBEG wizard was compromised, cast Fly and crashed out the window to escape. One PC, shapeshifter druid, leapt out the window to pursue, casting Call Lightning and doing some decent damage.

In response the BBEG successfully cast Feeblemind on the druid before resuming his escape.

The druid shrugs and continues to use his already cast Call Lightning to continue to rain down pain on the wizard while continuing to pursue.

This action is what gave me pause. There is nothing in the RAW of Feeblemind that prevents a character from using a spell that was already in effect:

Spoiler

Show

Feeblemind (from SRD)

If the target creature fails a Will saving throw, its Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1. The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently. Still, it knows who its friends are and can follow them and even protect them. The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind. A creature that can cast arcane spells, such as a sorcerer or a wizard, takes a -4 penalty on its saving throw. (emphasis mine)

Now, as a DM I'm generally fairly lenient when it comes to situations that aren't expressly covered by the rules, so I allowed the druid to continue using his Call Lightning. But with this, I've been thinking I should have ruled the other way and said he was unable to use it.

Allowing the druid to continue using a spell cast before being Feebleminded seems like obeying the word of the RAW and ignoring the intent. What does the Playground think?

[shadzar]

Spell was cast.
Druid was feebed.

What more is there to it? Something about Call Lightning I am missing? Some ongoing effect delayed reaction what?

[RMS Oceanic]

Druids rely on Wisdom to cast spells, so I don't see how, in this particular example, their casting would be hindered.

I don't know how it would work if it was a Sorceror or Wizard on the receiving end, though.

[Thorin]

He has a 1 in intelligence... he could easily "forgot" he had cast th spell. I mean.... 1 less point and he is as good as a carrot for battle. A druid carrot.

[OMG PONIES]

I would think the standard action to call another bolt requires coherent communication, which the character cannot use while feebleminded. However, I could see it the other way as well: according to the PHB, Call Lightning simply requires a player to concentrate on the spell, which could be silent.

From an entirely RP point-of-view, though, I would say that a creature with INT 1 cannot comprehend the intricate workings of magic and thus cannot continue to use the spell.

[OMG PONIES]

Ah, forgot we were talking about a Druid. That makes it complicated. With all of this in mind, I would probably just have the player make a Concentration check every time they want to call another bolt.

[maestro78]

What more is there to it? Something about Call Lightning I am missing? Some ongoing effect delayed reaction what?

Call Lightning has a duration of min/lvl where, once cast, it is a standard action to "call" a single bolt of lightning. My question is, should "calling" this bolt of lightning be prevented by Feeblemind, where Feeblemind does not expressly deny this action.

[JellyPooga]

Hmm...it is a tricky one, but for myself, I'd allow what he did as legitimate. If the spell had been one that required concentration to maintain, then I'd have said it dissipated, but Call Lightning, as far as I'm concerned, effectively gives the caster the supernatural ability to use a spell-like ability for 1 minute per caster level. As someone with that ability, just as if he was of a race with a spell-like ability, he is within the remit of Feeblemind to act as he did...the bad guy doesn't stop being seen as the bad guy because of the spell, so unless he did something like shapechange (which would sufficuently confuse the Druid in his feebleminded state) the Druid would, if anything, continue to blast him to the exclusion of anything else.

As I say, had it been more or less any other spell, then I wouldn't have allowed it...another spell I'd have allowed him to continue using (if it was already cast), for example, would be Produce Flame. He already has te flame in hand, he just has to throw it...that doesn't require casting the spell, just using it.

[Saph]

It's a DM call.

I'd probably say no, for the reason that a feebleminded character has, roughly, the intellect of a lizard. A lizard isn't going to be able to call lightning down on targets. Even if you put the lizard in front of a lightning generator with an auto-targeting system and a big red button saying "Press Here To Shoot Bad Guy", it's still not going to know to press the button, because it's, y'know, a lizard. Int 1 is really, REALLY stupid. It makes a dog or a housecat look like a genius in comparison.

- Saph

[daggaz]

Yeah, I would agree with Saph here.. its not just his ability to use language either... its flat out his mental capacity to concentrate on and see a task thru to fruition.

A feebleminded character cannot even concentrate on the task, let alone ascertain the simplest of connections that even a small, yapping dog can.

Trains of thought like "The Bad Guy is Bad. He is over there. I am over here. Clouds up there. I control clouds. If I think/say/wish/want/concentrate/whatever, clouds kill bad man..." come to a crashing halt. Its a mental pileup disaster, everybody dies in the accident, and nothing happens.

Feebleminded characters should immediately sit down and begin drooling. Both int (smarts knowledge of the world) and charisma (their ability to even perceive themselves as distinct from said world) are one step from non-existance.

[JellyPooga]

It's a DM call.

I'd probably say no, for the reason that a feebleminded character has, roughly, the intellect of a lizard. A lizard isn't going to be able to call lightning down on targets. Even if you put the lizard in front of a lightning generator with an auto-targeting system and a big red button saying "Press Here To Shoot Bad Guy", it's still not going to know to press the button, because it's, y'know, a lizard. Int 1 is really, REALLY stupid. It makes a dog or a housecat look like a genius in comparison.

- Saph

Ah, but a Shocker Lizard which is only marginally more intelligent (Int 2) knows to zap somone in defence with his ability. The fact that the Druid zapped the bad guy the previous round says to me that he has legitimate reason to continue doing so; he knows he can zap. If he'd cast the spell some time before and was only in pursuit of the bad guy and not actively zapping him when he got feebleminded, then I would say no, but as he was, to continue zapping only seems natural; when at a loss of what to do, continue what you were doing before.

As you say though GMs call (as ever)

[Quietus]

I'd say you handled this correctly in following the RAW in the moment, which didn't prevent him from doing what he did. The next step should be asking the player. Be reasonable about it, not aggressive, and just mention that you're a little torn between the exact rules, which say yes, and the spirit of them, which says no. If I were the player in this instance and the DM surprised me with "You aren't smart enough to do that", I'd be annoyed, but if he lets me do it at the time and comes to me after the game, I'd be more likely to agree that in that situation, in the future, I'd stop using the Call Lightning.

[daggaz]

The shocker lizard is twice as smart as the druid, and as well it is using an innate, instinctual ability. One that it uses to feed itself, mind you. If it hadn't learned to zap by then, int 2 or not, it would have been long dead before you ever met it.

Or to be more specific, a feebleminded character is exactly in the middle between a shocker lizard, and fully comatose. How complicated do you think their actions are going to be?

Quietus, RAW also dictates what all your ability scores do, and how you should be affected by them. I believe it even says that scores below 3 are unplayable, technically. Just because the spell description doesn't specifically mention everything, doesn't mean you can ignore RAW to your leisure.

[maestro78]

Thanks, everybody, for your answers.

[JeenLeen]

What is the Cha of a Shocker Lizard (if such is open-source to state)?

I could see the 1 Int still being able to use it. You have that ability through the casting of a spell, so just as you could punch at something you're angry at, you could call lightning. It's still a bit iffy, but plausible, especially if high Wisdom (which I assume the druid has.)

But with 1 Cha, it's hard to differentiate oneself from anything else. If the bad guy is running away, no longer interacting with you, I do not think you could notice him to be aggressive. Unless animals often have Cha of 1, that is.

[JellyPooga]

The shocker lizard is twice as smart as the druid, and as well it is using an innate, instinctual ability. One that it uses to feed itself, mind you. If it hadn't learned to zap by then, int 2 or not, it would have been long dead before you ever met it.

Or to be more specific, a feebleminded character is exactly in the middle between a shocker lizard, and fully comatose. How complicated do you think their actions are going to be?

Quietus, RAW also dictates what all your ability scores do, and how you should be affected by them. I believe it even says that scores below 3 are unplayable, technically. Just because the spell description doesn't specifically mention everything, doesn't mean you can ignore RAW to your leisure.

The problem here is that Intelligence is not a linear scale (I'm not entirely sure what sort of scale Int is supposed to be, but I'm pretty sure it's not linear). For example, an Int 3 character is as much more Intelligent than an Int 2 creature as an Int 1 character is less, but the difference between 2 and 3 is the difference between non-sapience and sapience, whilst the difference between 1 and 2 is negligible. Saying that an Int 1 character is halfway betwen the Int of a moderately intelligent animal and being comatose is fallacious...it's no closer to being comatose at all in real terms; it's just not as smart (think difference between a dog and a frog...the frog is just less capable of learning).

On the subject of Charisma...yeah, I hadn't considered that aspect and you may have a point. Being able to relate to the bad guy in the appropriate manner would be extremely difficult, especially given the Int hit as well.

[Epinephrine]

Very much DM interpretation. Depends on what having an active spell "feels" like, and what kind of standard action it takes to release a bolt.

If the ability to bolt things is simply releasing aggression at a target, 1 Int should suffice. If it "feels" to the druid like he has an itch to smash things with lightning, and he simply has to select what to smash, I could see a 1 Int druid blasting every round, at random targets (trees, rocks, lakes... it just feels good to blast things...) if he runs out of enemies.

If on the other hand, the standard action is ruled to be a more structured thing - visualizing the air, creating an ion channel, controlling a buildup of charge under the target, etc... then that would be beyond a lizard.

[Telonius]

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons....Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings.

It seems to me that removing almost all intelligence, but retaining wisdom, would leave a sapient creature acting pretty much instinctively. The Druid in question had already identified some number of targets as enemies. So, fight or flight would take over. He's already fighting. It makes sense for him to continue to do that. (Interesting possibilities if he's Wildshaped when this happens. He might just go feral, and run off afterwards.)

As far as whether he can continue to cast spells (without a verbal component); I'd say yes, he can. His spells are keyed to Wisdom, which describes "willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition." Druids can wield the forces of nature because they're super-hippies - they're just that in tune with nature. It's not really a matter of rationality or personal magnetism, or even smarts. As long as they have the spell prepared, I'd let them cast it. (I would draw the line at being able to prepare new spells - that requires planning and some measure of intelligence.)

[Fixer]

An intelligence of 1 is equivalent to most non-aggressive animals: Cows, donkeys, wild horses (untrained for combat).

An intelligence of 2 is generally required for significant predatory behavior, which is why most war-trained animals have an INT of 2, and most natural predators have an INT of 2.

All of this breaks down, of course, when you are dealing with vermin. A spider, centipede or scorpion would definitely be qualified as a predator even with (Int: -, Cha: 2). It is simply assumed they attack anything it considers food.

Thus, a druid, wildshaped, with an Int of 1 and Cha of 1, would be in the same category as a particularly dense spider, centipede, or scorpion. The druid would know (using Wisdom to represent experience) that they can call down lighting, just as a spider knows it can 'throw' a web. It would then attempt to identify enemies (the aforementioned wizard) and attempt to kill and possibly eat them (depending on the druid's prior behavior and whether or not the druid happens to be hungry).

[Teron]

As far as whether he can continue to cast spells (without a verbal component); I'd say yes, he can. His spells are keyed to Wisdom, which describes "willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition." Druids can wield the forces of nature because they're super-hippies - they're just that in tune with nature. It's not really a matter of rationality or personal magnetism, or even smarts. As long as they have the spell prepared, I'd let them cast it. (I would draw the line at being able to prepare new spells - that requires planning and some measure of intelligence.)

Feeblemind explicitely prevents spellcasting.

[shadzar]

Call Lightning has a duration of min/lvl where, once cast, it is a standard action to "call" a single bolt of lightning. My question is, should "calling" this bolt of lightning be prevented by Feeblemind, where Feeblemind does not expressly deny this action.

Haven't read the other posts, and was looking for one responding to me, then it is a continual effect spell that can be used again after cast without needing to cast again.

Been a while since killing the dealing with a druid in the party so....

Druid being of the wisdom class, I would think it would be like an idiot savant type of action. Feeb screws with cognitive actions, but wisdom doesn't require it, so the druid blasts away nearly unconsciously due to the forces his powers are bound to.

So like a cleric thinking they could use some help healing a buddy, and the healing go off while feebed, this druid should get to continue using this power I would guess.

It could be considered a loophole in the difference magic systems wherein they have specific stats that they relate to. Probably also how you end up with CoDzilla. Because the nature of their magic differs form that of the arcane which would be screwed totally with being feebed.

The big thing would be where verbal, somantic, or material components must actively and cognitively be used to continue calling lightning down. If it can be continued via your mind just doing it like would be a reflex action, then feeb wouldn't hinder it.



That would be my judgment.

One of the reasons I stopped feebing characters long ago until after they were fully distracted and unable to do anything prior to being feebed, so there was no ongoing action to resolve or worry about during the feebing.

[Epinephrine]

An intelligence of 1 is equivalent to most non-aggressive animals: Cows, donkeys, wild horses (untrained for combat).

No, it's the intelligence of non-mammals. Lizards, sharks, etc.
Ponies and camels have Int 2. Nearly untrainable animals like snakes have Int 1.

Int 2 isn't required for predatory behaviour, every Int 1 animal in the SRD is predatory (snakes, sharks, squid, crocodile, toad (ok, not that predatory, but it does prey on bugs)).

[HamsterOfTheGod]

This action is what gave me pause. There is nothing in the RAW of Feeblemind that prevents a character from using a spell that was already in effect

Like other have said, he needs to concentrate on the spell to continue using it. Although it's not explicitly stated, I think it's implied and it's fair to rule that a spellcaster ceases to be able to concentrate on the spell.

But it's not a big deal that you let it slide. I would say, it's even fair to stop even if you let it go for a few rounds and then changed your mind.

Ah, but a Shocker Lizard which is only marginally more intelligent (Int 2) knows to zap somone in defence with his ability.

So? That's an unintelligent magical beast with an Supernatural ability, not a spellcaster. The intent of the spell, IMHO, is clearly that, to act against intelligent characters. So it would be fair IMHO to prevent a feebleminded cleric from casting a spell or a demon from using one of its SLAs. But a feebleminded Shocker Lizard is still a Shocker Lizard.

Similarly a feebleminded druid can't shape change. The feebleminded archer can't shoot his arrows. The fighter can't use cleave. They can all defend themselves and hammer away at an enemy. Again, that's IMHO. Other DM's will rule differently.

As far as whether he can continue to cast spells (without a verbal component); I'd say yes, he can. His spells are keyed to Wisdom, which describes "willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition."

I would disagree. Though clerics use Wisdom as the source of spells, they do so using a learned mental ability, that is it takes the clerics mind to cast the spell.

But again, this is the way I would rule.

Remember, as a DM you are always right, even when you are wrong.