This came up in yesterday's game.
I had a couple of rogues ambush the party. The resident sorcerer decided to feeblemind one of the rogues (not that hard!).
So the intelligence of the rogue drops to 1 (bare minimum, even below animal intelligence) and the caster (and the rest of the party for that matter) argue that with such a low intelligence, the rogue can now no longer sneak, as that requires precision, knowledge of anatomy and that a drooling wreck of a rogue who can't even remember his own name is no longer able to pull it off.
Not wanting to stall the game, I decided to follow their argument and will come back to them on this by next game.
So what did I miss in the RAW? I can see that a caster can no longer use spells (that's what the spell is intended to do) but nowhere can I find whether precision attacks are still possible...
Any suggestions / own findings / RAW I can use (both ways, I'll go with how the game is supposed to be played)
Thanks!
Philip
So the intelligence of the rogue drops to 1 (bare minimum, even below animal intelligence) and the caster (and the rest of the party for that matter) argue that with such a low intelligence, the rogue can now no longer sneak, as that requires precision, knowledge of anatomy and that a drooling wreck of a rogue who can't even remember his own name is no longer able to pull it off.
I don't think that it actually prevents them from using their non-intelligence based class abilities.
Nor does it prevent them from serving in the U.S. Congress.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I raise an eyebrow. I'm one of the bigger fans of letting "fluff" (in this case, the Rogue's extra damage being based on a knowledge of anatomy, hence knowledge, hence Intelligence) impact "crunch" (in this case, extra damage when flanking). But even without magic, you can run really low-Intelligence rogues. (Lower than Mersiel, even, and she's not all that sharp.) And there's no rule that impedes a rogue with an Intelligence of 6, or 4, from using Sneak Attack.
If I wanted to justify my position from an in-game perspective, I'd claim that Intelligence measures how easily you gain information, and process new information. But a rogue in battle already has the information she needs for Sneak Attack. Her Wisdom and perception are unimpeded, and she's applying already-honed skills.
If she were feebleminded and then went up against a new type of abberation that required fresh techniques to sneak attack, I might be more demanding.
If you penalize a rogue's Sneak Attack, then you might penalize the use of all skills, not just Int-based ones, on the grounds that hamster-brained people might not remember how to swim, or pick locks, or run a tavern for profit, or follow tracks.
If you penalize a rogue's Sneak Attack, then you might penalize the use of all skills, not just Int-based ones, on the grounds that hamster-brained people might not remember how to swim, or pick locks, or run a tavern for profit, or follow tracks.
Feeblemind is almost completely debilitating. It gives the target animal-like intelligence. If an animal can think of it and do it, so can the feebleminded. If an animal can do sneak attack damage, then the feebleminded can (if the situation arises for the feebleminded to perform in, can't initiate much on its own). And hamsters don't forget how to swim....
From a RAW standpoint, nothing precludes the rogue from using Sneak Attack, and nothing precludes the rogue from using Stealth.
From an opinion standpoint, I agree with the majority. Firstly, it doesn't break precedence: a wolf with an Int of 2 can go for the jugular, trip an enemy, use pack tactics and flanking, sneak around, track, and size up its prey.
Secondly, there's no reason to take it away. Dumb doesn't equal harmless. Some of the deadliest vermin use stealth, poison and so on.
Mind you, a feebleminded rogue loses access to Combat Expertise if he had it, and to any other feat or ability with an Intelligence prerequisite, or any feat or ability that listed such a feat as a prerequisite. That alone can seriously detract from many rogues fighting styles, especially those self-sufficient assassin types that rely on feinting or Int-based saves like Death Attack.
From an opinion standpoint, I agree with the majority. Firstly, it doesn't break precedence: a wolf with an Int of 2 can go for the jugular, trip an enemy, use pack tactics and flanking, sneak around, track, and size up its prey.
Secondly, there's no reason to take it away. Dumb doesn't equal harmless. Some of the deadliest vermin use stealth, poison and so on.
Mind you, a feebleminded rogue loses access to Combat Expertise if he had it, and to any other feat or ability with an Intelligence prerequisite, or any feat or ability that listed such a feat as a prerequisite. That alone can seriously detract from many rogues fighting styles, especially those self-sufficient assassin types that rely on feinting or Int-based saves like Death Attack.
So the Int score is just a number on a sheet? Do the world's deadliest vermin team up with other deadliest vermin to raid dungeons and topple tyrants? Sure, I'd allow the feebleminded to fight to defend themselves and their allies as best they can, but that's about it. Lassie's only going to do so much (and Lassie's smarter than a feebleminded foe).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm not willing to concede that an animal at Int 1 or Int 2 has the same cognitive background as a feebleminded human. The human has spent her entire life gathering and processing information at a much higher level, before being suddenly impaired. A feebleminded person can speak and carry on a conversation, for example.
The Intelligence score isn't "just a number on a sheet," but neither does it represent a person's entire mental functions.
The way you phrase your position, you make it sound like you might be opposed to the character flanking an opponent at all, or using common-sense tactics. If you would allow god tactics as "fight as best they can" then why not Sneak Attack? Recognizing a kidney is a Wisdom skill, and their Wisdom is unimpaired. Remembering that the kidney is a good place to strike is already learned, and intuitive by now.
If an animal can instinctively attack a vulnerable area (like a wolf tearing out someone's throat), then I think a feebleminded rogue should be able to, as well.
|
I'm not willing to concede that an animal at Int 1 or Int 2 has the same cognitive background as a feebleminded human. The human has spent her entire life gathering and processing information at a much higher level, before being suddenly impaired. A feebleminded person can speak and carry on a conversation, for example.
The Intelligence score isn't "just a number on a sheet," but neither does it represent a person's entire mental functions.
The way you phrase your position, you make it sound like you might be opposed to the character flanking an opponent at all, or using common-sense tactics. If you would allow god tactics as "fight as best they can" then why not Sneak Attack? Recognizing a kidney is a Wisdom skill, and their Wisdom is unimpaired. Remembering that the kidney is a good place to strike is already learned, and intuitive by now.
Agreed.
Animal level creatures also have instincts to aid them as well. They go for the throat, soft areas like th stomach and groin, and other places that are going to bring down a creature much quicker. Even at animal level intelligence, a rogue should have some instinct about how and where to strike.
Its like martial arts, you don't even have to think sometimes. Your body is trained to do the job, and it reacts faster than your conscious thoughts.
Edit: Ninja'd by Hogarth by 40 seconds!
|
I'm not willing to concede that an animal at Int 1 or Int 2 has the same cognitive background as a feebleminded human. The human has spent her entire life gathering and processing information at a much higher level, before being suddenly impaired. A feebleminded person can speak and carry on a conversation, for example.
Sorry Chris you're wrong here... A Feebleminded creature cannot speak, can't pantomime, it can't even grunt coherentely.
This doesn't mean it can't use any other skills, feats, or class abilities. Stealth, Sneak Attack, Power Attack, Survival are all still fully functional.
--Dumb as a Vrock
I'll concede that the feebleminded rogue is now a (sneak) attack dog.
Remember the Scooby snacks, though.
Nor does it prevent them from serving in the U.S. Congress.
O,o?
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-haa
Simply awesome. :oP
id go with vegetative status, perhaps severe alzheimer. In other words, probarbly capable of attacking... but sans feats, weapons etc.. armor bonuses halved etc.. prone to random behaviour :p
perfectly alloowed to use fists and teeth tho.
Monks are in no luck tho.. its 1d3 fists for them aswell, forgetting all their advanced training.
Infact even capable of attacking would require some wis check. So they arent stuck looking at pretty rocks... drooling and trying to taste those weird stuff they are wearing...
running away would be a natural reaction unless first attacked, after that fists and bites would be permissable behaviour. Running away and hiding, probly not having forgotten much about hiding... as squirrels and hampsters are adept at such skills.
id go with vegetative status, perhaps severe alzheimer. In other words, probarbly capable of attacking... but sans feats, weapons etc.. armor bonuses halved etc.. prone to random behaviour :p
perfectly alloowed to use fists and teeth tho.
Monks are in no luck tho.. its 1d3 fists for them aswell, forgetting all their advanced training.Infact even capable of attacking would require some wis check. So they arent stuck looking at pretty rocks... drooling and trying to taste those weird stuff they are wearing...
running away would be a natural reaction unless first attacked, after that fists and bites would be permissable behaviour. Running away and hiding, probly not having forgotten much about hiding... as squirrels and hampsters are adept at such skills.
So, any low inteligence creature should have the same penalties, by yout logic, why doesn't that happen?
id go with vegetative status, perhaps severe alzheimer. In other words, probarbly capable of attacking... but sans feats, weapons etc.. armor bonuses halved etc.. prone to random behaviour :p
perfectly alloowed to use fists and teeth tho.
Monks are in no luck tho.. its 1d3 fists for them aswell, forgetting all their advanced training.Infact even capable of attacking would require some wis check. So they arent stuck looking at pretty rocks... drooling and trying to taste those weird stuff they are wearing...
running away would be a natural reaction unless first attacked, after that fists and bites would be permissable behaviour. Running away and hiding, probly not having forgotten much about hiding... as squirrels and hampsters are adept at such skills.
You ever dealt with an ex-boxer with alzheimers? Yeah, they don't forget how to punch.
The spell specifies what you can and can't do under its effects.
Sneak attack is not among the prohibited things, nor is it in the lists of things that are covered in what you can't do.
Therefore, you can sneak attack while Feeb'd.
Its not really an issue of crunch vs fluff or whatever. The spell dictates its own effects.
-S