Hard to fool feat vs. Feeblemind

[Funkytrip]

The rogue in our group got hit by a feeblemind spell yesterday and he failed the save. He also has the Hard to Fool feat from UC. Will that give me a new save in the round after?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/feeblemind
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---ro gue-advanced-talents/hard-to-fool-ex

Gut feeling says no, but the DM was kind and let me reroll the round after (to kinda prevent a potential TPK)

[Ravingdork]

It's a rogue talent, not a feat. Please don't mix terms. I wasted time looking it up in the feats section of the PRD before I realized the truth.

Also, I fixed your links.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/feeblemind.html#_feeblemind
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/coreClasses/rogue.html#hard-to- fool

Now, as to your question: No, he would not get an additional save. Hard to Fool has nothing to do with saves.

I very much doubt that was your question though. Again, don't mix terms. It causes confusion.

However, if you meant to say "Can a feeblemind victim make use of the Hard to Fool rogue talent?"

The short answer would be "Yes, in certain circumstances."

The long answer would be "Sense Motive is generally language dependent. Not being able to understand language will limit one's ability to use the skill. You could probably use it to get a hunch or to sense an enchantment, but not to detect lies (since you don't understand most lies) or to discern secret messages (since you don't understand languages).

[hogarth]

Ravingdork wrote:

It's a rogue talent, not a feat. Please don't mix terms. I wasted time looking it up in the feats section of the PRD before I realized the truth.

Also, I fixed your links.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/coreClasses/rogue.html#hard-to- fool

Now, as to your question...

Wrong link -- there are TWO rogue talents called "Hard to Fool"! He was referring to the other one.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/rogue.htm l#hard-to-fool

OP -- why wouldn't it work against Feeblemind? It's a mind-affecting spell.

[Ravingdork]

hogarth wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It's a rogue talent, not a feat. Please don't mix terms. I wasted time looking it up in the feats section of the PRD before I realized the truth.

Also, I fixed your links.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/coreClasses/rogue.html#hard-to- fool

Now, as to your question...

Wrong link -- there are TWO rogue talents called "Hard to Fool"! He was referring to the other one.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/rogue.htm l#hard-to-fool

OP -- why wouldn't it work against Feeblemind? It's a mind-affecting spell.

What. On. Earth...?

Confound you Paizo! Why do you do such things!?

I demand immediate errata name change. Such a thing is unacceptable.

To (re)answer the OP's question:
Yes, Ultimate Combat's version of Hard to Fool would absolutely work against feeblemind.

[InVinoVeritas]

hogarth wrote:

OP -- why wouldn't it work against Feeblemind? It's a mind-affecting spell.

It wouldn't work because Feeblemind is an instantaneous spell. The rogue is no longer affected by the spell, and so can't shrug it off.

[Ravingdork]

InVinoVeritas wrote:

hogarth wrote:

OP -- why wouldn't it work against Feeblemind? It's a mind-affecting spell.

It wouldn't work because Feeblemind is an instantaneous spell. The rogue is no longer affected by the spell, and so can't shrug it off.

There is no mention of duration being a factor, therefore it is not. Also, Hard to Fool specifically removes the EFFECTS of the mind-affecting effect, not the spell itself (though they are often one and the same).

[hogarth]

InVinoVeritas wrote:

hogarth wrote:

OP -- why wouldn't it work against Feeblemind? It's a mind-affecting spell.

It wouldn't work because Feeblemind is an instantaneous spell. The rogue is no longer affected by the spell, and so can't shrug it off.

Ah, I see. Is he "subject to it" or not? Personally, if it can be removed, I'd say he's still "subject to it", although I'm a bit confused by the idea of an instantaneous compulsion spell to begin with. But I agree that it's not as cut and dried as I first thought.

[InVinoVeritas]

Ravingdork wrote:

InVinoVeritas wrote:

hogarth wrote:

OP -- why wouldn't it work against Feeblemind? It's a mind-affecting spell.

It wouldn't work because Feeblemind is an instantaneous spell. The rogue is no longer affected by the spell, and so can't shrug it off.

There is no mention of duration being a factor, therefore it is not. Also, Hard to Fool specifically removes the EFFECTS of the mind-affecting effect, not the spell itself (though they are often one and the same).

Here's where we get tripped up by the game definition of "effect." Do we mean the standard-English effects of the spell, or do we mean all mind-affecting capabilities that emulate spells without being spells themselves, such as a Spell-Like Ability?

[Grick]

hogarth wrote:

Is he "subject to it" or not? Personally, if it can be removed, I'd say he's still "subject to it", although I'm a bit confused by the idea of an instantaneous compulsion spell to begin with. But I agree that it's not as cut and dried as I first thought.

I say no, it's not a penalty, or de-buff, it's a permanent change. It can't be dispelled, it can't be nullified, it hit him, changed him, and now it's over.

You're not still subject to a Fireball spell or effect a round later, even if you're still missing HP because of it.

[Funkytrip]

The gut feeling was indeed no because it's an instantaneous effect. However, it *can* be removed (by wish etc). And I assume that a feeblemind effect might linger as an enchantment aura over somebody (so people know the person is affected by something and can remove it).

Sorry for the feat/adv.talent confusion. And blame Paizo for the naming confusion by having 2 talents with the same name ;-)

[BitOBear]

hogarth wrote:

Here's where we get tripped up by the game definition of "effect." Do we mean the standard-English effects of the spell, or do we mean all mind-affecting capabilities that emulate spells without being spells themselves, such as a Spell-Like Ability?

I'd say neither. The Feeblemind isn't "mind affecting" phenomenon (like a hallucination) it's a "brain affecting" phenomenon (like a knife to the pre-frontal cortex).

Basically the target has "taken a fireball to the brain" and had his personality killed off. The outcome isn't cured like disease nor healed via rest etc, but it is subject to the Heal spell and things with greater massive-healing effects such as limited wish etc.

Since it cannot be "dispelled" nor overcome by normal means the Feeblemind spell could be named "lobotomize" or "induce very specific stroke".

Basically something has to regrow or regenerate the scrambled or killed brain bits.

Since nothing in the game deals with the idea of "organ damage". In GURPS, where organ damage and limb loss are normal things, this would be in the realm of "regrow" effects, the spell becomes a one-off in the lore of damage. But since it goes all the way back to the first edition of D&D we are stuck with its semantics.

Where I the lord of this gaming system, I _would_ say that a regeneration effect, including a ring of regeneration etc, _should_ also undo a feeblemind. A ring of regeneration would heal at one _modifier_ point per two rounds, alternating between int and cha, e.g. (int,cha) => (1,1) (3,1) (3,3) (5,3) until the character were "healed". This would match cardinality of one hp per round in constitution-vs-modifier-to-HP effect projected into one HP healed per round as described in the ring definition.

In short, feeblemind is brain damage by every reading I can find.

[Frankthedm]

Logically the damage is done, but RAW I'd say it looks like the rogue ability would let the second save happen.