# Is the Feeblemind spell fair?



## frankthedm (Oct 19, 2006)

Just right? Too Cruel? Too Limited?

_*Feeblemind*
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 5 
Components: V, S, M 
Casting Time: 1 standard action 
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) 
Target: One creature 
Duration: Instantaneous 
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text 
Spell Resistance: Yes 

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. 

Material Component
A handful of clay, crystal, glass, or mineral spheres. _


----------



## Dracorat (Oct 19, 2006)

I think it's fine. The counter spells are pretty common at that level of magic. (Heal and Limited Wish, with LW being a little later obviously).


----------



## Sejs (Oct 19, 2006)

The only part of the spell that makes me kinda [edit]raise[/edit] my eyebrow is the -4 save penalty for arcane spellcasters.

Ditch that and it's fine.


----------



## Dracorat (Oct 19, 2006)

Actually that will coorce mages to be the first targets, which means their cleric counterparts can then followup with a heal to reverse it. If the cleric got hit first, it would be harder to counter until the mage can cast level 7 spells.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 19, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> The only part of the spell that makes me kinda [edit]raise[/edit] my eyebrow is the -4 save penalty for arcane spellcasters.




That makes it a great anti dragon spell though


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 19, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> That makes it a great anti dragon spell though




Yes and no.  It says nothing about the dragon being unable to beat down the characters.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 19, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Yes and no.  It says nothing about the dragon being unable to beat down the characters.




Ya, but it stops all spell casting.  I'm pretty sure a dragon without spells is easier to defeat as a dragon with spells.


----------



## Wish (Oct 19, 2006)

My problem with this spell (and several others of its ilk) is that the counter measure is higher level than the spell itself.  It wouldn't be at all unreasonable for a 9th level wizard to be the BBEG for a bunch of 7th level characters.  If he hits the mage with this, it's essentially a save-or-die spell, with a penalty on the save.  Now, that's in most actual campaigns where you can't just walk into town and plunk down your gold to force a high-priest to do your bidding.  In pure core D&D where a Heal spell costs only 660 gp and is available on the equipment and services charts in the PHB, it's really no big deal.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 19, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, but it stops all spell casting.  I'm pretty sure a dragon without spells is easier to defeat as a dragon with spells.




True, but it is hardly a pushover.  It may be neat to turn that angry dragon into a gibbering idiot, but it's still a gibbering idiot that can *breathe fire* and *tear apart Volkswagens with it's claws.*  And it's still angry at _you_.

And now it can't be reasoned with.


----------



## Felix (Oct 19, 2006)

By "fair", do you mean, "balanced"?

If yes, then sure, it's balanced. It's a single target non-lethal character "killer". It happens to have the added flavor of being particularly effective against arcanists, who, incidently, are the only ones who can cast it. A wonderful mage's anti-mage spell.

If you don't mean "balanced", but rather, "fair", as in "just"... then I don't understand the question; since when was anything judged by a "fair" standard in DnD? 

[I answered the poll assuming that you meant "Balanced"]

[EDIT]



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> And now it can't be reasoned with.




True, but now it's easier to fool as well.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 19, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> ... but it's still a gibbering idiot that can *tear apart Volkswagens with it's claws.*




Only if it can find one!

-Hyp.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Oct 19, 2006)

If it was a _slay living_ (also a 5th level spell) they'd be dead, and you couldn't do anything about it short of a _resurrection_- that's a 7th level spell to reverse it, and the victim would lose a level.  A _heal_ is peanuts.  As for the save, well, a 10th level wizard has a base Fort Save of +3, and a base Will save of +7; there's your -4 penalty for arcanists.

So as a mage killer spell it is eminently fair.  Against other creatures... well, as has been pointed out, you don't need to be smart to fight.  Animals, vermins and constructs do just fine.  So the spell might neutralize some opponents, but not all.

All things considered I don't see anything wrong with the spell.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 20, 2006)

Even if your Wizard is hosed, he is not actually dead.  Seems comparable in its nastiness to Slay Living and Baleful Polymorph IMO.


----------



## Nail (Oct 20, 2006)

Help us out, frankthedm.  What does "fair" mean in this poll?  I'm assuming: "balanced WRT the core rules".


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 20, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Even if your Wizard is hosed, he is not actually dead.  Seems comparable in its nastiness to Slay Living and Baleful Polymorph IMO.




Slay Living is Touch.

Baleful Polymorph is Close.

Feeblemind is Medium.

SL kills.

BP for the most part prevents most standard actions (except for Psionic types and Druids with the Natural Shape feat). But, BPed targets can at least think, run away, hide, etc. And, Dispel Magic or Break Enchantment can negate it.

Feeblemind prevents most reasonable standard actions except normal melee fighting. For example, an Int 1 (low animal int) creature should be unable to use complex tools like a crossbow or a bow, so the enfeebled Wizard can fight with a dagger or staff maybe. Beyond that, he is basically a drooling idiot. And, it takes higher level spells to negate.


The -4 to saves is not really a big deal. Mostly what it does is switch the saving throw from a good category for Wizards and Sorcerers to a bad category (like Slay Living and Baleful Polymorph already are).


So, the real issue here is range. Feeblemind is somewhat stronger than Baleful Polymorph as is and it is longer range too.

Sure, the BPed target cannot fight, but it might be able to overcome its own problem, even if its allies get slain. The Feebleminded target is pretty much SOL if his allies cannot assist.


When compared to Slay Living, the issue becomes one of touch attacks. There are defenses against those such as miss chance spells or Death Ward or even the standard difficulty in getting real close to a Wizard or Sorcerer that Feeblemind does not have (e.g. Levitate or Fly will typically prevent it). The real protection against Feeblemind does not occur until 8th level with Mind Blank. Before that, there are few defenses against it except maybe Protection From Evil (which might not really help).


All in all, Feeblemind is a bit potent for 5th level compared to the other basic save or die type spells.


----------



## Nail (Oct 20, 2006)

BTW, if you used _Miracle_ to get a _Feeblemind_-like effect, which would the save DC be?  As a 5th level spell, or as a 9th level spell?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 20, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> BTW, if you used _Miracle_ to get a _Feeblemind_-like effect, which would the save DC be?  As a 5th level spell, or as a 9th level spell?




Wouldn't duplicating a spell duplicate it in all ways, including spell DC?

I do not see any text in Miracle that indicates that the DC would increase.


----------



## Nail (Oct 20, 2006)

Although you're duplicating the effects of Feeblemind, you're still casting a 9th level spell.  Hence DC 10 + 9 + Wis, etc.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 20, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> Although you're duplicating the effects of Feeblemind, you're still casting a 9th level spell.  Hence DC 10 + 9 + Wis, etc.




Opps. Missed the sentence:  "A duplicated spell allows saving throws and spell resistance as normal, but the save DCs are as for a 9th-level spell."

So, you are correct.


----------



## Nail (Oct 20, 2006)

Oh...right.   It says so right there, doesn't it.........


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 20, 2006)

I once had a wizard character I was playing get Feebleminded by an opposing wizard. Thing was, the bad guy was under Improved Invisibility, and my character was the only one with See Invisible up. The DM ruled that I could indeed "defend myself" with my staff, so everyone else saw my character go slackjawed-drool-on-himself-stupid, then run (well, fly, actually) around the room swinging his staff at apparantly empty air. It had the desired effect, however, as they could target the square my character was attacking (50% miss, but better than 100%) or pelt the area with AoE spells.


----------



## Sejs (Oct 20, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> (Baleful Polymorph) for the most part prevents most standard actions (except for Psionic types and Druids with the Natural Shape feat). But, BPed targets can at least think, run away, hide, etc. And, Dispel Magic or Break Enchantment can negate it.




Actually, come to think of it, I'm not so sure Natural Spell lets you cast spells if you've been Baleful Polymorphed.  Natural Spell does specify it works when you take on a wild shape, and BP states you take on _all_ the statistics of the new form.. which would include mental attributes. 

Pretty rough, really.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Oct 20, 2006)

It's a pretty fair 5th level spell ... requires you to be a 9th level caster to use it.

Now, say, you've got monsters for a 13th level party that have Feeblemind as a Gaze attack and you throw them at the party in bucketfuls?

--fje


----------



## Talic (Oct 20, 2006)

Fair? Maybe, maybe not. But really I think of it more of a "ruin-a-player's-fun" spell.  In our group, it's become one of those D&D nuklear weapons WotC talked about a while back. Nobody wants to touch it.

I'd rather have my mage outright killed than hit with a feeblemind.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 20, 2006)

Fair: Reasonable within the scope of the rules *and* within the realities of play. If the spell is viewed as a nuclear option reserved for mutually assured destruction, that sounds like a vote for unfair. If the effect is too strong to replace the [presumably balanced] death effect gaze of a Bodak, again, a vote for unfair. If you would, as DM, hold back and have the NPC chose a different spell when the "ruin-a-player's-fun" Feeblemind spell IS the best choice, that's another vote for Unfair. 



			
				Wish said:
			
		

> pure core D&D where a Heal spell costs only 660 gp and is available on the equipment and services charts in the PHB, it's really no big deal.



No big deal? A Large city might have a cleric, a cleric that might be willing to help you dependant on alignment and if the cleric feels returning an arcane caster to power constitutes a "dangerous consequence". A _selection_ of 11th level clerics would take a metropolis to reliably have. The players don’t have guaranteed access to spell casters, the rules just provide a way to manage the access.

*Spell: * The indicated amount is how much it costs to get a spellcaster to cast a spell for you. This cost assumes that you can go to the spellcaster and have the spell cast at his or her convenience (generally at least 24 hours later, so that the spellcaster has time to prepare the spell in question). If you want to bring the spellcaster somewhere to cast a spell you need to negotiate with him or her, and the default answer is no.

The cost given is for a spell with no cost for a material component or focus component and no XP cost. If the spell includes a material component, add the cost of that component to the cost of the spell. If the spell has a focus component (other than a divine focus), add 1/10 the cost of that focus to the cost of the spell. If the spell has an XP cost, add 5 gp per XP lost.

Furthermore, if a spell has dangerous consequences, the spellcaster will certainly require proof that you can and will pay for dealing with any such consequences (that is, assuming that the spellcaster even agrees to cast such a spell, which isn’t certain). In the case of spells that transport the caster and characters over a distance, you will likely have to pay for two castings of the spell, even if you aren’t returning with the caster.

In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells,  and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn’t guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 20, 2006)

I voted unfair because of the penalty for arcane casters (and I think divine casters already get too good a deal on everything at the moment - this is adding injury to insult!)

It isn't a major concern, but it has always niggled that feeblemind was extra-nasty against arcane casters.

Cheers


----------



## Maldor (Oct 20, 2006)

I know this is off topic a little but i like to hit someone with feeblemind then a spell or poison that deals Int or Cha damage. Poof coma min 1 day.  if your a neco you can use undead to.

i personal think feeblemind is a powerful 5 lvl but is reasonable compared to other upper 5 lvl spells.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 20, 2006)

What happens with the spellcaster's spells prepared/slots available after he fails to save vs. feedblemind and then say gets immediately healed?  Are those slots again immediately available?  Are spells prepared lost until he preps again?  IMO the decision on that is a big factor in deciding if this spell is fair.  If those spells are not lost, then feeblemind IMO is fair.  I'd much rather spend the time/money on a heal rather than 5 times as much on a raise dead and lose a level.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 20, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> What happens with the spellcaster's spells prepared/slots available after he fails to save vs. feedblemind and then say gets immediately healed?  Are those slots again immediately available?  Are spells prepared lost until he preps again?  IMO the decision on that is a big factor in deciding if this spell is fair.  If those spells are not lost, then feeblemind IMO is fair.  I'd much rather spend the time/money on a heal rather than 5 times as much on a raise dead and lose a level.




Prepared spells are prepared spells.  There are very few ways to lose prepared spells -- level drain, death, spellthief, any others?  A reduced spellcasting stat is not one of them under the RAW.  There are no logical problems under the RAW with having a prepared spell that you can not legally cast at the moment.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 20, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Prepared spells are prepared spells.  There are very few ways to lose prepared spells -- level drain, death, spellthief, any others?  A reduced spellcasting stat is not one of them under the RAW.  There are no logical problems under the RAW with having a prepared spell that you can not legally cast at the moment.




What about spells in bonus slots that only exist due to ability score?

-Hyp.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What about spells in bonus slots that only exist due to ability score?




Yeah?  You cannot cast a spell that violates the "spells per day" as defined by the spellcasting class limits modified by spellcasting stat.

You can either (1) accept that a Wizard might have more prepped spells than he can legally cast in a given day (at the moment at least) under certain conditions, or (2) make up house rules out of whole cloth to force whatever "correct" model you think would be better than the RAW.

I do not see any downside to #1 under normal play conditions.  We will never get a consensus for #2, if you care about such things.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 20, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Prepared spells are prepared spells.  There are very few ways to lose prepared spells -- level drain, death, spellthief, any others?  A reduced spellcasting stat is not one of them under the RAW.



 How about: "When an ability score changes, all attributes associated with that score change accordingly."  Is a bonus spell slot an "attribute"?

And I don't think you can so definitively state that a reduced spellcasting stat is not a method to lose spell slots.  The rules only say "certain other events."


			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> You can either (1) accept that a Wizard might have more prepped spells than he can legally cast in a given day (at the moment at least) under certain conditions...



 Well, the moment could be a long time...until the spell slot is used.  Imagine the master letting his apprentice borrow that +6 ability modifying magical item and then after resting for a day, taking it back.  The bonus spell slots are still there, according to you, right?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> How about: "When an ability score changes, all attributes associated with that score change accordingly."  Is a bonus spell slot an "attribute"?
> 
> And I don't think you can so definitively state that a reduced spellcasting stat is not a method to lose spell slots.  The rules only say "certain other events."




How about Constitution loses?

If CON goes down to one and is then restored to its former level, do you get back all of the hit points, or just some of them?

Example:

4th level Fred has 32 hit points and a CON of 12. He drops to 1 CON, so his hit points drop to 8. When restored, does he have 8 hits out of 32 or 32 out of 32?


Doesn't the following sentence work both ways (i.e. changes due to loss or to gain)?



> When an ability score changes, all attributes associated with that score change accordingly.




If you lose a bonus spell when ability damaged, wouldn't you gain it back when no longer damaged? Just like bonus hit points?



> Once you’ve cast a prepared spell, you can’t cast it again until you prepare it again. (If you’ve prepared multiple copies of a single spell, you can cast each copy once.) If you’re a bard or sorcerer, casting a spell counts against your daily limit for spells of that spell level, but you can cast the same spell again if you haven’t reached your limit.




This rule does not apply since the spell is not cast.



> A character who died with spells prepared has a 50% chance of losing any given spell upon being raised, in addition to losing spells for losing a level.




This rule does not apply since the character was not dead. But, this rule does indicate that spells are not lost merely due to dying (a state arguably worse than Feebleminded). How much Intelligence does a dead character have?


So, we have two rules when spells are definitively lost: either by casting or by dying and being raised. Are there other such rules?

We also have a rule that changes to ability scores change attributes which theoretically should work the same in both directions.


It seems there is no RAW support for losing the spell slots after the ability score is restored, but some slight RAW support for regaining them. Other related rules?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Well, the moment could be a long time...until the spell slot is used.  Imagine the master letting his apprentice borrow that +6 ability modifying magical item and then after resting for a day, taking it back.  The bonus spell slots are still there, according to you, right?




By an extremely literal reading of the RAW, yes.  Even this absolutely worst case scenario is not so outlandish that it is necessarily creates any real problem.

The logical alternatives create more bookkeeping and many fussy corner cases.  I do not see why that would be an improvement in any practical way, except to appease a fairly arbitrary aesthetic applied to very abstract rules.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 21, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The logical alternatives create more bookkeeping and many fussy corner cases.  I do not see why that would be an improvement in any practical way, except to appease a fairly arbitrary aesthetic applied to very abstract rules.



I say:
Lose a semi permanent stat bonus, lose 1 bonus prepped Spell/Slot as gained from the previous stat. Gain the bonus back, regain the bonus Spell / Slot _when_ you prepare next.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 21, 2006)

And how does this work for Sorcerors?  Divine spontaneous casters?

It is not a bad ruling, franthedm.  Not in the least.  But we are creating new special rules and corner case exceptions when we really do not have to.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If CON goes down to one and is then restored to its former level, do you get back all of the hit points, or just some of them?



 All of them, of course.  But, this is a Strawman because you know as well as I do that the rules are EXPLICIT on Con changes.  They are not so explicit on spellcasting ability modifiers.

Find a similar rule of "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." and it would be an open and shut case.

But, there's no such rule.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Doesn't the following sentence work both ways (i.e. changes due to loss or to gain)?



 Sure.  Why can't it work on the spell slot, though, not the spell?  You lose a spell slot, then you regain it.  Casters who prepared spells are somewhat screwed while those who don't are not.  I might even consider allowing the slot as an open slot for preparation casters because the spell wasn't actually cast and it was "rested for".



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If you lose a bonus spell when ability damaged, wouldn't you gain it back when no longer damaged? Just like bonus hit points?



 If it were just like hit points, you would be able use those hit point slots for something. 



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> By an extremely literal reading of the RAW, yes. Even this absolutely worst case scenario is not so outlandish that it is necessarily creates any real problem.



 It can create a problem.  Consider a caster with 3 slots of his highest level spell still in memory.  (For this example, they need to be prepared.)  His stat drops and technically he's only allowed 2, but he doesn't use the spells and keeps them.  The next day while preparing, what can he prepare at his highest level spell slots?  Can he change at one spell?  Two?  All three?  If he tries to change out one, does it suddenly go poof?

That's a really tricky scenario that is easily avoided using (e.g.) Frank's rule or even the one I offer above (turned into open slots upon regaining the ability score).


----------



## Christian (Oct 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It can create a problem.  Consider a caster with 3 slots of his highest level spell still in memory.  (For this example, they need to be prepared.)  His stat drops and technically he's only allowed 2, but he doesn't use the spells and keeps them.  The next day while preparing, what can he prepare at his highest level spell slots?  Can he change at one spell?  Two?  All three?  If he tries to change out one, does it suddenly go poof?
> 
> That's a really tricky scenario that is easily avoided using (e.g.) Frank's rule or even the one I offer above (turned into open slots upon regaining the ability score).




Kinda sucks for the shapeshifting (PHB2) druid with a Periapt of Wisdom, though ...


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Sure.  Why can't it work on the spell slot, though, not the spell?  You lose a spell slot, then you regain it.  Casters who prepared spells are somewhat screwed while those who don't are not.  I might even consider allowing the slot as an open slot for preparation casters because the spell wasn't actually cast and it was "rested for".




But the question becomes, why would a DM rule that it is similar to casting the spell (or not preparing the spell) when even Death itself does not necessarily lose prepared spells?

That appears to be a dicotomy which the "you just gain them back like you gain all other ability related attributes" does not have.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It can create a problem.  Consider a caster with 3 slots of his highest level spell still in memory.  (For this example, they need to be prepared.)  His stat drops and technically he's only allowed 2, but he doesn't use the spells and keeps them.  The next day while preparing, what can he prepare at his highest level spell slots?  Can he change at one spell?  Two?  All three?  If he tries to change out one, does it suddenly go poof?
> 
> That's a really tricky scenario that is easily avoided using (e.g.) Frank's rule or even the one I offer above (turned into open slots upon regaining the ability score).




Like you said to me, this is a strawman.

If you still have the prepared spell but just do not have access to it, that means that you cannot modify it.

So, if the caster has two spell slots available, he can do whatever he wants with those two slots just like always. The third slot with the prepared spell still in it is unavailable.

No problem at all.

And, this follows RAW closer. If you do not cast a spell, you do not lose the preparation of it. In this case, you would just lose access to it.


Either interpretation is fine, it's just that my proposed interpretation is closer to RAW in that spell preparation is only truly lost if the character casts the spell (or dies). Not if some condition just temporarily prevents him from accessing the spell.

Plus, I do not know of a rule that takes away spells (outside of casting or death). But, there is a rule that ability score changes result in attributes changing accordingly. Your interpretation (somewhat arbitrarily) states that this rule applies for everything except spells (or spell slots).


----------



## Vanye (Oct 21, 2006)

Talic said:
			
		

> Fair? Maybe, maybe not. But really I think of it more of a "ruin-a-player's-fun" spell.  In our group, it's become one of those D&D nuklear weapons WotC talked about a while back. Nobody wants to touch it.
> 
> I'd rather have my mage outright killed than hit with a feeblemind.




I had a 2nd ed 1/2 mage-thief get hit wth the spell, when fighting an ilithilich.  She spent the entire fight cooing to her self like a baby, and bouncing a rock off a tree.  i got bonus xp for the GM that game for roleplaying. *lol*


----------



## Drowbane (Oct 21, 2006)

*Fair*



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> Spells - Is the Feeblemind spell fair?




What is this... "fair"... you speak of?  Does it have rides?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It can create a problem.  Consider a caster with 3 slots of his highest level spell still in memory.  (For this example, they need to be prepared.)  His stat drops and technically he's only allowed 2, but he doesn't use the spells and keeps them.  The next day while preparing, what can he prepare at his highest level spell slots?  Can he change at one spell?  Two?  All three?  If he tries to change out one, does it suddenly go poof?




It is never legal to prepare a spell when you already have reached your legal limit of prepared spells for that level.  So this caster needs to prepare 2 spells and live with the fact he no longer has 3.  Or make do with the 3 spells he has prepared already.

That works for me.  

If someone wants to play the Swapping-the-Headband-of-Intellect game for every iota of cheese out value, there are rules in the RAW already that make this less than straightforward to exploit.  If one insists on reaching for all the cheese all the time, one should not complain about the stink of limburger.

The vanishing prepared slots creates a big rules headache with respect to Wildshaping druids, and will presumably visit the same brand of confusing on Polymorphing and Shapechanging wizards when the designers finally revisit the subject.  I find it extremely unlikely that the designers intended such bookkeeping side effects when creating the wildshape "errata".


----------

