| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
How do you interpret the meaning of “harmless” spells? Specifically, does Spell Resistance (SR) force a caster level check with harmless spells or not? This is significant because there are many beneficial spells, specifically Cure spells, that become hard for monks after 12th level (Diamond Soul) to receive, but it applies to a few prestige classes and many monsters as well.
The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by such spells without forcing the caster to make a caster level check.
If we read the term "harmless" to mean the *same thing* for SR as saving throws, then it would look something like:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can *force the caster to make a caster level check* if he or she desires.
This suggests to me that the intention of (harmless) was to allow people to benefit from helpful spells if they want them. The next line,
"A creature with spell resistance *must* voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by *such* spells without forcing the caster to make a caster level check." (emphasis mine)
functionally renders the meaning of (harmless) useless. This sentence means that all spells require SR checks. Note the "must" and "such" in the rule above.
Read in this way, what is the purpose of having a (harmless) category for SR at all?
The issue is further confused by the legacy. Look at this passage in previous editions:
A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily drop the resistance in order to receive the effects of a spell noted as Harmless without the caster level check described above.
A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless. In such a case, you do not need to make the caster level check described above.
The wording in 3.5 clarified that it requires a standard action to lower Spell Resistance, which is something that 3rd Edition never specified or described.
I think that the (harmless) category was always intended to make it possible for characters to receive beneficial spells if they desired them. In light of the fact that the final sentence in PF functionally renders the concept of "Spell Resistance:(harmless)" meaningless, and the development of the wording in previous editions, I think that the intention to make beneficial (i.e. harmless) spells accessible is clear.
So how do we interpret the rule? The first and the second sentence contradict each other. The first sentence allows it while the second one forbids it. In light of the development of the wording and consequences of this judgment on beneficial spells, I urge GMs to interpret this for themselves. Personally, I think the (harmless) category was always intended to make such spells available to characters with SR and this is how I plan to play it, but I am curious to hear other interpretations.
So how do you interpret the meaning of “Spell Resistance: (harmless)” in your games?
So how do you interpret the meaning of “Spell Resistance: (harmless)” in your games?
My interpretation is that SR for players is usually more problematic than beneficial.
Looking back at the rules.
The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by such spells without forcing the caster to make a caster level check.
When it says they mean the "same thing", I interpret that to mean the definition of the terms, but not necessarily the effects.
That is:
(object): The spell can be cast on objects
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful
I think it is over reaching to see it as "SR: yes (harmless)" means you can choose to disregard SR. The rules specifically say that you must spend a standard action to drop SR for "object" and "harmless" spells in the following sentence after defining those terms, if you want to disregard SR.
Looks pretty straightforward to me, but I totally understand houserules to the contrary.
Harmless doesn't help with SR. In fact, harmless doesn't *do* anything.
The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
So if something has SR and you cast a "Spell Resistance: Yes" spell on them, they apply their SR against the spell. They can lower the SR as a standard action though.
This is significant because there are many beneficial spells, specifically Cure spells, that become hard for monks after 12th level (Diamond Soul) to receive, but it applies to a few prestige classes and many monsters as well.
This is one reason why SR is a curse and a blessing. Thankfully a cleric's channel energy ability works on a character with SR. . .
As everyone else said: yes, you must beat SR to affect a target with friendly spells unless he spends a standard action lowering it (every round that he wants SR down). Yes, it is dumb and a(nother) kick in the crotch for monks; but yes, it is RAW.
Those of you who interpret SR as affecting all spells, including (harmless) spells, how do you interpret:
The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws.
One can insist that Spell Resistance applies to all spells in RAW, but how then do you interpret the "Spell Resistance:(harmless)" label on numerous spells? Do you simply ignore it? If so, why don't you ignore the other (harmless), in Saving Throws, and require the target to make a saving throw?
|
Those of you who interpret SR as affecting all spells, including (harmless) spells, how do you interpret:
The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws.The object portion isn't particularly important for your discussion.
SR: (harmless) means it is generally beneficial. That's how I interpret it. Wanna be affected by it? "A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by such spells without forcing the caster to make a caster level check." That's how you do it.
Those of you who interpret SR as affecting all spells, including (harmless) spells, how do you interpret:
The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws.
The term meanings (definitions) are the same, not the effects. That is, you have to look at the saving throw section to get their definitions, which are:
(object): The spell can be cast on objects
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful
The "meanings" of the terms say nothing about how to apply SR to those spells. That is covered in the sentence that follows (italicized content added for clarity):
A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by such spells (object and harmless) without forcing the caster to make a caster level check.
One can insist that Spell Resistance applies to all spells in RAW, but how then do you interpret the "Spell Resistance:(harmless)" label on numerous spells? Do you simply ignore it? If so, why don't you ignore the other (harmless), in Saving Throws, and require the target to make a saving throw?
Because you can always voluntarily fail a saving throw. You cannot voluntarily give up SR as a free action. It's a standard action.
I think the SR label is there to cover cases where there is no saving throw, such as Aid.
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
But for consistency, it is included wherever the spell is harmless and has SR, and not just when there is no saving throw.
The odd thing is, I remember a statement from at least one of the devs saying that SR should be beneficial-friendly like saving throws and that the only reason it wasn't here is because legacy. But then you look at Starfinder and its SR suffers from the same problem.
I disagree. SR is a special ability and is always up. As a standard action you can lower it until your next turn, making you more susceptible to foes spells that round. Works the same for foes. That opponent with SR wants the benefit from his buddy's spell. You see the caster cast a spell on the enemy with SR, that's your chance to get your spell by the SR. Similarly, if you can trick a creature with SR into thinking you are about to cast a curing spell on them (or some other beneficial spell) and instead cast some debilitating spell - you have a good chance against a target with little skill points of pulling it off.
SR should be a tricky tool to have, with a strategic requirement to use to the best potential. Dumbing down to "always good, never bad" would be a huge mistake. Read up on the Medium's "Trickster Spirit" - the spirit causes you to have a distrust that even a friendly spell lobber is turning on you! I like SR the way it is, with the benefits and the baggage.