Telekinetic Combat Maneuver and Spell Resistance

If a creature is targeted by a caster using the combat maneuver option of the spell Telekinesis and the caster level check against the creature's spell resistance fails, which of the following occur?

1. The telekinesis is dispelled, the caster cannot maintain concentration and target another creature on subsequent turns because the spell is no longer active.

2. The creature is immune to that casting of Telekinesis, but the spell continues and caster may target another creature on subsequent turns.

3. The spell has no effect that turn, but continues if the caster maintains concentration. If the caster targets the same creature again, then he or she must make caster level checks against the creature's spell resistance each time.

Corollary to option 2: If spell resistance was penetrated on the first attempt, no further attempts against that creature need be made.

Corollary to option 3: Even if spell resistance was penetrated on the first attempt, a caster level check must be made for each subsequent attempt.

I think option 2 is most reasonable, but can see an argument for option 3. Option 1 seem to violate the the principle that spell resistance cannot affect other creatures.

Thank you for any replies.

I think it's 1, sorry. The spell has a target of one creature so when it fails against that creature there's no part remaining to affect another. Similar to flame blade which will wink out if it hits a creature with SR and loses the caster level check.

I believe it would be three and a roll would be in fact required every time. But telekinesis, especially the combat maneuver is pretty poorly written and difficult to execute coherently. Dealing with its grapple requires a lot of assumptions, but I would treat each combat maneuver as a separate attack, but with an SR check each round.

But I admit, that interpretation raises some potential thorniness.

Once a spell fails against a creature's spell resistance, that spell will not affect that creature at all. Period. For the entire duration. It's not a "check every round" thing. Vice versa is also correct; once you succeed against a creature's spell resistance that spell will always work against them. So 3 is incorrect.

Spell resistance protects a creature from spells, it does not dispel spells that target it. So 1 is incorrect.

2 is the correct answer. You fail against the target, that turn is wasted, but the spell itself remains intact and you are free to try it against other creatures. Your first instinct was right.

SR doesn't cause a spell to fail*. It makes it so that the creature is immune to that casting of the spell. When a spell fails, it means the spell is not completed. This would happen if I were to target an object with a spell meant for a creature.

*As an example if I cast magic missile the missiles actually try to hit you, but the SR might make them not matter.

Spell Resistance
Spell resistance is a special defensive ability. If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature. The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. Include any adjustments to your caster level to this caster level check.

The Spell Resistance entry and the descriptive text of a spell description tell you whether spell resistance protects creatures from the spell. In many cases, spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place.

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.

Nothing allows for SR to act like some built in version of dispel magic that cancels the spell. It just acts as armor vs spells meaning the spell does not affect that creature.

Option 2 is the correct option.

edit: Spell Resistance definition from the bestiary also backs this up.

Spell Resistance (Ex) A creature with spell resistance can avoid the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. To determine if a spell or spell-like ability works against a creature with spell resistance, the caster must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level). If the result equals or exceeds the creature's spell resistance, the spell works normally, although the creature is still allowed a saving throw.

Once again there is no language about the spell being cancelled. It just allows for a creature to not suffer any effects of the spell.

A spell that's used directly against that creature fizzles out if the spell resistance check is not met.

However if that check is met, it only has to be met once.

A spell that's used directly against that creature fizzles out if the spell resistance check is not met.

However if that check is met, it only has to be met once.

Do you have a quote for that. I just quoted two sources and neither of them says that unless I missed something.

It's option 2.

Reading up I think I've been doing it wrong. I'm not sure where that came from. Option 2 & it's corollary seem most likely.

I second wraith. We have multiple rules quotes supporting our side, let's see yours.