I cannot accept heals.
Ghostalker does not approve.
What do you guys think of this?
I cannot accept heals.
Ghostalker does not approve.
What do you guys think of this?
#1. You can accept heals so long as the caster overcomes your spell resistance.
#2. You can drop your spell resistance as a standard action. I believe it's a free action to turn it back on. At least that's the way it was in 3.5e. One moment and I'll check.
Edit: I was sort of right. It comes back on automatically, but...
A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature's next turn. At the beginning of the creature's next turn, the creature's spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).
A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.
So you'll need to burn standard actions to keep SR down.
I cannot accept heals.
Ghostalker does not approve.
What do you guys think of this?
That you should be killing things before you're in need of healing?
You now know why I don't generally like SR on my characters. Then again, if I'm a caster, it doesn't now affect my own spells, which has been nice in our current campaign. I suggest you get used to either A) dropping it and leaving it down, or B) not getting spells cast on you during combat.
That is why I dont care for SR. There was a 3.5 feat that allowed you to lower it as a free action. It was in one of the drow books, IIRC.
You now know why I don't generally like SR on my characters. Then again, if I'm a caster, it doesn't now affect my own spells, which has been nice in our current campaign. I suggest you get used to either A) dropping it and leaving it down, or B) not getting spells cast on you during combat.
I suppose my larger issue is that, if my resistance to spells is due to my daily training and diligence, why can I not let that fall for a moment without giving so much of my concentration?
Just feels silly.
|
For the same reason that casting a lightning bolt while underwater doesn't fry you, your familiar, your friends, your enemies and all the fish in the lake, and falling from 300m nets you 20d6 damage which is easily soaked by anybody with half decent HP.
That reason is called "Logic and D&D Do Not Mix". :)
LOL! I think you win the thread, Gorbacz.
For the same reason that casting a lightning bolt while underwater doesn't fry you, your familiar, your friends, your enemies and all the fish in the lakeActually
Some spells might function differently underwater, subject to GM discretion.
So, ghostwalker, ask that question to your DM, and it might give you more control over your spell resistance.
For the same reason that casting a lightning bolt while underwater doesn't fry you, your familiar, your friends, your enemies and all the fish in the lakeActuallySome spells might function differently underwater, subject to GM discretion.So, ghostwalker, ask that question to your DM, and it might give you more control over your spell resistance.
But only underwater :-)
I cannot accept heals.
Ghostalker does not approve.
What do you guys think of this?
Hah! It's not just heals. No more Haste, no more "Oh, crap, we're gonna die, lemme teleport us to safety!" emergency evacuation spells, no more "Hey, that wizard is flying, cast Fly on me so I can go get him!" mobility spells...
No more buffs of any kind.
Every spell, every time, you have to say "Wait! Don't cast that Haste yet, delay your action so I can go first. Then I'll waste my turn lowering my resistance so your Haste will affect me too".
Sucks, doesn't it?
On the plus side, you are invincible. Your enemies can't cast nasty stuff on you. Right?
Well, not exactly. Your SR is 23. Assuming you face level-appropriate enemies, they will be 14th level spellcasters. (CR = class level-1). So they already only need to roll a 9. But by level 14, any spellcaster who prepares spells that are cast on enemies will have taken Spell Penetration and probably also Greater Spell Penetration, so now they only need to roll a 5.
And that's the generic encounters. When you fight the bosses, who are usually going to be a few levels higher, they will need to roll something very close to a 1 to beat your Spell Resistance.
It's not all bad. Your allies probably have the same feats, so they can buff you, most of the time, without you needing to drop your Spell Resistance.
As a kind and loving DM, I've added the cateat that spell resistance applies "to spells of which you are not a willing recipient."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a kind and loving DM, I've added the cateat that spell resistance applies "to spells of which you are not a willing recipient."
+1
The fact that you get SR as a class or race SU ability should not be a burden. Being basically required to take a feat or waste half a round every time you need a heal is asinine.
I've always thought that voluntarily failing the save should bypass SR. Kind of like an active firewall.
Unfortunately the way the rules go, SR is checked first to determine if a save is even necessary. It cuts down on unnecessary rolls that way as it is an all or nothing effect at that point. The only good thing I can say about it is at least the enemy has to deal with the same thing ;-)
As a kind and loving DM, I've added the cateat that spell resistance applies "to spells of which you are not a willing recipient."+1
The fact that you get SR as a class or race SU ability should not be a burden. Being basically required to take a feat or waste half a round every time you need a heal is asinine.
+2.
I 100% agree with the logic behind doing it this way. Houserule, RAI whatever, its more fun for a table this way IMO.
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.
(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level.
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
As a kind and loving DM, I've added the cateat that spell resistance applies "to spells of which you are not a willing recipient."+1
The fact that you get SR as a class or race SU ability should not be a burden. Being basically required to take a feat or waste half a round every time you need a heal is asinine.
This is how I do it. SR should only apply to anything you don't want cast on you. Just like some spells (cure light, or any other buff) allow you to make or not make a save. Who ever chooses to make the save?
As a kind and loving DM, I've added the cateat that spell resistance applies "to spells of which you are not a willing recipient."
I allow people to drop it as an immediate action, but that is not bad either.
Undead vs Cure Spells
Cure is a bad example because it can technically be used as an offensive spell.
Shield of Faith is a much better example. Not only can it not be used in any offensive capacity whatsoever, it has both a Will save (harmless) and applies SR (harmless)
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allowing a creature to lower SR as a free action and to activate it as a free action is a very very very good house rule. I use it in my own games all the time after having run into this exact problem playing a drow in Jason Nelson's game for a few years.
|
|
Allowing a creature to lower SR as a free action and to activate it as a free action is a very very very good house rule. I use it in my own games all the time after having run into this exact problem playing a drow in Jason Nelson's game for a few years.
Was the current technical functioning of the ability left this way for any specific reason that you know of JJ? It just seems like one of those things that kinda got glossed over during mechanics design.
Allowing a creature to lower SR as a free action and to activate it as a free action is a very very very good house rule. I use it in my own games all the time after having run into this exact problem playing a drow in Jason Nelson's game for a few years.
While I tend to agree, I think this approach should only be used on innate SR. Drow, yes. Monks, yes. Anyone that is born with SR or learns to "evolve" SR as their own innate ability.
But for everyone else who simply straps on a magic item, or casts a spell that they don't really control innately, I think I like keeping the SR rules as written, and make it a bit harder for them to turn their SR on and off. Heck, a if we can't turn our flaming swords on and off as free actions, why should we get to do any better with SR items?
|
|
Allowing a creature to lower SR as a free action and to activate it as a free action is a very very very good house rule. I use it in my own games all the time after having run into this exact problem playing a drow in Jason Nelson's game for a few years.While I tend to agree, I think this approach should only be used on innate SR. Drow, yes. Monks, yes. Anyone that is born with SR or learns to "evolve" SR as their own innate ability.
But for everyone else who simply straps on a magic item, or casts a spell that they don't really control innately, I think I like keeping the SR rules as written, and make it a bit harder for them to turn their SR on and off. Heck, a if we can't turn our flaming swords on and off as free actions, why should we get to do any better with SR items?
Maybe making it so you can switch it off as a free action until the beginning of your next round, when you then get the opportunity to turn it back on. Leaving something of a danger gap for "Bringing the shields down" so to speak?
Maybe making it so you can switch it off as a free action until the beginning of your next round, when you then get the opportunity to turn it back on. Leaving something of a danger gap for "Bringing the shields down" so to speak?Allowing a creature to lower SR as a free action and to activate it as a free action is a very very very good house rule. I use it in my own games all the time after having run into this exact problem playing a drow in Jason Nelson's game for a few years.While I tend to agree, I think this approach should only be used on innate SR. Drow, yes. Monks, yes. Anyone that is born with SR or learns to "evolve" SR as their own innate ability.
But for everyone else who simply straps on a magic item, or casts a spell that they don't really control innately, I think I like keeping the SR rules as written, and make it a bit harder for them to turn their SR on and off. Heck, a if we can't turn our flaming swords on and off as free actions, why should we get to do any better with SR items?
I honestly think this here is how I'd handle it if I were a dm, kind of a "Do you have SR this round? Choose."
Allowing a creature to lower SR as a free action and to activate it as a free action is a very very very good house rule. I use it in my own games all the time after having run into this exact problem playing a drow in Jason Nelson's game for a few years.While I tend to agree, I think this approach should only be used on innate SR. Drow, yes. Monks, yes. Anyone that is born with SR or learns to "evolve" SR as their own innate ability.
But for everyone else who simply straps on a magic item, or casts a spell that they don't really control innately, I think I like keeping the SR rules as written, and make it a bit harder for them to turn their SR on and off. Heck, a if we can't turn our flaming swords on and off as free actions, why should we get to do any better with SR items?
SR items already horribly overpriced. The price needs to be dropped and they should still be able to be turned off at will.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was the current technical functioning of the ability left this way for any specific reason that you know of JJ? It just seems like one of those things that kinda got glossed over during mechanics design.
I suspect it was left that way because Jason felt that Spell Resistance is too powerful an ability to allow for free action raising/lowering, and perhaps also a bit out of tradition for how the ability has always worked.
I'm a much more lenient GM than Jason is, I think, and I tend to skew games more in the players' favor, I suspect, than the norm, though.
I tend to skew games more in the players' favor, I suspect, than the norm, though.
Tell that to Whitley “Whitt” Whittaker... :-)
Edit: That probably deserves a link.
Allowing a creature to lower SR as a free action and to activate it as a free action is a very very very good house rule. I use it in my own games all the time after having run into this exact problem playing a drow in Jason Nelson's game for a few years.
But SR blocking others spells like cure spells fits a rationale that some Drow favor Cleric (so they can heal themselves and ignore DR issue).
I mean, in Drow society you can't trust the fellow Cleric is really casting cure (you lower your SR and you'll be in trouble).
Granted, as a feat it makes sense to adapt.
I've always felt that spells with the (harmless) tag should be able to go through SR without the recipient needing to lower it first. The fact that they can't always made me wonder why WotC bothered to put the (harmless) tags on the SR lines to begin with.
The current situation is a little disappointing since Monks can't turn off their SR for prolonged periods and don't have any alternate ability to trade SR in on if they decide that having a 50% chance not to be hurt by spells isn't worth having a 50% chance not to be healed by them either. If Wholeness of Body were a swift action like Lay on Hands this might not be such a sore point.
As a kind and loving DM, I've added the cateat that spell resistance applies "to spells of which you are not a willing recipient."
This is pretty much how I do it too.
As a kind and loving DM, I've added the cateat that spell resistance applies "to spells of which you are not a willing recipient."
This. As a drawback I'd say the Monk has to be conscious and aware to have the added spell resistance.
|
As a kind and loving DM, I've added the cateat that spell resistance applies "to spells of which you are not a willing recipient."This. As a drawback I'd say the Monk has to be conscious and aware to have the added spell resistance.
I would go the other route, in that the SR kicks in unless the monk states that they are willing.
for me it is just like holding your breath till you pass out. Once you are out, you start to breath again normally.
In this case, once the monk is out, his SR kicks back in. I view it this way since his SR is EX and thus something that just happens. Unless you want to state that his "Purity of Body" (another EX ability that the monk gets that is always on) also turns off when the monk is unconscious.
It's still going because people dont like that its a standard action to choose not to resist a spell? That's be my guess ;p
In my campaign, I rule that its a standard to lower SR, but then it stays down until a swift action is used to bring it back up. Which seems better than standard to lower it, and then it refreshes next round unless you use another standard to keep it lowered.