|
For Refrence:
Diamond Soul (Ex)
At 13th level, a monk gains spell resistance equal to his current monk level + 10. In order to affect the monk with a spell, a spellcaster must get a result on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) that equals or exceeds the monk's spell resistance.
Spell Resistance
Spell resistance is the extraordinary ability to avoid being affected by spells. Some spells also grant spell resistance.
To affect a creature that has spell resistance, a spellcaster must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance. The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. If the caster fails the check, the spell doesn't affect the creature. The possessor does not have to do anything special to use spell resistance. The creature need not even be aware of the threat for its spell resistance to operate.
Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not. A creature can have some abilities that are subject to spell resistance and some that are not. Even some spells ignore spell resistance; see When Spell Resistance Applies, below.
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).
...
Emphasis mine.
So, in summery the only way for a 13th level or higher monk to be reliably healed other than by channeling positive energy is spending his standard action to lower his SR every round. If the monk is unconscious and didn't lower it last round... well better hope the cleric has more channeling left.
This is monumentally stupid.
Most DMs will probably house rule that a Monk's SR stays off once he shuts it off that that's enough to make the ability simply useless. If it could be turned of with a swift action (even if it had to be turned off every round as a swift action) that would be interesting. By the RAW though this is an actively detrimental ability.
Or you could play a Qinggong monk and trade in Diamond Soul for something cool. :)
it's been that way for 12 years, you take the good with the bad boyo
I have never liked SR as a PC/NPC that works in group. That is one reason I never tried drow in 3.5.
Just have the cleric beat the SR.
Just have the cleric beat the SR.
If only it were that easy.
Creative Director
|
I just ignore the spell resistance rules and treat it like an active firewall that can recognize friendly/helpful spells versus harmful ones.
My favorite houserule for it however is allowing SR to be dropped as an immediate action, but require a standard action to raise.
This is more or less the way I run things in my games. SR should be a benefit, not something that accidentally kills someone because they're unconscious and bleeding out and no cleric can penetrate their SR when they're trying to heal them.
(Of course, even if you go with rules as written and DON'T house-rule this, a cleric's channeled energy, being supernatural, ignores SR completely, so monks aren't TOTALLY hosed...)
Anyway, the reason it works this way is because classically SR has been something that the game's been REALLY hesitant to hand out to PCs, and thus it's not something that was really designed for PC use in mind. It certainly SHOULD be able to instantly react to incoming magic, in my opinion, in the same way you can opt to voluntarily fail a saving throw or allow someone to use a touch effect on you without forcing them to roll against your AC.
It's a good houserule to make SR work more friendly. Of course, it also works for the bad guys! :-)
(shrug) It is what it is for now, though, if your GM doesn't like house ruling things. It's certainly on my list of things to change if and when we get around to doing Pathfinder 2nd Edition, though!
I just ignore the spell resistance rules and treat it like an active firewall that can recognize friendly/helpful spells versus harmful ones.
My favorite houserule for it however is allowing SR to be dropped as an immediate action, but require a standard action to raise.
This is more or less the way I run things in my games. SR should be a benefit, not something that accidentally kills someone because they're unconscious and bleeding out and no cleric can penetrate their SR when they're trying to heal them.
(Of course, even if you go with rules as written and DON'T house-rule this, a cleric's channeled energy, being supernatural, ignores SR completely, so monks aren't TOTALLY hosed...)
Anyway, the reason it works this way is because classically SR has been something that the game's been REALLY hesitant to hand out to PCs, and thus it's not something that was really designed for PC use in mind. It certainly SHOULD be able to instantly react to incoming magic, in my opinion, in the same way you can opt to voluntarily fail a saving throw or allow someone to use a touch effect on you without forcing them to roll against your AC.
It's a good houserule to make SR work more friendly. Of course, it also works for the bad guys! :-)
(shrug) It is what it is for now, though, if your GM doesn't like house ruling things. It's certainly on my list of things to change if and when we get around to doing Pathfinder 2nd Edition, though!
I like this. I have thought of doing it before.
|
Qinggong Monk is what Monk should have been from the get-go.
I applaud Paizo for their fixes, but I would prefer them in core. Phase one of Monk fix arrived in APG (brass knuckles), phase two comes now (QM), I bet that Ultimate Combat will include some fighting style that gets rid of Flurry of Misses issue. Just why it takes three books while Paladin took one? :)
Qinggong Monk is what Monk should have been from the get-go.
I applaud Paizo for their fixes, but I would prefer them in core. Phase one of Monk fix arrived in APG (brass knuckles), phase two comes now (QM), I bet that Ultimate Combat will include some fighting style that gets rid of Flurry of Misses issue. Just why it takes three books while Paladin took one? :)
Brass knuckles don't transfer the monk unarmed damage anymore. Neither does the cestus. Either Sean or Jason said so in a recent thread. :(
|
|
Qinggong Monk is what Monk should have been from the get-go.
I applaud Paizo for their fixes, but I would prefer them in core. Phase one of Monk fix arrived in APG (brass knuckles), phase two comes now (QM), I bet that Ultimate Combat will include some fighting style that gets rid of Flurry of Misses issue. Just why it takes three books while Paladin took one? :)
Brass knuckles don't transfer the monk unarmed damage anymore. Neither does the cestus. Either Sean or Jason said so in a recent thread. :(
Link...or...it...didn't...
Qinggong Monk is what Monk should have been from the get-go.
I applaud Paizo for their fixes, but I would prefer them in core. Phase one of Monk fix arrived in APG (brass knuckles), phase two comes now (QM), I bet that Ultimate Combat will include some fighting style that gets rid of Flurry of Misses issue. Just why it takes three books while Paladin took one? :)
Brass knuckles don't transfer the monk unarmed damage anymore. Neither does the cestus. Either Sean or Jason said so in a recent thread. :(
Link...or...it...didn't...
edit:The post
Sean K Reynolds:
None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).
A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.
|
|
Qinggong Monk is what Monk should have been from the get-go.
I applaud Paizo for their fixes, but I would prefer them in core. Phase one of Monk fix arrived in APG (brass knuckles), phase two comes now (QM), I bet that Ultimate Combat will include some fighting style that gets rid of Flurry of Misses issue. Just why it takes three books while Paladin took one? :)
Brass knuckles don't transfer the monk unarmed damage anymore. Neither does the cestus. Either Sean or Jason said so in a recent thread. :(
Link...or...it...didn't...
edit:The post
Sean K Reynolds:
None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.
Wraithstrike, honey, that post is in a thread regarding Adventurer's Armory, back from before APG was published (post is from May 2010, APG arrives in August 2010).
In Adventurer's Armory, brass knuckles didn't allow monk damage.
In APG brass knuckles were reprinted with a change that allows monk damage.
Qinggong Monk is what Monk should have been from the get-go.
I applaud Paizo for their fixes, but I would prefer them in core. Phase one of Monk fix arrived in APG (brass knuckles), phase two comes now (QM), I bet that Ultimate Combat will include some fighting style that gets rid of Flurry of Misses issue. Just why it takes three books while Paladin took one? :)
Brass knuckles don't transfer the monk unarmed damage anymore. Neither does the cestus. Either Sean or Jason said so in a recent thread. :(
Link...or...it...didn't...
edit:The post
Sean K Reynolds:
None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.
Wraithstrike, honey, that post is in a thread regarding Adventurer's Armory, back from before APG was published (post is from May 2010, APG arrives in August 2010).
In Adventurer's Armory, brass knuckles didn't allow monk damage.
In APG brass knuckles were reprinted with a change that allows monk damage.
I see. I did not check the date. I am happy again.
I see. I did not check the date. I am happy again.
Me too.
it's been that way for 12 years, you take the good with the bad boyoNope. I rage against the machine.
It should have been fixed a long time ago. It wasn't. That does not make it okay.
It was fixed by WotC, there's a feat (I think in Drow of the Underdark) that lets you lower the SR faster, I think as a Swift or Immediate Action, not sure.
Besides, SR is POWERFUL. That's twice the chance of a spell FAILING; one for the SR, one for the save. Considering how high saves can be and how terribly low spell DCs are, wasting a good spell angers many a spellcaster. SR needed a good drawback.
it's been that way for 12 years, you take the good with the bad boyoNope. I rage against the machine.
It should have been fixed a long time ago. It wasn't. That does not make it okay.
It was fixed by WotC, there's a feat (I think in Drow of the Underdark) that lets you lower the SR faster, I think as a Swift or Immediate Action, not sure.
Besides, SR is POWERFUL. That's twice the chance of a spell FAILING; one for the SR, one for the save. Considering how high saves can be and how terribly low spell DCs are, wasting a good spell angers many a spellcaster.
Having to buy a book that you may not know about is not a fix.
It is powerful if you are an outsider. Those guys normally fly solo and they don't have to worry about beneficial spells failing them.
For PC's it seems to be more of a curse than a boon, which is why I would ask a GM could I not have it.
Huh. I always assumed it let beneficial spells through. (Probably because that's how the D&D MMO works.)
Never realized it was technically so... horrible.
|
|
(shrug) It is what it is for now, though, if your GM doesn't like house ruling things. It's certainly on my list of things to change if and when we get around to doing Pathfinder 2nd Edition, though!
Nerd rage subsiding.
I look forward to the day that Pathfinder actually decides to let go of the bad rules it inherited from 3.5
|
Creative Director
|
it's been that way for 12 years, you take the good with the bad boyoNope. I rage against the machine.
It should have been fixed a long time ago. It wasn't. That does not make it okay.
It was fixed by WotC, there's a feat (I think in Drow of the Underdark) that lets you lower the SR faster, I think as a Swift or Immediate Action, not sure.
Besides, SR is POWERFUL. That's twice the chance of a spell FAILING; one for the SR, one for the save. Considering how high saves can be and how terribly low spell DCs are, wasting a good spell angers many a spellcaster. SR needed a good drawback.
I disagree. There's not "good drawbacks" for regeneration, or damage reduction, or energy immunity. Saying SR needs a good drawback is, in my opinion, kinda going against the philosophy that defenses should be things people want.
It's better for SR to be something that you get at higher level for the most part (special low-level monsters notwithstanding, since they're not intentionally designed as PC options), and NOT have elements that make characters not want it.
Put another way, if something is supposedly as powerful as SR has a fair amount of players turning it down because its disadvantage is too much... then it's not balanced and not well-designed with an eye toward use in play by players.
it's been that way for 12 years, you take the good with the bad boyoNope. I rage against the machine.
It should have been fixed a long time ago. It wasn't. That does not make it okay.
Luckily, it's self-fixing. Monk abilities after level 12 are pretty crappy (except for Empty Body at level 19), so can safely take another more useful class, guilt-free!
(Just kidding...sort of.)
I just ignore the spell resistance rules and treat it like an active firewall that can recognize friendly/helpful spells versus harmful ones.
My favorite houserule for it however is allowing SR to be dropped as an immediate action, but require a standard action to raise.
I alwayd ruled this way too. and i second the fact that if the Monk is a class supposed to be good in defense, things like these should not be ignored.
A good "upgrade" for DS (other than the used-by-the-whole-universe houserule above) could be a feat allowing to lose it for a round as an immediate action, and activate a Spell Reflection effect. Perhaps ki based. This could help the anti-caster side of the monk.
From Spell Resistance:
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.From Saving Throw - (harmless):
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
Saving Throw Will half (harmless); see text; Spell Resistance yes (harmless); see text
I think it is pretty clear here that you only apply Spell Resistance "if it [i.e. the target] desires".
For those of you ruling that you MUST apply SR to Cure spells, how do you interpret the meaning of (harmless) in the SR field?
|
|
There's no need to interpret anything. All you need to do is to read the core rulebook:
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.
Voila.
There's no need to interpret anything. All you need to do is to read the core rulebook:
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.
Voila.
Gorbacz is right. I quoted the relevant text above.
I see. I did not check the date. I am happy again.Qinggong Monk is what Monk should have been from the get-go.
I applaud Paizo for their fixes, but I would prefer them in core. Phase one of Monk fix arrived in APG (brass knuckles), phase two comes now (QM), I bet that Ultimate Combat will include some fighting style that gets rid of Flurry of Misses issue. Just why it takes three books while Paladin took one? :)
Brass knuckles don't transfer the monk unarmed damage anymore. Neither does the cestus. Either Sean or Jason said so in a recent thread. :(
Link...or...it...didn't...
edit:The post
Sean K Reynolds:
None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.
Wraithstrike, honey, that post is in a thread regarding Adventurer's Armory, back from before APG was published (post is from May 2010, APG arrives in August 2010).
In Adventurer's Armory, brass knuckles didn't allow monk damage.
In APG brass knuckles were reprinted with a change that allows monk damage.
Do adamantine brass knuckles make the unarmed damage bypass DR?
I never knew SR also worked for spells you're willing to receive. Seems pretty obvious to me.
Do adamantine brass knuckles make the unarmed damage...I see. I did not check the date. I am happy again.Qinggong Monk is what Monk should have been from the get-go.
I applaud Paizo for their fixes, but I would prefer them in core. Phase one of Monk fix arrived in APG (brass knuckles), phase two comes now (QM), I bet that Ultimate Combat will include some fighting style that gets rid of Flurry of Misses issue. Just why it takes three books while Paladin took one? :)
Brass knuckles don't transfer the monk unarmed damage anymore. Neither does the cestus. Either Sean or Jason said so in a recent thread. :(
Link...or...it...didn't...
edit:The post
Sean K Reynolds:
None of those three weapons allow a monk to use his level-based unarmed damage; they just do the damage listed on the weapon table. This isn't errata (they were never intended to allow monks to do that, as they can already deal lethal or nonlethal at their discretion), it's a clarification of the use of terms like "with unarmed attacks" in the descriptive text of those three weapons (they aren't unarmed attacks, and mentioning unarmed attacks at all confuses the issue).A monk can still use brass knuckles or a cestus as part of a flurry (thus the "monk" entry in the Special column), but not rope gauntlets.
Wraithstrike, honey, that post is in a thread regarding Adventurer's Armory, back from before APG was published (post is from May 2010, APG arrives in August 2010).
In Adventurer's Armory, brass knuckles didn't allow monk damage.
In APG brass knuckles were reprinted with a change that allows monk damage.
Yes it does.
I disagree. There's not "good drawbacks" for regeneration, or damage reduction, or energy immunity. Saying SR needs a good drawback is, in my opinion, kinda going against the philosophy that defenses should be things people want.
It's better for SR to be something that you get at higher level for the most part (special low-level monsters notwithstanding, since they're not intentionally designed as PC options), and NOT have elements that make characters not want it.
Put another way, if something is supposedly as powerful as SR has a fair amount of players turning it down because its disadvantage is too much... then it's not balanced and not well-designed with an eye toward use in play by players.
I'd have to disagree mainly on the point that spells are extremely limited, and no spellcaster wants to waste a good spell or always devote so much time into defeating SR, much less also try and make their save DCs high enough so those monsters at high levels with +15 or more to most of their saves still have somewhat of a chance at failing. The fact that SR grants TWO defenses against magic simply causes spellcasters to withdraw further into the "conservation" mode.
Do we have 2 defenses for combatants? I don't know of anything where an enemy has to beat a defense first before needing to target AC afterwards, making it twice as hard to damage someone in melee, do you? Why should spellcasters suffer? This drawback makes SR less appealing, but I don't really think it harms its use nor makes PCs shy away from it.
Do we have 2 defenses for combatants?
Damage reduction and AC?
Isn't the same crowd that's complaining about spell resistance and curing within combat the one that also the one that argues in combat healing is a waste of time?
By the level you get Diamond Soul, in-combat healing = heal, which I haven't heard anyone say is non-worthwhile.
However, you will need to heal sometimes in combat, even if you usually avoid it. Saying to avoid in-combat healing when you can isn't the same as saying never do it.
In any case, being left out of the haste spell or a similar group buff is just as annoying if not as deadly.
Isn't the same crowd that's complaining about spell resistance and curing within combat the one that also the one that argues in combat healing is a waste of time?
I don't see any 'regular' posters who are complaining about combat healing here. Care to share?
I see the regulars posting about beneficial spells, and not necessarily in combat. Each resisted spell is spent, so it's obvious (to most) that it's still an issue.Also, what your point is? Are you suggesting that it shouldn't matter? Or that we should not care?
|
I'm going to point out that it says Magical attacks, emphasis on -ATTACKS-. Spells that aren't attacks don't register against spell resistance. Say you are fighting a Lich and he's got a spell resistance ring/spell on, when you cast Cure Serious Wounds on him, he would get his SR, when his Goblin cleric casts Harm on him, he just gets his hp back. Because attacks are based on perspective and to that Lich the harm spell isn't an attack, and the cure spell is.
|
|
Where are you reading 'attacks' to emphasize it? Spell resistance applies if the spell targets or catches the subject in its area. Nowhere does it say 'if the spell is attacking' the subject.
'Spell resistance is the extraordinary ability to avoid being affected by spells'
'Affected', not 'attacked'.
Do we have 2 defenses for combatants?Damage reduction and AC?
I would have answered "AC and miss chance".
For the record, if I were designing a new version of D&D, I'd replace spell resistance with a bonus to saves and/or the ability save against targeted/area spells that don't normally have a save.
I'd also give golems hardness instead of DR, and real magic immunity, but that's a different story.
|
|
Where are you reading 'attacks' to emphasize it? Spell resistance applies if the spell targets or catches the subject in its area. Nowhere does it say 'if the spell is attacking' the subject.
'Spell resistance is the extraordinary ability to avoid being affected by spells'
'Affected', not 'attacked'.
The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks.
Emphasize the last word.
|
|
Which is countermanded by...
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.
You cannot use an example simile to counter this explicit rule that all spells must overcome SR.
|
|
Which is countermanded by...
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.You cannot use an example simile to counter this explicit rule that all spells must overcome SR.
As the GM you can ignore whatever you bloody well please. I've seen this used both in my favor as a player and against me as a player, on several occasions. So, if it's unseemly to you as a GM, ignore it, only the most.... rule-abiding of GMs will stick to this, and those also tend to be the worst story-tellers.
As the GM you can ignore whatever you bloody well please.
This has already been established.
You were arguing that a lich's SR not working against his cleric cohort's Harm spell was RAW.When it was clearly shown that you were wrong, you refused to admit you were wrong but instead changed to a Rule 0 argument.
The existence of Rule 0 doesn't make your previous interpretation of RAW any less wrong.
Which is countermanded by...
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.You cannot use an example simile to counter this explicit rule that all spells must overcome SR.
Thank you for drawing our attention to this passage. The issue is now really muddled.
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. As TriOmegaZero points out, 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.
|
|
As the GM you can ignore whatever you bloody well please.This has already been established.
You were arguing that a lich's SR not working against his cleric cohort's Harm spell was RAW.
When it was clearly shown that you were wrong, you refused to admit you were wrong but instead changed to a Rule 0 argument.
The existence of Rule 0 doesn't make your previous interpretation of RAW any less wrong.
So you wasted an entire post stating I'm wrong? I'm wrong. Whoopee. I don't expect to be right all of the time. Adding on to what others have said doesn't really accomplish much other than to waste posts. Like I'm doing now.
As the GM you can ignore whatever you bloody well please. I've seen this used both in my favor as a player and against me as a player, on several occasions. So, if it's unseemly to you as a GM, ignore it, only the most.... rule-abiding of GMs will stick to this, and those also tend to be the worst story-tellers.Which is countermanded by...
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.You cannot use an example simile to counter this explicit rule that all spells must overcome SR.
Any GM can ignore anything. You were initially arguing what the actual rule was. Don't try to move the goalpost.