Note that creation doesn't state that there won't be SR though. No rules were broken in the making of this spell.
In the case of this spell spell resistance is applied because that's what the spell says. Creation spells as a whole don't state one way or the other, in every case you go by what the spell description says.
I never said anything such thing -- I said check the spell.
The 3.5 'system' was by no means followed carefully and the same can be said of pathfinder. 3.5 didn't have a rule that stated that creation spells didn't allow SR -- you are adding things that simply were not (and are not) in the rules.
Each spell is different, they have some universal traits, but even then specific spells can, will, and do ignore these at times.
Creations spells do not have any such rule stated when it comes to SR and never have.
That applies to fireball equally as well.
Acidic Spray actually does expose the creature to the spell the instant it is cast. It tries to deal damage right away. Just like any number of other spells that have SR:yes and instantaneous (like Fireball).
What that sentence means is that a creature with SR that enters an area where an instantaneous spell (with SR:yes) still has a lasting effect, the creature's SR doesn't matter because the spell was already cast before it entered the area.
The answer then is that the spell Acidic Spray actually creates magical acid. I don't see what part of this wouldn't make sense.
Where does it say it is non-magical?
The answer then is that the spell Acidic Spray actually creates magical acid. I don't see what part of this wouldn't make sense.Well..... its not magical.... Its conjuration, creation, instantaneous. Evo is magical. I dont see what part of it would make sense to anyone.
citation on a magical spell not making magical acid in this case?
I think he meant a citation of a proof that this spell could not create magical acid. Like, a quote from a book or developer or some such. Not just a repetition of your same argument :P
I think he meant a citation of a proof that this spell could not create magical acid. Like, a quote from a book or developer or some such. Not just a repetition of your same argument :PI gave the quote from the book earlier. Page 209. core. Creation.:-p
My 2 coppers.
"Magic actually has to be working for spell resistance to apply. Spells that have instantaneous durations but lasting results aren't subject to spell resistance unless the resistant creature is exposed to the spell the instant it is cast."
Acidic spray doesn't have lasting results so wouldn't be immune to SR. If anything based on your reasoning needs to change, it's acid splash to SR:yes.
Page 565. Core Rulebook. "When Spell Resistance Applies" section, last paragraph: "Magic actually has to be working for spell resistance to apply. Spells that have instantaneous durations but lasting results aren't subject to spell resistance unless the resistant creature is exposed to the spell the instant it is cast."
I realize what the spell itself says (hence my question); however it seems illogical to me that the spell acidic spray would be subject to spell resistance when a remarkably similar spell (acid splash) is not.
Can you show me the lasting result other than damage of Acid spray. I can't bottle the acid and throw it I can't wait on it to eat through a door round by round. So its there and then gone hence not a lasting result
"If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence."
Oh well that's cool then, since it lasts indefinitely I can acidic spray to do d6/level dmg to people every turn until the end of time each time I cast it!
(+d6/2 levels on each following round)
....
Or perhaps since it is not creating an object or creature this spell works differently :P
ALSO:
I completely agree with the 2 posters above this one :)
Acid arrow creates lasting acid that stays around for several rounds. Acidic spray one round of damage (which doesn't count as a lasting effect mind you)
Dealing damage upon successful casting does not equal "a lasting effect" sir.
Acid arrow creates lasting acid that stays around for several rounds. Acidic spray one round of damage (which doesn't count as a lasting effect mind you)I would like to see evidence that lasting effect is a keyword used anywhere in that book. At 3 level acid arrow lasts how many rounds? 1+1. Not a lasting effect. No?
............ Your the one Citing the Rules that use the term. Fine run it your way that means no spell that does anything that doesn't vanish instantly ignores spell resistance.
Wait let me guess your DM/PC was about to get owned until they saw SR and then you failed the check and you want ammo for the next game.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
He's actually got a solid point, acid arrow, acidic spray and caustic erruption all work in similar ways. They are all conjuration creation spells that create acid instantly to deal damage, and the acid persists for longer than the time it takes to do the damage in each case as well. Acid arrow does repeating damage over several rounds while acidic spray and caustic erruption deal half the damage again the round after casting.
In the cases of acid arrow and caustic erruption they are sr no while acidic spray is sr yes, chances are one or more of these are editing errors which need to be corrected. I would be inclined to house rule acidic spray as sr no until its clarified due to the evidence the op has put forward and its similarity to existing sr no spells, acid arrow has been around for many editions and has been sr no for a while, caustic erruption is in the same book with the same effect in a different shape for slightly higher damage but is also sr no.
All the evidence points to acidic spray working the same as other conjuration creation acid effects but for some reason this one spell deviates from the norm, if its not an error there must be a good reason for it but i cannot see one other than the arbitrary "because it is" that people are throwing out.
Tell you what -- I suggest an archive search at this point -- because this has been addressed before when the spells first came out (it's been a long day or I would have remembered and recommended this sooner).
Tell you what -- I suggest an archive search at this point -- because this has been addressed before when the spells first came out (it's been a long day or I would have remembered and recommended this sooner).
My google-fu must be weak, my forum search mostly links this thread and nothing in the top 50 is relevant. When you get time could you provide a link please?
Fast Finds:
Starts with some Cold Ice Strike love
Some touching on spell design philosophy here
And I think there might have been some in this one too
a bit in this one
What I did was search Conjuration spells Ultimate Magic Jason Bulmahn.
You can of course also try simply Ultimate magic Spell Resistance too.
I'm sorry I know there's more than those that I listed but honestly that's about as much as I'm going to put into it right now.
I'm still fine with the way it is personally, I don't think it's as much of an issue as it could be and I do remember a thread where one of the designers mentioned they were trying to get away from having all conjuration damage spells not worry about SR... but I didn't archive it at the time as it was simply 'designer philosophy' talk which I generally absorb, but don't reference because, hey it's philosophy you know?
Cheers abraham, i suspected it may be around design to stop all conjuration spells avoiding sr, just seems unusual to only have one of them, feels so out of place, especially for a level five spell thats worse than intensified fireball or even lightning bolt which are both a level lower. I'll do some reading and repost later.
I haven't looked at the provided links yet (thanks for providing them), but I have to concur with the OP. There is a fair bit of precedent where spells that damage via acid (as opposed to very similar spells using fire, cold, electricity, or sonic to damage the target) are not subject to spell resistance.
Note: I'm answering off the cuff and don't have time to look into details, but I think he's justified in asking the question. And so far, I find his argument more compelling.
Note I don't feel it's worse than what's already available at fifth level for damage -- cone of cold.
After all it's a line, but it has repeating damage and caps at 15d6 (which level 5 spells generally do), after all after the repeat it's 'almost' 22d6 of damage out of a 5th level spell.
If I was to nitpick on anything it would be the 60 foot range with a 60 foot line that would cause me to go 'huh'? After all lines extend from the caster for their distance and that's it -- so there is no need for a range line.
Honestly now that you can bend lines like crazy to not affect your allies I've been using them a lot more. Also if you get a caster with it you could really mess up his casting the next turn. But not every spell is for every person (or even every situation).
Personally of all the blasting spells I like dragon's breath the best currently.