| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
ok im having an arguement with someone about spell resistance. im under then impression that spell resistance applies to all magic that you dont control.
as in if a healer tries to heal you, you have to spend a standard action lowering your SR in order to get healing without your teamate having to make a check.
she thinks it only applies to enemy casters. and teammates can freely cast on each other.
i cited the rules from the CRB and she still thinks it doesnt work the same way as i do. the only way she will concede is if i can get the post from Jason Bulmen that says how SR works in that reguard. if anyone can help me out with this i would greatly appreciate it.
|
That is probably unnecessary, but I'll help you look.
You are correct. Spell resistance applies to any spell that "targets" a creature. Healing is the reason why they even put the blurb about lowering your spell resistance. Though, it is a powerful defense, it is a neutral defense and affects everything.
im not finding it anywhere, but i remember seeing it a few years ago
damn it where is AD or cheapy when you need them?!?!
Right here!
You're right. Spell Resistance applies to all spells and spell-like abilities that have SR: Yes in their description. Here's the glossary definition of it. There are no rules in there about exceptions based on allies or enemies. I can sort of see where the argument is coming from if they are focusing on the "defenders" section of the 3rd sentence, but SR makes no differentiation between allies or enemies.
Here is the link to the definition in the magic chapter. It's more succinct than the glossaries definition, but it's still the same SR. The last paragraph of it states that "harmless" means the same thing for SR as it does for saves. The definition of harmless is here:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.The SR definition goes on to state that
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.
So, even (harmless) spells, so the type of spell you'd be casting aon allies like Cure Light Wounds, still require them to lower their SR to not force the CL check.
It's very so much a two-edged sword. Hope that helps!
woot cheapy for the win!
You should name your threads as they relate to the subject you wish to discuss.
The "need developer comment" type of thread titles are obnoxious, and come off self-righteous.
BBT the thread title was in refrence to the people who are constantly answering questions and helping people.
the title was not in refrence to the people who moderate or are developers. so please go back to your closet and thanks for putting your obnoxious and self rightous comment in the mix, after the question had ben answered.
"The "need developer comment" type of thread titles are obnoxious, and come off self-righteous" how is this not taken offensivly in any context? why was you comment even necessary?
you didnt hurt my feeling, you just annoyed me.
Sorry about that.
also i am sorry. bad day so im a little short fused tonight.
I was more commenting on the attempted distinction between getting annoyed and having one's feelings hurt.
Given that, you know, "annoyed" is a feeling.
I don't know.
What does the RAW say?
Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology: "Hurt feelings are a subtype of social pain that are experienced specifically in response to perceptions of social injury, or threats to beliefs about one’s potential for recruiting social support."
I'm not a Board Master, but I am a Master at being Bored.
Apparently AD and I.
Dibs.
Personally, I've found this to typically be house ruled to only apply to spells with adverse effects. On the one hand, as cheapy mentioned, it does use the word "defender" which alludes to that interpretation. On the other hand, everywhere else it pretty much just does what it says on the tin, plus spells like 'Cure Light Wounds' even have the specific SR entry. Then again, from the reading on "harmless" and the text of CLW, it seems to me SR only applies when targeting undead with CLW and thus where it becomes a harmful spell.
Question to those tuning in, can you think of a downside toward playing in this manner?
Edit: clarifying that "this manner" means "SR only applies when a spell has an adverse effect"
RAW says SR applies even against allies' spells. The developers have said in the past that this was NOT really their intent, however, and that GMs should let this one slide.
I don't recall where it was said though, and I will link to it if I find it.
Now that would be interesting to read.
RAW says SR applies even against allies' spells. The developers have said in the past that this was NOT really their intent, however, and that GMs should let this one slide.
I don't recall where it was said though, and I will link to it if I find it.
That is not true Ravingdork. If that was the case you would not have to spend a standard action lowering the SR.
To make a rule saying do X to avoid Y, but then say you never intended for Y to take place is nonsensical. It is just easier to make sure Y never takes place.
Personally, I've found this to typically be house ruled to only apply to spells with adverse effects. On the one hand, as cheapy mentioned, it does use the word "defender" which alludes to that interpretation. On the other hand, everywhere else it pretty much just does what it says on the tin, plus spells like 'Cure Light Wounds' even have the specific SR entry. Then again, from the reading on "harmless" and the text of CLW, it seems to me SR only applies when targeting undead with CLW and thus where it becomes a harmful spell.
Question to those tuning in, can you think of a downside toward playing in this manner?
Edit: clarifying that "this manner" means "SR only applies when a spell has an adverse effect"
That is not correct either.
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.
Now that would be interesting to read.
This is all that I was able to find on short notice. Neither Sean nor Jason seemed to have said anything terribly pertinent about it (at least, not upon these forums).
.
.
The idea that SR is a super overpowered awesome PC ability is indeed not as accurate as folks are saying.
SR is really really good for monsters (assuming there's at least one PC spellcaster, if not, then it's a 100% waste).
For PCs, who fight against enemy spellcasters MUCH LESS OFTEN than monsters and NPCs... spell resistance ends up applying to ally spells as much as or even more often than against enemy attacks.
It remains an excellent defense... but it can really come back and hurt you. I was playing a drow character in one of Jason Nelson's games, and now and then I'd get into a situation where my SR actively hurt me. Once, it even nearly killed me—I'd been knocked down to negative hp and was bleeding to death, and the cleric kept failing her SR check to get through my SR to cast cure wounds spells on me. I eventually made the stabilization check (or maybe I got a potion or something)... but yeah. Not as great as you might think.
.
.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.
.
.SR wasn't originally ever intended to be an ability that's "easy" for PCs to get, frankly, and as such it was never heavilly playtested, so I suspect that the concept that SR hurts PCs as much or more than it helps them never really came onto the radar of the 3rd edition design team. I'm not sure, though... I was on the periphery of things at that point.Enemies are more than likely going to overcome it.Enemies with class levels maybe. It's been my experience that most spellcasting monsters have a caster level lower than their CR. Of all those monsters in the spellcasting role in the Bestiary I, only the Azata, Nymph, Planetar, and Trumpet Archon stand out by having their CR = CL. The other 17 spellcasting monsters in the book have less then their CR (some far less).
I was also about to say that I remember a game developer stating that SR hurting you wasn't the intent of the ability, but then James popped in with his own unfortunate experiences.
.
.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!
.
.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.
EDIT: Just saw Wraithstrike's post.
Yes, it seems I was a little off. Rather, developers have spoken about their personal feelings about the rule and how they run it in their games, rather than their rules intent.
Yea, I didn't see anything from Jason or Sean either. Even after searching for something around 6 terms.
I was posting in JB's thread around that time RD, and I figured that was what you were talking about.
I also remember a 3.5 feat from Drow of the underdark that made dropping SR either a move or swift action. I don't remember which one.
Yea, I didn't see anything from Jason or Sean either. Even after searching for something around 6 terms.
I searched every post they've ever written for the words "SR" and "spell resistance."
I was posting in JB's thread around that time RD, and I figured that was what you were talking about.
I also remember a 3.5 feat from Drow of the underdark that made dropping SR either a move or swift action. I don't remember which one.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes. My search fu has always been better than my memory.