Spell Resistance and (harmless) spells

[Michael Sayre]

So, under saving Throws, (harmless) states "(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."

But under spell resistance it states:
"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."

Aren't these definitions contrary? Why even include the (harmless) descriptor next to Spell Resistance if you need to take the action to lower it? Doesn't that mean that the (harmless) descriptor, instead of working "the same way as with saving throws" actually does absolutely nothing for Spell Resistance?

[Brotato]

FAQing out of the hope that SR gets clarified to be more an advantage than disadvantage.

[Nefreet]

The term "Harmless" has other uses. I know of at least one trait that lets you pick two harmless cantrips to add to your spell list. I believe I've seen other references to it before, too.

Spell Resistance still needs to be lowered in order for a harmless spell's caster to not have to make a check.

[Michael Sayre]

Nefreet wrote:

The term "Harmless" has other uses. I know of at least one trait that lets you pick two harmless cantrips to add to your spell list. I believe I've seen other references to it before, too.

Spell Resistance still needs to be lowered in order for a harmless spell's caster to not have to make a check.

Which means that in regards to Spell Resistance, the (harmless) descriptor does... nothing. If you look at a spell like Cure Light Wounds, you'll see that the (harmless) descriptor is next to both saving throws and SR. Supposedly it means the same thing for both, but that can't be the case since you need to lower SR for a (harmless) spell to take affect without the SR interfering. That means the (harmless) descriptor next to the SR Y/N entry accomplishes exactly nothing, other than burning word count.

[FLite]

someone else in another thread said this had been erratad, but I couldn't find an errata on it.

[Michael Sayre]

FLite wrote:

someone else in another thread said this had been erratad, but I couldn't find an errata on it.

That may have been me actually, and I was operating under some erroneous information at the time.

[Jester David]

It's clarifying that "harmless" means "usually beneficial" as described in saving throws, and not something like "ones you can't hurt you". Then it clarifies that even harmless spells requires a caster level check.

[Michael Sayre]

Jester David wrote:

It's clarifying that "harmless" means "usually beneficial" as described in saving throws, and not something like "ones you can't hurt you". Then it clarifies that even harmless spells requires a caster level check.

But there is no spell that (harmless) listed for saving throws, but not for SR. The descriptor does nothing.

Even for saving throws (harmless) doesn't mean "usually beneficial, it means " (harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."

So having the descriptor for SR is just silly and does nothing. It also makes Spell resistance a net downgrade for the character, since enemy spells will almost always have a much higher chance of connecting than allied heals or buffs. As it stands, Spell Resistance is only good for characters who happen to be the ones casting the spells.

The current definition of Spell resistance also means:

Paladins cannot buff their mounts without spending a move action to push the mount to spend a standard to lower their Spell Resistance.

Druids who take the Celestial Servant feat cannot buff their Animal Companion's without spending a move action to push the mount to spend a standard to lower their Spell Resistance, and then readying a standard action to buff the AC on its turn.

MOnks over 13th level cannot benefit from party buffs or heals in combat without burning a standard action.

Etc, etc. so on and so forth. It seems like the (harmless) descriptor was originally intended to denote that the spell could pass SR, the same way (harmless) works for saves. But it doesn't.

The statement that(harmless) means the same thing for SR that it does for saves is in contradiction to the statement that SR needs to be lowered as a standard action for (harmless) spells to pass through.

[DM_Blake]

Not that this helps in a Rules Questions forum, but I always houserule that innate SR (something you get from your race or class) can be lowered/raised as a free action even when it's not your round, which means that all creatures and characters with innate SR can enjoy the benefits without suffering the loss of buffs and heals - but SR gained from external sources (spells, magical items, etc.) needs to be activated and deactivated as described.

I'm not sure the point the OP wants to make - is the only point of the thread to point out that Paizo wasted word count by listing "(harmless)" where it isn't needed? Or is the point that the OP wants SR to be less disruptive to "(harmless)" spells?

[Michael Sayre]

DM_Blake wrote:

Or is the point that the OP wants SR to be less disruptive to "(harmless)" spells?

'

This. The (harmless) descriptor which according to one set of rules, should function the same way as it does for saves, actually does nothing currently, per the rules cited a bit later on.
There is a conflict within the rule itself.

[highbad]

Ssalarn wrote:

"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."

This is a 3.5 passage, not PF, but it's functionally equivalent. The term "harmless" actually has no mechanical effect on saves or SR, it's just a handy tip that usually the target is willing, the GM shouldn't ask for a save, and the target may want to lower SR if able.

A save represents something the creature does when they choose to actively resist a spell. Spell resistance is a passive barrier against all magic that is always there (unless the creature decides otherwise), which the caster must actively overcome.

Spell Resistance is supposed to function like AC, and you can think of it as a special kind of armor. If a creature is the willing target of a non-magical attack, they can stand still and receive the blow, but the attacker must still beat their flat-footed AC. Or the target can spend the actions to remove the armor and further lower the AC.

No one ever said Spell Resistance was supposed to be a wholly beneficial ability.

Also have a look at this older thread on the same subject.

[Jester David]

Ssalarn wrote:

Jester David wrote:

It's clarifying that "harmless" means "usually beneficial" as described in saving throws, and not something like "ones you can't hurt you". Then it clarifies that even harmless spells requires a caster level check.

But there is no spell that (harmless) listed for saving throws, but not for SR. The descriptor does nothing.

You're overthinking it.

The rule says: "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."

But a better phrasing might be: "A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by harmless spells without forcing the caster to make a caster level check. "Harmless" means the same thing as it does for saving throws."

It's defining the term and clarifying what "harmless" means to emphasise the inclusion of buff spells. Otherwise you might have someone arguing that "harmless" means spells that cannot harm you but not spells that are beneficial.

[yeti1069]

highbad wrote:

Spell Resistance is supposed to function like AC, and you can think of it as a special kind of armor. If a creature is the willing target of a non-magical attack, they can stand still and receive the blow, but the attacker must still beat their flat-footed AC. Or the target can spend the actions to remove the armor and further lower the AC.

Actually, this isn't really the case.

Take beneficial touch attacks for example, like Cure Light Wounds or Mage Armor. They require touching their target, which would normally require a touch attack against touch AC, but this isn't required for willing targets.

So, no, SR doesn't work like AC, nor saves, because both AC and saves can be ignored, or foregone in order to benefit from a positive effect that you want, whereas SR cannot.

If SR were only acquired via items and spells, I could see an argument for making it a double-edged sword, but when you have class features that kick in automatically, this becomes problematic. How many other class features do you know of that work this way?

[Xaratherus]

yeti1069 wrote:

How many other class features do you know of that work this way?

I know it was mostly a rhetorical question but: The only one that I can think of that forces both a penalty and a benefit on you is the Oracle's curse - but that class is clearly designed around that concept, whereas the Monk clearly isn't.

I generally allow SR to be raised\lowered as a free action, done on your turn. That's a house rule but the alternative (in my opinion) is to dump it entirely; it's too punitive toward classes that have it 'forced' on them otherwise.

[Jester David]

Xaratherus wrote:

yeti1069 wrote:

How many other class features do you know of that work this way?

I know it was mostly a rhetorical question but: The only one that I can think of that forces both a penalty and a benefit on you is the Oracle's curse - but that class is clearly designed around that concept, whereas the Monk clearly isn't.

I generally allow SR to be raised\lowered as a free action, done on your turn. That's a house rule but the alternative (in my opinion) is to dump it entirely; it's too punitive toward classes that have it 'forced' on them otherwise.

Theres also the barbarian's inability to use skills while raging.

A druid's inability to speak while wild shaping.
A paladin's inability to tell people their jeans don't make their butt look big.

[Sangalor]

This is different to a rage or other listed features.

Also, the OP only posted a general example. The spells I know which are affected have extra text that states that in the case of cure X wounds "an undead *may* apply spell resistance". So others don't need to.

AC comparison: touch spells don't require an attack roll if the target is willing, and they don't need to state this on their turn. So for SR you would not need this either.

The only effect hatmless might hint at restricting is that when you are unconscious your SR remains up.

[yeti1069]

Jester David wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

yeti1069 wrote:

How many other class features do you know of that work this way?

I know it was mostly a rhetorical question but: The only one that I can think of that forces both a penalty and a benefit on you is the Oracle's curse - but that class is clearly designed around that concept, whereas the Monk clearly isn't.

I generally allow SR to be raised\lowered as a free action, done on your turn. That's a house rule but the alternative (in my opinion) is to dump it entirely; it's too punitive toward classes that have it 'forced' on them otherwise.

Theres also the barbarian's inability to use skills while raging.

A druid's inability to speak while wild shaping.
A paladin's inability to tell people their jeans don't make their butt look big.

Those are abilities you turn ON when the situation warrants, when you want the benefits. They aren't effects that come online automatically, and that you have to spend actions turning OFF in order to receive benefits, and then turn back on to continue doing what they are supposed to (providing a benefit).

Rage is a free action both ways, and there is a fairly common, easy-access archetype that gets rid of those penalties.

Wild Shape is a standard one way and free (I believe) the other, and has a feat you can take to ignore the worst part of that penalty.

It's a very different dynamic. You don't forget your rage up, or your wildshape up.

[StabbittyDoom]

DM_Blake wrote:

Not that this helps in a Rules Questions forum, but I always houserule that innate SR (something you get from your race or class) can be lowered/raised as a free action even when it's not your round, which means that all creatures and characters with innate SR can enjoy the benefits without suffering the loss of buffs and heals - but SR gained from external sources (spells, magical items, etc.) needs to be activated and deactivated as described.

I think I may be stealing a variant this rule for my games. It does a good job of making SR a not-disadvantage for those that get it the hard way without benefiting those that get it the easy way. My variant will likely say that "natural SR can be forfeited just like a saving throw, including innate knowledge of whether the effect has the harmless descriptor before making your decision".

[Xaratherus]

Jester David wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

yeti1069 wrote:

How many other class features do you know of that work this way?

I know it was mostly a rhetorical question but: The only one that I can think of that forces both a penalty and a benefit on you is the Oracle's curse - but that class is clearly designed around that concept, whereas the Monk clearly isn't.

I generally allow SR to be raised\lowered as a free action, done on your turn. That's a house rule but the alternative (in my opinion) is to dump it entirely; it's too punitive toward classes that have it 'forced' on them otherwise.

Theres also the barbarian's inability to use skills while raging.

A druid's inability to speak while wild shaping.
A paladin's inability to tell people their jeans don't make their butt look big.

I think yeti1069 already covered most of it, but to reply to (what I would guess is a jest) comment re: the Paladin, it's all in the justification; if it's for the greater good that the person understand that those jeans put too much junk in their trunk, then the Paladin's good to go. :P

[Michael Sayre]

Sangalor wrote:

This is different to a rage or other listed features.

Also, the OP only posted a general example. The spells I know which are affected have extra text that states that in the case of cure X wounds "an undead *may* apply spell resistance". So others don't need to.

AC comparison: touch spells don't require an attack roll if the target is willing, and they don't need to state this on their turn. So for SR you would not need this either.

The only effect hatmless might hint at restricting is that when you are unconscious your SR remains up.

This is just another example of what I see as a contradiction within the rules for SR.

[zaphod77]

What this means is that out of combat, spell resistance is assumed to be lowered so the spell can be cast. but because spell resistance takes a standard action to lower, that cannot be assumed in combat.

That said, if the spell says spell resistance:Yes; see text, there is precedent for assuming it goes through if it's harmless. This is true specifically of the cure spells, where it says undead can save and apply spell resistance. This is because the spells are Conjuration (Healing) and Conjuration tends to bypass spell resistance. The spell conjures the positive energy. but that doesn't mean you can use them as an attack spell. hence "Spell Resistance: Yes; see text." ONLY the cure x wounds spells have this text, though.

I would rule that when used on a target that it healed by positive energy, that all conjuration (Healing) spells bypass spell resistance. But not when used vs undead. I believe it is RAI that Conjuration (Healing) spells bypass spell resistance when they are used to heal in the same manner that they bypass saves. Effectively, anyone can drop their spell resistance for free for just long enough to receive a cure spell, even when unconscious, and is assumed to do so unless the player says otherwise. Otherwise, it's on unless dropped.

If the spell is not Conjuration (Healing), then you gotta beat the SR unless they spend the action to drop it.

[willuwontu]

6 year necro to say incorrect statements.

SR still applies to healing spells.