If you cast it on the fighter (which you can't do) Then when the fighter hits something that has SR, you make the check to see if your spell overcomes their SR.
|
An alchemist or investigator with Infusion could supply the fighter with the extract.
The spell resistance is indeed odd on a Personal spell, but since the saving throw is rolled by enemies hit with the vines, it makes sense that it's about their SR.
For the SR penetration check you'd be using the caster level of the caster of course, not the fighter.
And you would only roll the caster level check once (to overcome spell resistance). Technically it should be done at the time of casting, as it represents how "strong" the spell was cast.
|
As far as I've seen, SR is applied the first time they interact with a spell. If you pass the check, then you are good. If you cast Produce Flame and passed the SR check the first time you hit them, then you are good after that.
As for when SR is applied, I believe it is for the entangle portion. You are causing vines to sprout from then and entangle them. I don't believe the damage is SR prone because it is a conjuration creation spell, and those generally don't have SR. Snowball, cloudkill, acid arrow are a few examples. It would become a GM call though.
In spiritual weapon.
Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target.
If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual weapon strikes it. If the weapon is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell.
So for this one, you make an SR check for each new target. Not once at the beginning to be used against each new target. Gives support to run this way since you're doing a similar situation.
Chess Pwn, I can't find anywhere in the Magic chapter rules that specify you should make a new check against each creature.
The rules don't actually seem like they covered the idea of the spells affecting multiple creatures or having non-instantaneous duration.
So I find support for neither or out positions (outside of specific spell entries that tell you how to run specific spells).
However, I will say it makes more sense to me that you cast the spell once and roll caster level once to determine how "strong" you cast the spell. Which would apply to all subsequent caster level checks to overcome spell resistance.
If you have general rules that make it more clear that it should be run one way or the other I would be happy to know where they are.
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.
If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.
So I'm seeing this as saying that a check against spell resistance is a caster level check. And that if you target multiple creatures you make a check against each monster separately. Not make one check that they all compare against.
But you're right that the rules are quite vague on this matter.
But I feel if all "(specific spell entries that tell you how to run specific spells)" are all telling you to run it a certain way, then that way is probably the "general rule" that unfortunately is perhaps "unwritten".
It is possible.
Can you link to the entry you found? There are lots of entries that come up when I search for spell resistance and I can't find the one that has the second line in your quote.
To me it definitely doesn't make sense to run it that way, but if they majority of rules sources state it then I accept it as correct by the rules. Pathfinder often has rules that don't make sense, this would just be an additional one to me.
here is the page. The second line is in the When Spell Resistance Applies - Targeted Spells, last line.
Got it, but it's actually more confusing to me.
If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.
When I read this just now, the way I'm reading it says that each creature checks its own spell resistance to see if it stopped the spell (common sense) not that the caster makes multiple checks against each creature's spell resistance. That is to say, one creature's spell resistance doesn't stop the spell from working altogether. It just protects that creature from the spell.
In fact, that line makes no mention of the caster at all. If they had intended for you to check against each independently that would have been the place to include the line, and if that is how it's supposed to work its definitely not clear to me.
" Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature's spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature."
They've already stated that having 1 succeed doesn't kill the entire spell.
See to me, to see if you beat their SR you make a caster level check.
"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. "
So for each creature, To deal with their spell resistance I try to affect the creature with SR and thus I make a caster check. And stating that I check each creature separately to me indicates that I'm not making 1 check and comparing each monster to that. But that for each creature with SR I deal with their SR separately and that means a CL check to see if I affect them.
EDIT: otherwise if you say that one check is good enough for all of them. Why not just make a CL check at the time you prepare spells to see how strong your spells are that day? If we're going to allow 1 CL check to work against multiple targets, why not 1 for multiple spells too?
So the
If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.
line becomes a reiteration of
Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature's spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature.
It's not unusual for Pathfinder to reiterate things.
Obviously you make a caster level check to see if you beat spell resistance, with an appropriate bonuses such as Spell Pen.
But to say that you make the check against each creature for a single casting of a spell... you're extrapolating on rules that aren't clearly spelled out (and so am I and they aren't).
Which make more sense:
I cast fireball once and it affects 4 creatures with spell resistance. It has the same strength (caster level) to affect all 4, so I make 1 caster level check and apply it to all 4 creaures.
Or, I cast fireball and it affects 4 creatures with spell resistance. It has variable (caster level) strength based on some randomness of being included in the spell area , so I roll caster level checks to overcome spell resistance separately for each creature.
The second one just doesn't make any sense to me.
As for the question of why not make caster level checks at the time you prepare spells...well you could. Although the GM would have to make the rolls in secret so the player doesn't know which spells have what SR value they can beat. Which gets even more complicated if you have multiple preparations of the same spell. So the reason why you just roll at time of casting is that it's easier on the GM.
And your last statement about making only 1 roll for all your spells is silly. There is randomness in your casting ability as you cast spells, but it doesn't really make much sense that there is randomness in how well you cast 1 particular spell.
I will say, I could be wrong. But so far I haven't seen any convincing evidence in the rules that you make separate caster level checks to overcome spell resistance against each creature affected by a single spell (I also have no evidence for my position either).
See, I feel that spiritual weapon, reiterating the "normal rule" that when a spell goes to different targets that is makes the check against each target separately. Not that it's something unique to the spell.
Because, why would Spiritual weapon have an exception to a default rule that it was 1 CL check for the casting. I don't see anything special about it as to why they'd want it to be an exception. I feel it's far more likely that they just reiterated their normal rule since they were mentioning targeting multiple targets in the spell already.
And again, I see "To affect a creature with SR with a spell make a CL check" means to resolve a spell against 1 creature you make a CL check against their SR. And then to check each creatures SR separately would be to see if you beat an enemy's SR separately from any other creatures affected.
But like you said, since there are no other rules to clarify this, we're probably just going to be repeating ourselves going no where.
But like you said, since there are no other rules to clarify this, we're probably just going to be repeating ourselves going no where.
Indeed. I was mostly elaborating on my position so that if anyone else reads this they could decide for themselves.
And, as I stated before I have no real problem if it works as you describe. It just doesn't make sense to me for it to work that way. But neither method actual has clear support, and that's really the frustrating part.
|
|
@Claxon: I understand your reasoning and if we were designing the system all a-new it would perhaps make sense to do it that way.
But Spiritual Weapon suggests it works the other way: every time your spell encounters new Spell Resistance, you check it again. Spiritual Weapon isn't the only spell that works like this; Mage's Sword wordks the same time.
So it seems "checking separately" means the same as "roll separately".