Spell Resistance ruling?

[Naglfarthedwarf]

Was there ever an official response or errata on Spell Resistance and spells with Spell Resistance: Yes(harmless)?

I know the general consensus is that it always applies whether spells are harmless or not. Still, there seems to be room for doubt in everything I've read so just wondered if there was an official line on it that had turned up at any point.

[GM Rednal]

I'm pretty sure the "Harmless" tag for Spell Resistance is for the sake of consistency more than anything else, since not every spell allows for a Saving Throw (the normal place where a spell is noted as harmless or not). It's more of a reminder that the spell is usually okay to be affected by - to my knowledge, it doesn't really *do* much of anything.

[Imbicatus]

Spell Resistance applies to everything that has SR: yes, regardless of whether it is harmless or not. In order to not apply, by RAW you must spend a standard action to lower your SR for one round.

SR is a double edged sword, and it can hurt you as much as it helps you.

[Snowlilly]

Imbicatus wrote:

Spell Resistance applies to everything that has SR: yes, regardless of whether it is harmless or not. In order to not apply, by RAW you must spend a standard action to lower your SR for one round.

SR is a double edged sword, and it can hurt you as much as it helps you.

Spell Resistance wrote:

A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.

Spell resistance make it more difficult to receive beneficial spells from others, it in no way impedes a character's ability to cast upon himself.

[Naglfarthedwarf]

Yeah, like I said in the OP, I know the general consensus is that it doesn't work but it's not 100% clear.

For instance just saying that 'harmless' doesn't mean anything in the description is either a) true and sloppy writing by Paizo or b) not true and means something. Either way you would think they would make a ruling on it.

I guess the fact that SR comes up so much in play and there is no ruling probably means they're happy with the consensus.

[John Murdock]

the only spell that have a SR (harmless) that seem to not be applicable to creature with a SR is cure spell since they say

''An undead creature can apply Spell Resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.''

for me it seem that cure spell (and inflict for undead i would say) bypass SR for creature healed by it, but since english is not my native language maybe i read it wrongly

[Jeraa]

Naglfarthedwarf wrote:

Was there ever an official response or errata on Spell Resistance and spells with Spell Resistance: Yes(harmless)?

I know the general consensus is that it always applies whether spells are harmless or not. Still, there seems to be room for doubt in everything I've read so just wondered if there was an official line on it that had turned up at any point.

I don't see how it could be any clearer:

Quote:

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.

Spell resistance always applies when someone else targets you with an appropriate spell unless you take a standard action before hand to lower it.

[bobsayshi]

Naglfarthedwarf wrote:

Yeah, like I said in the OP, I know the general consensus is that it doesn't work but it's not 100% clear.

For instance just saying that 'harmless' doesn't mean anything in the description is either a) true and sloppy writing by Paizo or b) not true and means something. Either way you would think they would make a ruling on it.

I guess the fact that SR comes up so much in play and there is no ruling probably means they're happy with the consensus.

Wish i knew the answer to your question. I concur though that the answer should really be an either (a) or (b).

If anyone knows which answer, what a (c) could be instead, or can find a FAQ clarifying it would help out greatly.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Naglfarthedwarf wrote:

Was there ever an official response or errata on Spell Resistance and spells with Spell Resistance: Yes(harmless)?

I know the general consensus is that it always applies whether spells are harmless or not. Still, there seems to be room for doubt in everything I've read so just wondered if there was an official line on it that had turned up at any point.

Yes, offically SR always applies if the spell allows it, unless 2 things:

First, the creature with SR can voluntarily surpress their SR in 1 round increments. This is a standard action and cannot selectively be lowered only for certain spells. This means lowering the SR is impractical in combat, but it could still be done in an emergency.

Second, SR does not apply to the creature's own spells. There's no need to surpress your SR if you want to cure yourself.

SR is strong, yet risky, as it provides all or nothing defenses.

There are also a handful of in-game options where a class or race only obtains SR against certain types of spells. That would trump the above, but is more an exception to the rule and is rather uncommon.