Dragon casts shield on himself... and has spell resistance.

[McBaine]

At the end of the Adventure Path Rise of the Runelords, there is an adult blue dragon that has in his tactics, that he casts mage armor on himself in the first round of combat and shield on himself on the second round. He has a caster level of 5 for these spells and SR 24.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, lowering the SR for 1 round is a standard action, as is casting those spells, so he can't do both in the same turn, meaning he has to overcome his own SR of 24 with a roll of 1d20+5 (his caster level).

Since mage armor has "SR no" in its entry, that works, but shield has nothing about SR in its entry. So, does the dragon attempt to cast shield on himself, probably wasting a turn because he only succeds on a roll of 19 or 20? I mean, that fight is hard enough, so the PC's can use this break, but is that how it is handeled or am I missing something?

[Pizza Lord]

It would work as written.

Spell Resistance wrote:

...

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

This means even low-level items like a potion of cure light wounds will not have to be checked against SR when he drinks it. It may (GM's call) be checked if the dragon were unconscious and someone else were administering it to him (aside from being harmless, of course.)

[Val'bryn2]

Since it doesn't have a SR line, the default is that it doesn't check for spell resistance.

[Zarius]

Any creature can intentionally 'fail' a save or SR check to allow it's own or ally's spells through.

[Pizza Lord]

Zarius wrote:

Any creature can intentionally 'fail' a save or SR check to allow it's own or ally's spells through.

Careful. You can voluntarily fail saving throws, that's been noted, but this is not a saving throw. I see no such ability to do so with SR.

A creature with SR must voluntarily lower it to benefit from ally's spells (not its own, as noted in the quote above). How a creature with SR lowers it is noted, it requires a standard action. There is nothing indicating a 'voluntary failure' option.

Spell Resistance 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.

It's even stated that for harmless spells, it must be lowered. This seems pretty restrictive, even more so than friendly effects. I don't believe there is any indication that allies get a free pass without the target making a voluntary effort (and standard action). Now, some GMs may hand-wave it a bit, like if you're all teleporting away together and they don't want to be worried about, but that's their call for the situation.

[Thewms]

First off, I would spoiler or remove the name of the adventure path.

Secondly, Pizza Lord has it right here. You never have to worry about your own SR when casting spells. Sort of like how you always succeed on dispel checks against spells you cast. You are the best at getting through your own defenses!

this however...

Zarius wrote:

Any creature can intentionally 'fail' a save or SR check to allow it's own or ally's spells through.

...is incorrect.

While it is true that a creature can intentionally fail a save, no save is being attempted with Spell resistance. The caster is attempting a check to pierce through the magical defenses.

That is the reason why many folk aren't too keen on having SR themselves. You either have to waste a turn toggling it or hope they can pierce through to heal/buff/etc.

Edit: Ninja'd by The Lord of Pizza Himself!

[McBaine]

Pizza Lord wrote:

It would work as written.

Spell Resistance wrote:

...

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

This means even low-level items like a potion of cure light wounds will not have to be checked against SR when he drinks it. It may (GM's call) be checked if the dragon were unconscious and someone else were administering it to him (aside from being harmless, of course.)

Ah, that explains it. I missed that line. Thanks.

P.S.: Sorry, didn't intent to spoiler something. It seems i can't edit my [EDIT: opening] post though to remove the name of the Adventure Path.

[blahpers]

Yeah, the edit time window is pretty short. No worries.