Each spell description states whether or not spell resistance applies, no GM ruling is needed.
The specific statement in each spell description covering spell resistance to that spell is the bottom line. The rule you quote is the general one.
From the Spell Resistance section in the Magic chapter of the CRB:
The Spell Resistance entry and the descriptive text of a spell description tell you whether spell resistance protects creatures from the spell. In many cases, spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place.
My GM and I are disagreeing about a line in the book
"Effect Spells: Most effect spells summon or create something and are not subject to spell resistance. Sometimes, however, spell resistance applies to effect spells, usually to those that act upon a creature more or less directly, such as web."
What book is that in? If it's from 3.5 it has no bearing on Pathfinder.
"Specific trumps general" is a necessary assumption because nothing makes sense without it.
General rule: Humans can move.
Specific rule: Paralyzed people cannot move.
Can paralyzed humans move? No, because specific rules take precedence.
Paizo went through every spell in the game that could affect other creatures and gave them Spell Resistance: Yes/No. Why would they have done that if a rule (from a different game) took precedence over that?
So, your GM is saying that the CRB Glossary (which is where that “rule” exists), the most general bit of rules in the game, take precedence over the SR entry of a specific spell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest you give your GM a hardy *metaphorical* slap in the face and find another game to play in.
This seems like being intentionally obstinate to make the game more difficult.
That being said, I do think the whole "this spell is conjuration (despite being a damaging spells) so SR doesn't apply" is bullshit and the whole thing needs to be reevaluated. Fireball evokes a tiny pellet which in explodes vs conjures? And suddenly SR applies? There's no logic to it.
Two paragraphs prior to the diaputed text the PRD CRB has this to say:
"Each spell includes an entry that indicates whether spell resistance applies to the spell. In general, whether spell resistance applies depends on what the spell does."
The GM is either houseruling it differently, or is in error if they intend to use RAW.
The text quoted by the OP is on the PRD, CRB glossary under Spell Resistance.
No, the line does exist in the CRB, page 565. Well, most of it does - the "such as web." part got removed from the CRB for the 5th printing. The change was not listed in the errata notes, and thus not applied to the PRD.
My Dm is taking this to mean that monsters pretty much always have SR, that acid splash, acid arrow, mudball, etc all have to make a cl check to overcome SR if they target a creature with SR.
Hand him a dictionary opened to the word "sometimes".
"specific trumps general" doesn't apply here, simply becaus a sentence started with the word "sometimes" cannot possibly be an actual rule. The word "general" describes a majority, the word "sometimes" describes a minority, thus a sentence containing the latter cannot be the former. Indeed, that sentence describes the exceptions!
That makes more sense. If it said, "such as Web" in the old printings, that was a contradiction that needed clarifying.
I found an example of the design team mentioning in passing that specific trumps general:
Here