Possible errata error about Spell resistance


Rules Questions


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

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."

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.

Im pretty sure that the writers made an when they used web as a specific example. Thoughts?


Each spell description states whether or not spell resistance applies, no GM ruling is needed.


He says I need a specific line from paizo that "specific trumps general" or a line fixing the errata. The line of text it he is going off of seems to be based on a holdover from 3.0e when web was still affected by SR. Please help me get this resolved as flagging it for faq.


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.


each spell give you a spell resistance yes or spell resistance no so not every spell is blocked by it, also not all monsters have spell resistance


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.


He is arguing that since "specific trumps general" isn't actually officially written in the books anywhere that we can find, then he isn't abiding by that unless I get Paizo to change it.


paizo devs have called out specifics trump general


mehs wrote:

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?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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?


Yeeeeep, if you could post the link to anytime a Dev says "specific trumps general" I would appreciate it.


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 b&&@%*~@ 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.


As to the fireball thing, I think the logic is that the magic doesn't end when the pellet explodes. After all, for something to be seriously burned it needs more than split second contact with something hot. Theoretically, the spell continues to mess with how quickly heat transfer can take place and thus you could resist it with SR. With energy attacks (other than. Acid) the energy being created isn't the end and you have to keep manipulating the energy. That or it is saying that the energy is straight up magic and not true energy.


The line such as web is missing from my core rulebook pdf. It may have been taken out in an errata.


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.


I found the line such as web in the 3.5 SRD. I don't find it anywhere in pathfinder core rulebook. If you are playing 3.5, then yes your GM is right. If you are playing pathfinder, he is not right. Pathfinder doesn't have the same rules for spell resistance as 3.5.


The text quoted by the OP is on the PRD, CRB glossary under Spell Resistance.


The moral is that the prd is wrong. It is copied from 3.5. This line doesn't exist in the core rulebook.

Buy the books and support paizo.


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.

mehs wrote:
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


I'm going to assume your GM is new.
Only creatures that have an SR {value} listed in their description have Spell Resistance. It is a fairly uncommon ability. Using specific trumps general rule is a lame argument to ignoring what is clearly evident in the description blocks particularly for 3.5 core material.
Kindly ask your GM to stop giving every creature SR or ask him what is your SR value... lol... humans are creatures too...
If he persists find another GM as this is probably just the first incident of going beyond what would be deemed reasonable changes to the game.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Possible errata error about Spell resistance All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.