| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are simply immune to the damage of moving through a breached section of the wall. Ice is still ice and a solid object, they have to break it.
Yes, the SR applies to the damage received by the Wall of Ice.
Although, someone standing near the Wall of Ice has the option to make a Reflex Save to Disrupt the creation of the Wall of Ice WHILE it's being formed, and causes the spell to fail if their Save is successful. SR would also apply here as well; the Caster would need to make an SR check against the Disrupting enemy, and if successful, the Disruptor would need to make a save-- And if the Caster cannot overcome the SR or if the Disruptor passes the Save, then the Wall of Ice fails.
Wall of Ice
School evocation [cold]; Level bloodrager 4, magus 4, sorcerer/wizard 4, summoner 3, unchained summoner 4; Bloodline boreal 4; Elemental School water 4
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a piece of quartz or rock crystal)EFFECT
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level, or hemisphere of ice with a radius of up to 3 ft. + 1 ft./level
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Reflex negates; see text; Spell Resistance yesDESCRIPTION
This spell creates an anchored plane of ice or a hemisphere of ice, depending on the version selected. A wall of ice cannot form in an area occupied by physical objects or creatures. Its surface must be smooth and unbroken when created. Any creature adjacent to the wall when it is created may attempt a Reflex save to disrupt the wall as it is being formed. A successful save indicates that the spell automatically fails. Fire can melt a wall of ice, and it deals full damage to the wall (instead of the normal half damage taken by objects). Suddenly melting a wall of ice creates a great cloud of steamy fog that lasts for 10 minutes.
Ice Plane: A sheet of strong, hard ice appears. The wall is 1 inch thick per caster level. It covers up to a 10-foot-square area per caster level (so a 10th-level wizard can create a wall of ice 100 feet long and 10 feet high, a wall 50 feet long and 20 feet high, or any other combination of length and height that does not exceed 1,000 square feet). The plane can be oriented in any fashion as long as it is anchored. A vertical wall need only be anchored on the floor, while a horizontal or slanting wall must be anchored on two opposite sides.
Each 10-foot square of wall has 3 hit points per inch of thickness. Creatures can hit the wall automatically. A section of wall whose hit points drop to 0 is breached. If a creature tries to break through the wall with a single attack, the DC for the Strength check is 15 + caster level.
Even when the ice has been broken through, a sheet of frigid air remains. Any creature stepping through it (including the one who broke through the wall) takes 1d6 points of cold damage + 1 point per caster level (no save).
Hemisphere: The wall takes the form of a hemisphere whose maximum radius is 3 feet + 1 foot per caster level. The hemisphere is as hard to break through as the ice plane form, but it does not deal damage to those who go through a breach.
I'll probably be the lone dissent here, but I do think that a creature with spell resistance being affected by a Wall of Ice for the first time, before it is breached, such as by touching it, triggers a spell resistance check. As you note, the spell simply says "Spell Resistance: Yes" - not "Spell Resistance: see text", "Spell Resistance: partial" or "If you breach the wall, spell resistance applies". If the caster fails that spell resistance check, the creature that resisted the Wall of Ice will then "ignore any effect the spell might have".
There was also discussion not too long ago about Freedom of Movement (found here) that included some debate over the interaction between Wall of Ice and Spell Resistance; you might find some of those points relevant.
You can't get through a wall of stone with SR, you can't get around the actual ice. Also if @Laegrim will recall that discussion, the question was if SR protects you from application of effects of a spell. The damage of Ice Wall is the only applied effect. Some with or without SR can attempt the reflex save to disrupt it and SR is irrelevant here, it's still ice assuming it forms and if the save passes, nothing happens with the wall. The wall being a combat obstacle after it forms is not an application of a spell effect, ergo your SR doesn't change anything about how an intact ice wall normally works. It does however protect you from the cold when you step through a broken ice wall, as like a wall of fire (the actual spell in question from that other thread), the damage is an application of spell effect.
I get it, that's why I phrased it the way I did.I'd examine discussions about the melting of Wall of Ice once the spell wears out. That means it is assumed to be an object conjured by the spell and essentially held there. It's a consequence of the text, , and , and .
Where are you getting that the wall melts once the duration has run out? The spell's text doesn't specify what happens when the duration expire, so we should be able to assume that the entire construct vanishes - as is the case with any other spell effect that has expired and does not specify otherwise.
Wall of Bone{N}4 a newer spell has an updated description. It's not conjuration and thus helpful.
It's also got the line "Spell Resistance yes; see text" in the description, which is a particularly important distinction to make when comparing it to Wall of Ice. Because of that difference, we can't impute from Wall of Bone's interactions with spell resistance onto Wall of Ice.
A GM could rule that the creature with SR might bypass the wall entirely, but then this would affect a few other things in the game. Most walls are conjurations with SR:no. In short that makes SR much more powerful and able to get around solid objects created by magic.
What other interactions do you think would my interpretation render problematic?
Wall Spells with the "Spell Resistance: no" line in their descriptor wouldn't have their interactions with spell resistance changed in any way - they literally tell you that spell resistance doesn't apply.
You can't get through a wall of stone with SR, you can't get around the actual ice. Also if @Laegrim will recall that discussion, the question was if SR protects you from application of effects of a spell. The damage of Ice Wall is the only applied effect. Some with or without SR can attempt the reflex save to disrupt it and SR is irrelevant here, it's still ice assuming it forms and if the save passes, nothing happens with the wall. The wall being a combat obstacle after it forms is not an application of a spell effect, ergo your SR doesn't change anything about how an intact ice wall normally works. It does however protect you from the cold when you step through a broken ice wall, as like a wall of fire (the actual spell in question from that other thread), the damage is an application of spell effect.
Why would Wall of Stone be a valid comparison here? Wall of Stone is "Duration instantaneous" and "Spell Resistance: no" - it's a very different spell.
Also, you're thinking of a different discussion - the one I linked to in my comment above was ostensibly about whether Freedom of Movement protected you from Icy Prison.
As far as I'm aware, the words "effect" and "affect" don't have strict definitions in the rules. I'd absolutely count coming into contact with a created or summoned object as "being affected" by a spell. Spells like Mage's Sword seem to explicitly support that interpretation, and without that interpretation the "Spell Resistance: yes" line doesn't make much sense for a spell like Creeping Ice.
FoM doesn't allow you to move through walls of ice or stone, because walls do not inhibit movement. You can move around just fine, but only on one side of the wall. You would still have to break through the wall. Allowing SR or FoM to let you move through Solid Walls of Ice opens up a whole can of worms (FoM counters Forcecage? Wall of Force? Mundane Walls? What's the point of Passwall? If you have a Ring of FoM, does that counter Imprisonment? etc.) and I don't believe this to be RAI at all (nor is it RAW, for that matter-- it doesn't say anywhere in any rule that SR or FoM allows you to pass through solid walls, whether it be magical or mundane).
If the caster fails his SR check, then you simply wouldn't take dmg while breaching the wall. But, you still have to breach it to get to the other side.
FoM doesn't allow you to move through walls of ice or stone, because walls do not inhibit movement. You can move around just fine, but only on one side of the wall. You would still have to break through the wall. Allowing SR or FoM to let you move through Solid Walls of Ice opens up a whole can of worms (FoM counters Forcecage? Wall of Force? Mundane Walls? What's the point of Passwall? If you have a Ring of FoM, does that counter Imprisonment? etc.) and I don't believe this to be RAI at all (nor is it RAW, for that matter-- it doesn't say anywhere in any rule that SR or FoM allows you to pass through solid walls, whether it be magical or mundane).
If the caster fails his SR check, then you simply wouldn't take dmg while breaching the wall. But, you still have to breach it to get to the other side.
If you want to debate FoM, lets move that to the other thread - I linked to that thread because the sub-discussion about Wall of Ice was relevant here, and covered some of the points being brought up here. Besides, I think my take on FoM, expansive as it is, is a little more nuanced than you're giving me credit for here.
As for Spell Resistance, I don't hold that it lets you move through Forcecage or Wall of Force. They're both "Spell Resistance: no" spells, so I'm a little confused why they're even being brought to the table here.
Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have.
The wall created by Wall of Ice is an ongoing spell effect. If you accept that, then spell resistance, in some very specific circumstances, absolutely does let you walk through walls.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you all. I think the following quote from the Spell Resistance section of the Magic chapter of the Core Rules are also helpful:
"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."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's easier to explain if you realize that Paizo can only print one spell school but realistically, the wall of ice is real ice (as if it were a conjuration (creation) spell, but more so that the water in the air is literally flash frozen into a wall) and it is now a real, physical wall of ice. The coldness is magical, and therefore the damage caused by it would be affected by spell resistance, but the ice wall is real, nonmagical ice, and therefore not affected by SR.
Thank you all. I think the following quote from the Spell Resistance section of the Magic chapter of the Core Rules are also helpful:
"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."
I don't think that Wall of Ice is one of those "many cases"; applying this quote to Wall of Ice would preclude spell resistance applying to the damage upon passing through a breach, as it's not targeted, which seems to be the one thing we all agree that spell resistance does apply to.
Let's use another example. Take wall of light.
Wall of light is an interesting example, but, perhaps not surprisingly, I don't agree with your analysis of the spell. You've also pinpointed the crux of our disagreement:
You only check when the spell effect goes to work on the creature's mind or body.
What it means for a spell effect "to go to work on the creature's mind or body" is not clearly defined, but we do have examples to work with which should help clarify the line.
In Wall of Ice's case, we can look for "Spell Resistance: yes" spells which have an effect that creates an object with limited duration - and, as I noted in a comment above, spells like Mage's Sword fit the bill. While Mage's Sword doesn't explicitly say that contact of any kind is enough to trigger a spell resistance check, it does specify:
If an attacked creature has spell resistance, the resistance is checked the first time mage’s sword strikes it. If the sword is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the sword has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell.
I think it's reasonable to conclude that if a creature with spell resistance reached out to grab, or otherwise make contact with, the Mage's Sword, that would also trigger a check.
Creeping Ice, also noted above, is an example of a "Spell Resistance: yes" spell for which there doesn't seem to be any opportunity at all to apply spell resistance if contact with the created object doesn't count.
Coming back around to Wall of Light, I agree that coming into contact with the wall isn't enough to trigger a spell resistance check - if only because there's not a physical object to contact. Wall of Light goes to work on a creature in other ways.
It creates a wall of blinding light, so bright you can't see through it (and it blinds you if you're next to it or pass through it). It creates an area of bright light out to 60 feet on either side.
A creature beyond 5 feet and out to 60 feet is in the bright light of the spell's effect, but bright light does not by itself have any effects on creatures unless the specific spell says so (or the specific creature says so, but that's a property of the creature). For instance... you could make a spell that generates a flash of dim light and still somehow blinds anyone in the area. It wouldn't make logical sense... but 'magic'.)
Wall of Light is another "Spell Resistance: yes" spell that doesn't further clarify how spell resistance actually applies, but, in some ways, it's much clearer than Wall of Ice. The spell states that "The wall sheds bright light to a range of 60 feet in all directions". That's not a secondary effect of the spell, that's a primary spell effect going to work on a creature's body - so, a creature within 60 feet of the spell is absolutely affected by the Wall of Light.
A character with SR walking through a dungeon or other dark area can probably spot this wall from ... practically any distance within the horizon and not blocked by terrain or walls. So well over hundreds or thousands of feet away. There's no SR check. They can also see any creatures or objects within 60 feet of the wall (because they're illuminated by bright light if they aren't hiding somehow) from pretty far away.
If the creature with SR walks to within 60 feet, they still don't get an SR check, because bright light doesn't do anything nor does the spell's bright light do anything until a creature is next to the wall or passes through it.
I'd differentiate between the spell's direct effect (shedding bright light to a range of 60 feet) and a secondary effect (catching sight of a bright object from a distance). No spell resistance check should be made outside the spell's direct effect, but one should be made once directly affected by the spell.
Now, if the creature has a sensitivity to bright light and takes damage or some other penalty like dazzled... it still gets no SR save, because that isn't an aspect of the spell.
Now the creature with SR walks up next to the wall. However, because he isn't sure his SR is going to work, he closes his eyes. The wording of the spell says this effect is 'negated' against that creature during the round. As such, it isn't affected or being affected by the spell, so there is no check. If he hadn't closed his eyes, he would (obviously) have forced the SR check and, if it failed against his SR, he wouldn't need to make the Fortitude save. Just in one case he's hedging his bet in case it did bypass.
The blinding effect is presumably due to the intense amount of light the wall is putting off - why would the blinding effect trigger a SR check if the area of bright illumination didn't?
The line you're walking seems to be that "goes to work" only includes mechanical penalties, but not other effects. I don't see justification for that.
At this time, the creature with his eyes closed passes his arm through the wall, or touches it, or swings his sword through it to see if there's an enemy on the other side (50% miss chance). This still doesn't cause an SR check, because touching, swinging your arm, or attacking through the wall doesn't count as passing through it.
This is the part where common sense and adjudication comes into play. This is where individual and specific effects are looked at specifically... and individually. Where general rules don't always work... thank whomever-you-wish that common sense applies.
Quick example: A wall of fire should deal damage as for passing through if you put your limb through it... because you're touching fire. <------ COMMON SENSE
Touching a wall of light won't blind you... because the wording is clear that it's pretty much a blinding wall of light that sears your retinas even through your eyelids as you pass your eye-holes through it. <------ COMMON SENSE (unless your eyeballs are on the end of your fingers... which is not common.)
You're right that we should look at individual and specific effects in the particular contexts where they appear - and, as it turns out, Wall of Light is not much like Wall of Ice individually and specifically. The wall created by Wall of Light is not a physical object. It's a "curtain of white light that blocks line of sight", that "sheds bright light to a range of 60 feet", etc..., whereas the wall created by Wall of Ice is a physical object. Trying to imply that sine touching a Wall of Light might not trigger a spell resistance check on it's own that touching a Wall of Ice wouldn't either is a bit silly.
C'mon. Common Sense.
So, then he steps through it. Definitely an SR check now (unless it already failed earlier when he stepped next to it if he had his eyes open instead of closed). If it fails to penetrate, he isn't blinded (even though he's passing through 'blinding light'.
If the SR failed against him at any point, that doesn't negate all effects of the spell from his perspective. The spell still gives off light (bright light). He can still see anyone in that bright light and can still have its effects. He still cannot see through the wall, because it is blindingly bright (but won't give him the blinded condition) and still stops line of sight.
A failed spell resistance check means that the resistant creature ignores any effect the spell might have. The "immobile blinding curtain of white light that blocks line of sight" is a spell effect. It's ignored. It no longer blocks line of sight.
What doesn't happen is that he walks up to the wall through the illuminated area, closes his eyes to avoid the adjacent blindness check, and steps through (which normally allows no save) and receives an SR check (because the spell's trying to affect him) and passes and suddenly he can't see the spell because its light emanation is an effect... and thus he's now standing in darkness (and may think he's blind) because no effects of the spell apply to him.
... That's exactly what happens. We aren't given instruction as to how to flavor this result, but, if you want, you could treat it similarly to a successful save against a figment or phantasm.
There's still a wall of [whatever] that is opaque/blinding/or otherwise not seeable through or, in the case of wall of ice, there's still a solid wall of ice there, even if you passed through a breach 30 feet down its length and took no damage. It doesn't turn into taffy... or a chilly, refreshing ocean mist because you want to frolic through; it's ice. Go back through the same breach if you want to get back on the other side or make a new one (it won't hurt you this time either, you already passed... or it failed... however you look at it).
For both spells, you ignore the spell effects upon successfully resisting with spell resistance. That means the illumination, blinding, and potential negative levels for Wall of Light, and both the ice and the cold damage for Wall of Ice.
Just like instances of touching a wall of light while keeping your eyes closed to negate being affected, touching it doesn't trigger or cause any effects until you pass through it.
Similarly, touching a wall of ice does not trigger an effect on the creature's mind or body. Ice is cold, but being cold is not damaging or an effect. Light is bright, but being bright isn't blinding... unless the spell's effect makes either of those so.
If ice, by its nature, dealt instant cold damage, that would still just be a nature of being ice (as opposed to being magically enhanced to super-cold levels) and wouldn't give an SR check if the creature laid on a wall of ice for hours and got frostbite... because that isn't the spell's effect. That's the nature of a property of the creature (ie. getting cold when you lay on ice).
The ice created by Wall of Ice is an ongoing spell effect. It's a physical object, though only for a specific duration, but that doesn't stop the ice from being an ongoing spell effect. As per the examples above, interacting with it should be plenty enough to constitute going to work on a creature's body. If you want to get really simulationist with this, Newton's Third Law of Motion makes that whole "going to work on a creature's body" thing very literal - as the creature exerts force on it, it exerts force on the creature.
Nowhere is it stated that the spell effect must impose a numerical penalty or damage upon the creature to constitute "goes to work".
If you could crush a creature beneath a wall of ice, SR doesn't apply. If you could fabricate a section of that wall into a spear and stab them with it, they'd take (probably pathetic) damage with no SR check. Even if they'd already passed through a breached section and the SR failed against them, dealing no cold damage.
At no point is it implied that a creature completely avoid all effects or aspects of a spell's existence, only the ones that magically go to work on them.
The rules are actually pretty clear that you're wrong here:
Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have.
Key word: any.
What you can't ignore are indirect effects - so if you're in a cave, and a toppling Wall of Ice causes a cave in, you can't ignore that. But the ice created by Wall of Ice is literally the ongoing spell effect itself, not an indirect effect of the spell. Being crushed by the spell effect is as direct as it gets. If a creature passed through a breach in the Wall of Ice, successfully resisted the damage with spell resistance, and then had the wall fall on them, they'd ignore it.
EDIT: Took a while to post this, so didn't notice your reply @AwesomenessDog.
It's easier to explain if you realize that Paizo can only print one spell school but realistically, the wall of ice is real ice (as if it were a conjuration (creation) spell, but more so that the water in the air is literally flash frozen into a wall) and it is now a real, physical wall of ice. The coldness is magical, and therefore the damage caused by it would be affected by spell resistance, but the ice wall is real, nonmagical ice, and therefore not affected by SR.
I disagree. If the ice were entirely real ice then Wall of Ice would be an instantaneous spell instead of one with a limited duration - like Wall of Stone. What we have instead is an ongoing spell effect that mimics the behavior of real ice. Pop an Antimagic Field over a Wall of Ice, and it'll vanish like it was never there.
Except it's not, it follows object rules for breaking the ice. The reason it ends is because the cooling effects ends and normal atmospheric conditions return it back to air. Antimagic field disables the cooling effect, which should melt the ice, but that isn't the same thing as someone with spell resistance being able to walk through solid ice. The ice doesn't apply any effect for SR to resist, the cold damage is the only thing affected by spell resistance.
Laegrim, what you're suggesting is a significant rule for how SR interacts with Wall spells and how the game is supposed to be played. It would need to explicitly say that SR allows you to walk through magical walls as a General or Specific Rule somewhere, and neither exist.
Except it's not, it follows object rules for breaking the ice. The reason it ends is because the cooling effects ends and normal atmospheric conditions return it back to air. Antimagic field disables the cooling effect, which should melt the ice, but that isn't the same thing as someone with spell resistance being able to walk through solid ice. The ice doesn't apply any effect for SR to resist, the cold damage is the only thing affected by spell resistance.
It's a spell with a duration measured in minutes per level - it doesn't end because of "the cooling effects ends and normal atmospheric conditions return it back to air", it ends because the spell's duration expires. Nothing more, nothing less. And when the spell ends the wall immediately vanishes, as is normal for ongoing spell effects which have expired in duration.
When you put a Wall of Ice in an Antimagic Field, it doesn't act like normal ice. There's no melting, or evaporating, or anything like that. The wall is a magical effect, and it immediately vanishes as it's suppressed just as it does if the duration runs out. If you remove the Antimagic Field before the wall's duration runs out, it will immediately pop back into existence.
I get the inclination to treat the ice like normal ice. For many purposes you can, as detailed in the spell's text. But, in the end, it's an ongoing spell effect and not a self-sustaining object independent from the magic creating it.
EDIT: Sat on my reply for a while, so missed yours @Ryze Kuja.
Laegrim, what you're suggesting is a significant rule for how SR interacts with Wall spells and how the game is supposed to be played. It would need to explicitly say that SR allows you to walk through magical walls as a General or Specific Rule somewhere, and neither exist.
Not really. There're only a few spells for which this interaction is an issue, and the rules are actually fairly explicit in how to handle this. There's absolutely no need for a passage in the rules specifically detailing how to handle magical walls and spell resistance.
If anything were needed, it would be a clarification to this specific passage: "Spell resistance has no effect unless the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature’s mind or body."
We're all debating what "goes to work on" really means.
Sure, it's reasonable to conclude that... if...
you were to ignore the system, other interactions, and other similar circumstances of what the game system considers 'striking', 'touching', or 'affected by'. You might want to point out that if something strikes you, then 'scientifically' that means it's touching you and you might be right. You might then try and extrapolate that if something touches you, that means that you are touching it... and that if striking is the same as touching, something striking you means that you actually struck it.
That's all well and good scientifically and philosophically and may even be correct (and that's not being argued), but in this game system someone 'touching' someone else does not always or necessarily mean that that other person 'touched' the other, especially for magical situations. Especially in cases of holding a spell's charge, where if you 'strike', or even touch someone or something else unintentionally... you discharge the spell, but someone else touching you, such as 'striking' you or grappling does not.In this case, grabbing the sword, attacking it with your fist (whether effective or not), or touching it while you're holding the charge on some dispelling touch spell (whether effective or not) is not the sword striking you or going to work on you or doing anything to you per the mechanics. Your own held spell will discharge when you touch the sword (whether you intended to discharge it or not) but the sword striking you won't (but the sword striking you will trigger an SR check).
So yes, it's reasonable to make that assumption and use scientific or philosophical pontification, but not when more data and consideration of the situation is taken into account based on what's being discussed in the framework of magic or why it does something or works somehow (or doesn't work somehow).
Mage's Sword:
---------------------------------------------------------------
You might ask, 'Why then bother to put a little section in the spell specifically about Spell Resistance and pretty much just repeating the rules on what it is and does?"
The answer to that is to look at how mage's sword actually interacts differently with SR checks. That's the reason it's in that spell, not as a guideline for wall of ice even though they may share the same magic School or any other properties.What's the difference with mage's sword's SR interaction and other SR interactions that aren't specified? The fact that as an ongoing spell it is 'dispelled' if it fails against a protected creature. This is not the normal mechanic for ongoing spells.
Spell Resistance wrote:
Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have. The magic continues to affect others normally.
If a mage's sword is flitting about merrily, slashing up your friends and then hits you and fails its SR check, it goes away. Entirely. Dispelled. Ended. That means you may have just saved your friend's lives if it was going to attack them next.Wall of ice or wall of light don't have such explicit statements. Which means, using the rules, they would continue to remain in place and effect other creatures normally.
And that is why that section is in mage's sword's spell entry description. Not as a rubric for how another spell should necessarily work.
If that was the case, it would be like spiritual weapon (which is far more similar to mage's sword in what is an obvious way and not just a stretch that 'they have the same school'. (I actually think spiritual weapon is what mage's sword is based on, not the other way around) and we, in fact, see that spiritual weapon does have that very same disclaimer.
This goes back to that "common sense" you were talking about earlier. Having a situation where if the sword hits you, it triggers a spell resistance check, but not if you make contact with the sword is a little ridiculous. While you're right that Mage's Sword interacts differently with SR checks than normal, the difference is in the result of a failed SR check rather than the circumstances that trigger a SR check.
We have an ambiguous rule to interpret - "goes to work" - and a set of spells that clarify that at least one kind of contact, striking, fits within that rule. The question we have to ask ourselves is if it makes sense for only that one kind of contact to count as "goes to work", and I think the answer is pretty clearly no.
The spell Creeping Ice further outlines that other forms of contact are enough to count as "goes to work"; it's "Spell Resistance: yes", so we know SR applies somehow to the spell. Applying SR only to the circumstances where the ice is growing towards a creature, and not any other form of contact, is entirely arbitrary. One is not more "going to work" than the other.
If we look at the context of the rules line we're debating, we can see the paragraph as a whole is attempting to draw a delineation between spell effects, against which SR is effective, and second order effects, against which SR is not effective.
Spell resistance has no effect unless the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature’s mind or body. If the spell acts on anything else and the creature is affected as a consequence, no roll is required. Spell-resistant creatures can be harmed by a spell when they are not being directly affected.
So, in light of the full quote, is a creature making contact with a Mage's Sword, or the ice from Creeping Ice or Wall of Ice being affected as a consequence of the spell acting on something else? No. In each of these cases the creature making contact with the spell's effect is being directly affected by the spell's effect. Does it make sense in this context to draw an arbitrary line through various types of contact to include some as "going to work", or "being affected" and others not? Again, no. And, as long as a creature with SR is directly affected by a spell effect, and that spell effect allows for a SR check, we should make that check.
No pontification necessary. We just need not read arbitrary restriction into a rule that doesn't include it.
That could be an enjoyable discussion and passing of the time in a location other than Rules. However, no matter how scientifically beautiful or accurate or thought-out, Magic, and its effects and interactions, even with scientific objects or methodology used for reference, is pretty much the opposite of science. If not objectively the opposite of science (but that could be art... but then... Magic is often referred to as 'The Art'... but this isn't the place for those musings).
Why a wonderful, beautiful, articulate scientific explanation of why magic doesn't work... doesn't work [(here in Rules):
------------------------------------------------------------
Why does teleport maintain personal, relativistic 'localized' momentum and speeds but not other factors? If you're falling when you teleport you are still falling (or take damage for the distance fallen to that point) when you teleport. You can teleport over something soft, like water or a mattress and mitigate it, rather than slamming into the ground, but it's still there.
Great, you think! That's scientifically plausible and how the spell works... except... it doesn't take into account or maintain how fast you're spatially moving, such as the spin of the planet (which is really fast). Or the movement of the planet around a star (which is really fast).Realistically Scientifically, if you teleported to the other side of the planet... you should be upside down. You will then suddenly actually be going in the opposite direction of the planet's spin and not just be flung through any nearby objects... but probably charred to ash by the atmospheric friction of the speeds
and forces you're subjected to.But you aren't. Why not? Magic. The magical effect says how it interacts in the game world (even if that reason and set of rules is purely to make it so the game works at some arbitrary level of playability without forcing every player to either study fields of science when they want to be focusing on the subject of magic (or 'not-science') or playing a game and not doing homework by having to decode, collate, and calculate tables and tables of mathematical and scientific data to determine how real-world physics affects a made up character's health and body which has been generalized down to the word 'hit points' and is an arbitrary number.
Can it be fun to do that (for some)? Sure. Can the discussion of it be fun? Absolutely... but not in Rules. At least... not when by first looking at how the system itself is framed... and the magic system itself has been framed... and the interaction of magic with other things (like creatures with SR) has been framed first.
------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly you've a deficient education in Spellcraft - otherwise you'd know the why and how of the methods by which Teleport compensates for these factors. Which Wizard's School did you attend, anyways? Probably some hick outfit, like Theumanexus.
...
Anyways, you're obviously right that we quickly run into problems applying real world physics to the game's rules. Pathfinder might be a pretty crunchy system, but it's not a physics engine. I wasn't particularly clear in that quote, but it was meant to be a possible way to flavor the rules rather than an argument for why the rules should work that way. I think the rules themselves, and the examples we have to help us interpret them, work plenty well on their own.
I don't think anyone said it was. I certainly didn't. If you inferred that than maybe I'll be clearer, since sometimes I do actually take steps for brevity in some posts, but I was likely trying to confine things to the spell's being discussed (which do have actual mechanical and numerical effects (ie. blindness or cold damage).
For instance, I know that there's a spell called resilient sphere. It allows SR. It doesn't apply any mechanical or numerical effect or penalty to defense (or even movement, though its boundaries might restrict it). Basically, the target is inside a barrier. No different than being inside an equally mundane or normal size room or other sphere of a material of equal property to [force]. I know that a target with SR will force an SR check when the spell 'goes to work' on them. So... no, that's not even an issue here.
I took your post as endorsing that view - it certainly seemed like the line you were trying to draw when analyzing Wall of Light's effects. But, it sounds like we're mostly on the same page here.
Resilient Sphere is an interesting choice for an example though, and probably one I should have been using to prove my point earlier. If contact is not enough to trigger a SR check, then there's no mechanism by which SR could apply to Resilient Sphere at all, despite that it's description includes the line "Spell Resistance: yes". Notice that Resilient Sphere is not a targeted spell. There's no Target line at all, just an Effect line. If Resilient Sphere were a targeted spell, then we would have a clear avenue to apply SR:
Targeted Spells: Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature.
Since it's not, and instead effects the area around a creature, we're left with interpreting the Effect Spells section to determine how SR applies. Because Resilient Sphere cannot form unless the sphere's diameter is large enough to fully contain the creature around which it forms, the first time a creature will be directly affected by the spell in any way is when it makes contact with the wall of the sphere. If that contact is not enough to trigger the SR check, then there are no other circumstances in which that SR check might occur.
The spell clearly allows for SR to apply, so contact with the spell's effect must be enough to trigger that check.
TL/DR
The main problem with your version of how to do it (for most people using the system, obviously. You can do it however you like, and share your reasons, as you've done here, and maybe others will do it that way too). The thing is, those people should know why or how it is supposed to work when they make that decision.
The how and why of my interpretation is very, very simple. The only question you need ask is "are you being directly affected by the spell's effects", and, if yes, and the spell allows for SR, and you have SR, then a SR check is made. I'm simply not drawing arbitrary lines to say that one kind of direct interaction between spell effect and creature counts, and another doesn't.
One reason is, your method would cause issues:
If you're in a 5-foot tube and your ally is trapped in a resilient sphere, it will stop your movement, it will block your arrows and attacks (and protect your friend), and will be immovable to you. You won't get to walk up and just pass through. It isn't 'going to work' on you just by being an immovable (even if magical and temporary) effect.A spell that emits illumination by its nature (such as being a ball of light or fire) doesn't mean it won't illuminate the area for you to see just because it can't 'go to work' on you (however you define it), unless that is specifically what it does to you as part of the magical effect. You aren't suddenly plunged into darkness and blindness because you just happen to be unaffected by the heat coming off a wall of fire or the blindness caused by passing through a wall of light.
You aren't standing guard when an enemy caster sneaks up and unleashes an otherwise unnoticed casting or sonic scream (because it's a spell-like ability or used the Silent Spell metamagic feat) and fails their SR check against you and not only do you take no sonic damage... but you don't hear any sound from the scream at all. "Quiet night tonight," you think to yourself.
Same deal with shout. You are sitting at dinner with a friend and someone unleashes the spell with you in the area. You take no damage or deafening... but that doesn't mean the booming shout is just some ephemeral non-existent figment in a phased out reality to you. "Why is all the glassware and wine bottles on the table shattering?" Similarly, you don't get to continue to hear the quartet of musicians on the stage across the room uninterrupted as they continue to play during the blast. The music may play on, but it's drowned out by a really loud noise (unless the spell itself somehow purposefully made it so you couldn't hear such noises by its effect... and for some reason they made it have SR... which wouldn't make sense... but it could exist).
There's just too many messy situations... even simple ones where a friend uses wall of ice or similar spell that allows SR for a good, legitimate reason to fill in a gap in a bridge or hole in a floor to make a bridge or allow crossing safely. Then, just because you walked on it you suddenly sink/fall into the pit, taking falling damage... and no one can help you out, because it looks like you're inside solid ice and they can't lower a rope (we already agree wall of ice doesn't just end, unlike a mage's sword). .
Resilient sphere I covered above, and for the rest of this, once we've moved past the "does this count as "going to work"?" question, you're not really arguing against me - you're arguing against plainly written rules.
Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have. The magic continues to affect others normally
You can't ignore "any effect the spell might have". Spell Resistance is explicitly a bit of a double edged sword - it cuts out beneficial effects as well as harmful effects - so I don't actually see the problem with your examples.
If you can't see because you resisted a Wall of Fire or Wall of Light, and they were your only light source, perhaps you should have dropped your spell resistance. Or, maybe, find or create a different light source.
If you resisted an unnoticed casting of Sonic Scream, perhaps remaining unaware is the double edged sword at work or perhaps you catch the screams echoes off of other objects (a secondary effect). Honestly, this could make for a fun and flavorful encounter.
If you resist a Shout, then, yeah, you don't hear the primary effect. Presumably you'd notice the spell effecting all of the other things around you, but the sound created by the spell itself is a magical effect that failed to make it past your resistances. Sounds flavorful to me.
If you need to make it across a bridging Wall of Ice and think your SR might risk you dropping into the drink or whatever else is beneath the bridge, then you'd probably better lower it for the duration of the crossing. If you end up in a hole filled with magical ice, in which nobody else can reach you because nobody else has resisted the spell's effects, and out of which you can't extricate yourself under your own power, then, yeah, you're in a bit of a sticky situation. You'll probably have to wait for the Wall's duration to expire, for someone to dispel it, or for someone to break or melt enough of the ice to reach you. That's a flavorful encounter, not a reason to ignore the rules.
How you flavor the rules that is up to you; the rules text itself doesn't give any particular instruction. As I mentioned before, you could take inspiration from the rules segment adjudicating successful saves against Figments and Phantasms.
A wall isn't an effect, it's a wall. That's quite simply the end of it. Damage is an effect, paralysis is an effect, but being unable to walk through a wall is not an effect, regardless of what the wall is made of.
A wall isn't an effect, it's a wall. That's quite simply the end of it. Damage is an effect, paralysis is an effect, but being unable to walk through a wall is not an effect, regardless of what the wall is made of.
No. Let me lay things out as clearly as I can, so we can actually have a productive debate. Tell me which line(s) below you disagree with, and why.
--------------------------------------
Wall of Ice is a spell.
Wall of Ice's effect is a wall of ice, as detailed by the text of the spell.
Since Wall of Ice is a spell, its effect is a spell effect.
Since Wall of Ice has a duration, the spell's effect is an ongoing spell effect for the duration of the spell.
Since the wall of ice is an ongoing spell effect, any other effect that interacts with ongoing spell effects will interact with the wall of ice in the manner described.
Since Wall of Ice has the descriptor "Spell Resistance yes", spell resistance interacts with the spell's effect according to the spell resistance rules.
According to the spell resistance rules, a creature that successfully resists the spell ignores any of the spell's effects.
Since Wall of Ice has a duration, when the duration ends the effects of the spell end.
--------------------------------------
The only ambiguity I can see is whether or not contact with the wall is enough to trigger a spell resistance check, according to the spell resistance rules, and I laid out extensive arguments as to why it should be enough in previous comments.
If you want to create a wall, and have that be the end of it, cast Wall of Stone.
No, the definition of spell effects is more specific than "anything related to a spell". Sometimes the devs bother to explain this in more detail (the difference between hungry darkness where SR can block dmg but not the darkness because it isn't an effect applied to the creature like damage is) but the same idea applies regardless of editing oversight. Ice is an object. Doesn't matter how the ice was made, it is an object. Nothing about Spell Resistance lets you go through an object. Objects aren't spell effects. Damage caused by an object is a spell effect (i.e. diamond spray) because the application of damage is a spell effect, but a wall is not a spell effect.
Extensive arguments don't matter. Objects are objects and use object rules which have 0 intersection with spell resistance. Your SR will stop the damage of an Ice Wall, nothing more.
No, the definition of spell effects is more specific than "anything related to a spell".
Ah, no. A spell effect is literally an effect of a spell.
If you have a citation to suggest otherwise, I'd love to see it.
Sometimes the devs bother to explain this in more detail (the difference between hungry darkness where SR can block dmg but not the darkness because it isn't an effect applied to the creature like damage is) but the same idea applies regardless of editing oversight.
Both the darkness and the damage of Hungry Darkness are spell effects, but spell resistance can only prevent one of those effects because that's what the text of the spell tells you.
The text does not suggest the they are not both effects.
Ice is an object. Doesn't matter how the ice was made, it is an object. Nothing about Spell Resistance lets you go through an object. Objects aren't spell effects. Damage caused by an object is a spell effect (i.e. diamond spray) because the application of damage is a spell effect, but a wall is not a spell effect.
Extensive arguments don't matter. Objects are objects and use object rules which have 0 intersection with spell resistance. Your SR will stop the damage of an Ice Wall, nothing more.
Again, you need to cite a rule that says the effect of a spell is not a spell effect - because otherwise, by the plain wording of the rules, the wall of ice created by Wall of Ice is a spell effect.
It's a spell effect that functions in many ways like an object, as detailed by the text, but that doesn't prevent it from being a spell effect, or spell resistance from applying to it like any other spell effect that allows for spell resistance.
Laegrim is right. RAW, anyone with sufficient spell resistance can walk through a wall of ice. I do not particularly like it, and will probably houserule it in my games, but those are the rules Paizo wrote.
No he isn't.
The argument relies on a very strict use of RAW and that is both its strength and weakness.
I mean, this is a rules forum; using the RAW seems appropriate.
You have to stovepipe spells into stand-alone items, ignore more recent spells, ignore the general way the books are written, and ignore use case history. I didn't even address that it's not a Conjuration as that's a distraction, and yes, many GMs conflate the implementations/interpretations.
... I don't think I've done any of this, but I'm not sure how to address most of this without further clarification.
As for ShadowcatX's point about the school of the spell, it's absolutely relevant. Only instantaneous duration conjuration (creation) spells are, as a general rule, called out as producing independent, self-sustaining, and non-magical results. Other spells might have similar results, but the text of the spell would need to specify as such.
Use case is particularly important as this is an old spell brought into Pathfinder via the OGL. It was well known to the writers at the time and if they wanted to change how it worked they could have edited the text to reflect that.
You're right that none of the relevant text has significantly changed since the first 3.0 printing, but I've never seen anything to indicate RAI on this issue.
Part of the reason this topic is a bit of a bugbear for me is that I've been interpreting the spell resistance rules this way since I started playing 3.0. As far as I'm concerned I'm not changing the rules or changing how anything works.
I'd say his interpretation is somewhat unique and less than 5% of GMs I know would rule that way. It doesn't mean he's wrong, it's just something in the GM's gray area.
After the last thread I opened on the spell resistance rules, I'd guess that they're generally misremembered, misread, and misinterpreted - and not for no reason. Those rules are unintuitive, and most people won't ever need to go through them carefully to play the game.
I'm generally confident in my reasoning here in this thread, but I'm not ruling out that there's some chance that I could be one of those people misinterpreting things either. My opinions are not set in stone, though I do need particularly good evidence to change them.
No he isn't.
What's your sticking point?
What's your sticking point?
Just because a Wall spell has SR: Yes doesn't mean that you get to walk through them when they fail the SR check against you. It's still a solid wall, you just don't take any dmg from it.
What's your sticking point?Just because a Wall spell has SR: Yes doesn't mean that you get to walk through them when they fail the SR check against you. It's still a solid wall, you just don't take any dmg from it.
I've addressed this point several times in thread so far; do you have anything new to add to that particular debate point? The rules are pretty explicit that successfully resisting a spell means you ignore any effect that spell has, not just some of the spell's effects.
I've addressed this point several times in thread so far; do you have anything new to add to that particular debate point? The rules are pretty explicit that successfully resisting a spell means you ignore any effect that spell has, not just some of the spell's effects.What's your sticking point?Just because a Wall spell has SR: Yes doesn't mean that you get to walk through them when they fail the SR check against you. It's still a solid wall, you just don't take any dmg from it.
No, I'm just making sure that anyone reading this isn't seriously considering your opinion on how SR works as fact. What you're suggesting is pretty wild, and if it was indeed supposed to work this way, they would've enumerated it in a rule somewhere, or an FAQ/Errata of some kind. "It does what it says, and it says what it does". If it doesn't say somewhere in the Rules/FAQ/Errata that SR allows you to walk through Solid Wall or Wall of Ice spells, then you don't get to just make things up based on rules-lawyering technicalities and loopholes.
No, I'm just making sure that anyone reading this isn't seriously considering your opinion on how SR works as fact. What you're suggesting is pretty wild, and if it was indeed supposed to work this way, they would've enumerated it in a rule somewhere, or an FAQ/Errata of some kind. "It does what it says, and it says what it does". If it doesn't say somewhere in the Rules/FAQ/Errata that SR allows you to walk through Solid Wall or Wall of Ice spells, then you don't get to just make things up based on rules-lawyering technicalities and loopholes.
And here I thought this was a good faith discussion. If you have an actual argument, make it. Cite or analyze some rules, or find a source to show RAI.
This isn't a wild interpretation, I'm not rules lawyering, or making stuff up. There doesn't need to be some kind of errata that says "we've already told you that if a spell is resisted with spell resistance you should ignore any spell effects but, in the case of wall spells that allow spell resistance we really mean it!".
Seriously. This is a really simple, explicit rule. It's not a technicality or loophole.
If you want to make up a house rule that changes Wall of Ice to a "Spell Resistance: see text" spell, so that it works how you think it should, then go ahead. If you want to add in exceptions to the "ignore any spell effect" rule, that's great! Play your game the way best fits the experience you want to have. That's how Pathfinder works best. But if you want to present your interpretation as the way the rules actually work in the rules forum, please, actually support your argument and make it in good faith.
No, I'm just making sure that anyone reading this isn't seriously considering your opinion on how SR works as fact. What you're suggesting is pretty wild, and if it was indeed supposed to work this way, they would've enumerated it in a rule somewhere, or an FAQ/Errata of some kind. "It does what it says, and it says what it does". If it doesn't say somewhere in the Rules/FAQ/Errata that SR allows you to walk through Solid Wall or Wall of Ice spells, then you don't get to just make things up based on rules-lawyering technicalities and loopholes.And here I thought this was a good faith discussion. If you have an actual argument, make it. Cite or analyze some rules, or find a source to show RAI.
This isn't a wild interpretation, I'm not rules lawyering, or making stuff up. There doesn't need to be some kind of errata that says "we've already told you that if a spell is resisted with spell resistance you should ignore any spell effects but, in the case of wall spells that allow spell resistance we really mean it!".
Seriously. This is a really simple, explicit rule. It's not a technicality or loophole.
If you want to make up a house rule that changes Wall of Ice to a "Spell Resistance: see text" spell, so that it works how you think it should, then go ahead. If you want to add in exceptions to the "ignore any spell effect" rule, that's great! Play your game the way best fits the experience you want to have. That's how Pathfinder works best. But if you want to present your interpretation as the way the rules actually work in the rules forum, please, actually support your argument and make it in good faith.
Yep. I'm going to play it as I've always played it: SR doesn't, nor has it ever, let you walk through magically created walls. *thumbs up*
I already quoted rules at the beginning of the thread, and I'm not actually interested in getting into a debate with your massive wall-of-text responses. I'm just here as a good faith objector, that way anyone reading this doesn't believe you're right simply because you've chased away all your potential would-be objectors.
Here is a quote from spell resistance.
"Spell resistance does not apply if an effect fools the creature’s senses or reveals something about the creature"
Well, it sure looks like there is a wall of ice there, I probably can't walk through it.
SR doesn't apply.
How does this fool the senses? There's actually a barrier of magical ice there - if you can't resist it, and therefore ignore it, it will block you.
It fools your eyes.
If I think a wall is in front of me then I think I can't walk through it.
I know how walls work.
It looks like a wall.
I believe it to be a wall.
I treat it as a wall.
I'm fooled into thinking it's a wall.
My SR doesn't work.
... It doesn't fool your eyes. There's actually a wall blocking your way, one you can't walk through, until you resist it with spell resistance. Once you've resisted it, the spell effect is still not fooling your eyes - you ignore it.
It's either an actual wall you can't walk through (like ya know, a wall), or it's fooling you into thinking there is a wall there and your SR doesn't apply.
There's an actual wall, the spell effect of the spell Wall of Ice, that, should you resist the spell, you ignore, as per the spell resistance rules.
So yes, spell resistance will let you walk through walls in some very specific circumstances.
At no point is the spell effect itself fooling you into thinking it's there when it's not, or that it's not when it's there. That's all that the rules passage you quoted cares about. If anything is fooling you it's your own spell resistance, but spell resistance has always been a double edged sword.
So you're saying your own spell resistance is fooling you into thinking you can walk through a solid wall?
So then, spell resistance doesn't apply, and you can't walk through it.
Spell resistance actually lets you walk through a resisted magical effect, including magical effects that take the form of solid walls. It doesn't have to fool you into thinking that you can walk through an effect you ignore. I'm not sure why you think spell resistance applies to itself either, that's not what the rules say in any shape or form.
This is going in circles. I'm ducking out for at least a few days to lower my blood pressure - here's the TLDR for my argument, in case anyone new reads this far through the thread.
1. Wall of Ice is a "Spell Resistance yes" spell, and the wall produced is a spell effect. Spell resistance applies to the wall like any other such spell effect.
2. "Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have." That's a direct rules quote, and there are no cut-outs or exceptions. Magical wall effects aren't less ignorable than any other effect.
3. If you make contact with a physical spell effect to which spell resistance applies, it is, by plain meaning of the words, affecting you. It has gone to work on your body - that's the only reason you can touch it in the first place. If you have spell resistance, make a spell resistance check. A number of spells more or less explicitly support this interpretation.
So you're saying your own spell resistance is fooling you into thinking you can walk through a solid wall?
So then, spell resistance doesn't apply, and you can't walk through it.
Spell resistance actually lets you walk through a resisted magical effect, including magical effects that take the form of solid walls. It doesn't have to fool you into thinking that you can walk through an effect you ignore. I'm not sure why you think spell resistance applies to itself either, that's not what the rules say in any shape or form.
This is going in circles. I'm ducking out for at least a few days to lower my blood pressure - here's the TLDR for my argument, in case anyone new reads this far through the thread.
1. Wall of Ice is a "Spell Resistance yes" spell, and the wall produced is a spell effect. Spell resistance applies to the wall like any other such spell effect.
2. "Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have." That's a direct rules quote, and there are no cut-outs or exceptions. Magical wall effects aren't less ignorable than any other effect.
3. If you make contact with a physical spell effect to which spell resistance applies, it is, by plain meaning of the words, affecting you. It has gone to work on your body - that's the only reason you can touch it in the first place. If you have spell resistance, make a spell resistance check. A number of spells more or less explicitly support this interpretation.
I think this guy sums it up nicely. Magic Immunity is immune to any spell that has "SR: yes". D&D 5E forums talking about this exact same thing
The argument that "immunity to magic" means "immunity to Wall Spells" has come up in every edition and has been shot down in every edition. I remember decades ago when this was brought up in 1e and a decade ago when it was brought up again in 3e. Fifth Edition will not be any different.
Monster Immunities are described on pg 8 of the Monster Manual. It makes it clear that immunity to damage, conditions, and game effects (anything that isn't considering damage or a condition) are not the same thing. Furthermore, granting immunity to game effects requires a "special trait" that will list the game effect the creature is immune to. The Rakshasa's "Limited Magic Immunity" grants no immunity to game effects since immunity applies to damage and conditions, but not game effects. Therefore, a Rakshasa would be immune to the Cold Damage caused by a Wall of Ice, but it couldn't walk through said Ice Wall since the Wall of Ice is described as an "object," which is a game effect as found on page 185 of the Player's Handbook. A spell that Restrains the Rakshasa like Evard's Black Tentacles wouldn't work because Restrained is a Condition, nor would it cause bludgeoning damage since immunity applies to damage. Fog Cloud would still affect a Rakshasa because Fog Cloud creates a game effect (area is heavily obscured). Immunity to Fog Cloud would be a "special trait" such as Blindsight or Tremorsense and be listed separately as described on pg 8 of the Monster Manual.
Summary:
Damage? Is immune
Conditions? Is immune
Game Effects? Is not immuneWall Spells create objects which are game effects, normal rules apply.
What you're suggesting has been brought up every edition of D&D and thusly shot down. It's not how the game was ever supposed to be played, and suggesting that Pathfinder is any different in this respect is **channels Draco Malfoy pronouncing the P in Potter** Positively PrePosterous.
...The argument that "immunity to magic" means "immunity to Wall Spells" has come up in every edition and has been shot down in every edition.
First, that's a strawman. It isn't "immunity to wall spells" being argued here, this is the only wall spell, AFAIK, that both attempts to create a physical barrier and allows spell resistance. Don't use logical fallacies just to try to win an arguement, and that includes copying them from other people.
Secondly, ok show us. Give us where it was ruled not to work this way in 3.5. That would be a good first step in winning your arguement.
It's not a strawman. Magic Immunity = SR Infinite or Unbeatable (but are still affected by "SR: No" spells normally, such as Web). Magic Immunity can be otherwise read as: you win all SR checks automatically. Golems don't get to march through Wall of Ice spells like there isn't a physical barrier of ice 15inches thick blocking their path, but they would be immune to the damage.