Spell Immunity question

[Epinephrine]

Would you allow spell immunity (the spell) to prevent a Warlock's eldritch blasts? By RAW I don't think it does; it will prevent spell-like abilities that are innate to a creature (so a Mind Flayer's blast is fair game) or spells. Of course, the term "innate spell-like ability" isn't actually defined. Depending on your definition, it could mean "present at birth", or "an essential characteristic". Eldritch blasts essential characteristics of warlocks, but they aren't innate in the sense of "inborn".

If you did allow it, would one have to name the different types of blast that you wish to be protected from? (Eldritch Blast, Brimstone Blast, etc.)

An enemy caster in the game I am running will protect himself from the abilities he's seen the players using, and there is a warlock in the group. Protecting self from the blasts would be a pretty high priority.

[Krrth]

Would you allow spell immunity (the spell) to prevent a Warlock's eldritch blasts? By RAW I don't think it does; it will prevent spell-like abilities that are innate to a creature (so a Mind Flayer's blast is fair game) or spells. Of course, the term "innate spell-like ability" isn't actually defined. Depending on your definition, it could mean "present at birth", or "an essential characteristic". Eldritch blasts essential characteristics of warlocks, but they aren't innate in the sense of "inborn".

If you did allow it, would one have to name the different types of blast that you wish to be protected from? (Eldritch Blast, Brimstone Blast, etc.)

An enemy caster in the game I am running will protect himself from the abilities he's seen the players using, and there is a warlock in the group. Protecting self from the blasts would be a pretty high priority.

Probably not. Vitrolic blast is a definite not.

From the Srd:
Only a particular spell can be protected against, not a certain domain or school of spells or a group of spells that are similar in effect. .

It also only counts if it's a spell. A mindflayers blast isn't a spell.

[Epinephrine]

Probably not. Vitrolic blast is a definite not.

It also only counts if it's a spell. A mindflayers blast isn't a spell.

Well, what I see in the SRD is:


Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures.

Why would this not then work against a mind flayer? You specify "Mind Blast", which is a spell like ability, and is in fact 4th level equivalent. Sure, there is no spell in the book by that name, but spell-likes work like the spell of their name.

Ok, by RAW, I could see an objection - it's not listed anywhere as a spell, but from another perspective it's simply the spell-like of a spell that isn't on a list.

[quick_comment]

Official ruling is no, warlock abilities are not innate (and so you cant take supernatural transformation for them)

From a balance perspective, I would also have to say no. Warlocks get little enough as-is, no reason to let clerics stomp over them even more.

[Epinephrine]

Ok, that's fair. It would hose warlocks a bit much. Maybe he'll stick to using Spell Resistance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellResistance.htm). 12+caster level is plenty of protection against blasts.

[Krrth]

Check the entire SRD. It quite clearly indicates spells. The wording, to me at least, indicates that if you chose "Fireball" as the spell, you are indeed immune to castings of that spell, creatures who have fireball as a spell like ability, and a wand of fireballs.


The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks.

Only a particular spell can be protected against, not a certain domain or school of spells or a group of spells that are similar in effect.

A creature can have only one spell immunity or greater spell immunity spell in effect on it at a time.

A warlocks blast is not a spell, and thus is not affected by Spell Immunity.

A fourth level spell completely negating a class? Yes, that's unbalancing.
Here's a question...is the Warlock's blast a supernatural ability? If so, by definition, it isn't affected.

[Epinephrine]

Here's a question...is the Warlock's blast a supernatural ability? If so, by definition, it isn't affected.

No, it's a spell-like (and thus is affected by SR), and is equivalent to a 2nd level spell. Add essences, and it can become equivlalent to higher level spells.

I'll stick to spell resistance, it'll provide pretty solid shut down anyway.

[jmbrown]

You're reading too far into the definition of innate.

A spell-like ability is a spell except there's no components and it can't be countered/used as a counter.

All spell-like abilities, unless expressly stated or the spell they're based on states so, are subject to spell resistance.

Spell Immunity (the spell) grants unbeatable spell resistance from a single named spell or spell-like ability.

Eldritch Blast is a spell-like ability that's subject to caster level checks to overcome spell resistance. Regardless if it's "innate" or not, a spell caster should be able to name Eldritch Blast as a spell to defend against.

A creature with the Special Ability "Spell Immunity" is protected and the 4th level spell of the same name works the same except you can only target a single spell.

[quick_comment]

You know, maybe it isnt too unbalancing, as long as it only effects particular blasts (with particular essences)

[Krrth]

You know, maybe it isnt too unbalancing, as long as it only effects particular blasts (with particular essences)

*shrug*

Since it's already affected by spell resistance, elemental resistance, and the like...I'd still go with "no". The spell lets you pick, so pick cold and fire....you've just negated much of what a warlock can do.

Heaven forbid you pick "hellfire".

[jmbrown]

I don't understand how it's unbalancing when all it does is protect against a single ability. For example, Hellfire Blast and Eldritch Blast aren't the same ability. Hellfire Blast builds upon the Eldritch Blast but they're still two separate spell-like abilities.

[Epinephrine]

The problem with basing it on whether there exists a spell is that one simply has to research a spell by the name of Mind Blast, and suddenly the mind blast is fair game.

Why would one set of spell-like abilities (the set of all spell-like abilities with the same name as a spell on a spell list) be affected, and yet other spell-like abilities not be? If it simply didn't affect spell-like abilities, that'd be one thing.

Are there examples of creatures with a spell-like ability for which a later sourcebook has the ability as a spell?

[Krrth]

I don't understand how it's unbalancing when all it does is protect against a single ability. For example, Hellfire Blast and Eldritch Blast aren't the same ability. Hellfire Blast builds upon the Eldritch Blast but they're still two separate spell-like abilities.

Because all told, a warlock has very, very few different blasts: Eldritch, Cold, Fire, and Acid. Hellfire with a specific prestige class. By the time you can cast spell immunity, you can pick 2 of those.

[quick_comment]

Because all told, a warlock has very, very few different blasts: Eldritch, Cold, Fire, and Acid. Hellfire with a specific prestige class. By the time you can cast spell immunity, you can pick 2 of those.

Dont forget shape essences.

[Krrth]

Dont forget shape essences.

Those are more like metamagic, AFAIK. Doesn't affect the actual essence type. Kinda like an expanded fireball is still a fireball, but delayed blast fireball is not.

[jmbrown]

Because all told, a warlock has very, very few different blasts: Eldritch, Cold, Fire, and Acid. Hellfire with a specific prestige class. By the time you can cast spell immunity, you can pick 2 of those.

And only one iteration of spell immunity can be cast at a time so if the enemy is immune to eldritch blast then the warlock's other blast will still work assuming he has one.

A golem has spell immunity. Is that unbalanced if half your party includes spell casters? Most higher level creatures can fly. Is that unbalanced if no one had the foresight to buy a bow at level 10?

You're dealing with a cleric here. Decent armor, spells, sucks at everything else. He casts spell immunity to protect himself against a single spell. Meanwhile, the party's melee fighers have already ganged up on him and your own spellcaster is either casting dispel magic to get rid of his spell immunity or some other spell to hopefully buff the party. In the end, the potential 3d6 or whatever damage the cleric protected himself would be a moot point and there are more than a dozen spells I'd rather cast in combat than that one.

Spell immunity will undoubtly reduce the effectiveness of one character and that character being the warlock. It's not like the entire encounter is suddenly unplayable unless everyone is a warlock! There'll always be situations where player's are at a disadvantage but the whole point behind creating a balanced party is so that an aspect of combat is covered at all times.

[Krrth]

And only one iteration of spell immunity can be cast at a time so if the enemy is immune to eldritch blast then the warlock's other blast will still work assuming he has one.

A golem has spell immunity. Is that unbalanced if half your party includes spell casters? Most higher level creatures can fly. Is that unbalanced if no one had the foresight to buy a bow at level 10?

You're dealing with a cleric here. Decent armor, spells, sucks at everything else. He casts spell immunity to protect himself against a single spell. Meanwhile, the party's melee fighers have already ganged up on him and your own spellcaster is either casting dispel magic to get rid of his spell immunity or some other spell to hopefully buff the party. In the end, the potential 3d6 or whatever damage the cleric protected himself would be a moot point and there are more than a dozen spells I'd rather cast in combat than that one.

Spell immunity will undoubtly reduce the effectiveness of one character and that character being the warlock. It's not like the entire encounter is suddenly unplayable unless everyone is a warlock! There'll always be situations where player's are at a disadvantage but the whole point behind creating a balanced party is so that an aspect of combat is covered at all times.

Incorrect.


The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have..

A cleric gets it at level 7. At level 8, that's two spells. At the same level, a Warlock might kno2 two essences. Since the spell level is the highest of the various adders....and most cap out at 4.

List here (http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Invocations-Warlock.pdf).

[Epinephrine]

And only one iteration of spell immunity can be cast at a time so if the enemy is immune to eldritch blast then the warlock's other blast will still work assuming he has one.

Well, you can select more than one spell. But the warlock should still have invocations anyway. Perhaps including Voracious Dispelling*. Warlocks aren't helpless with their blasts countered, they might pop tentacles out of the floor, summon a swarm, call up a wall of fire...

* so many warlocks take this. Honestly, Dispel Magic at will is pretty strong, and would handle the Spell Immunity just fine.

[Keld Denar]

Spell Immunity is defined as unbeatable Spell Resistance. You can't make yourself immune to a spell that doesn't allow Spell Resistance. A Warlock with Vitrolic Blast doesn't check Spell Resistance. Thus, ignoring the fact that EB isn't a spell, a Cleric couldn't make himself immune to a Vitrolic Blast any more than the Cleric could make himself immune to say...Orb of Fire, or Glitterdust, or Solid Fog. Standard EB is subject to SR, and can never affect a Golem (who essentially has Spell Immunity: All), no matter what the Warlock's level is, unless that Warlock applies Vitrolic Blast to his EB.

Its also worth noting that the other Invocation user, the Dragonfire Adept, has a Breath Weapon is Su, and thus never subject to SR. A DFA wouldn't need an ability like Vitrolic Blast to affect a Golem, and if it were a spell, a Cleric couldn't make himself immune to it with Spell Immunity because it doesn't check SR.

[VirOath]

The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks.

Only a particular spell can be protected against, not a certain domain or school of spells or a group of spells that are similar in effect.

A creature can have only one spell immunity or greater spell immunity spell in effect on it at a time.

Emphasis Mine

What this means is that Spell Immunity the spell can only select spells. It only provides Spell Immunity (The feature) to those spells for the duration of the spell. It protects against those spells, no matter if they are casted by casters, magic items or the spell-like abilities of creatures.

This means, you can take Fireball for your Spell Immunity, and even be immune to creatures and classes that have Fireball as a spell-like ability. It protects against a wand of Fireball, Scroll and Castings. Anything that produces the spell Fireball, that isn't a Su or Ex, hits Spell Immunity for the duration of the spell.

This will even protect you from a Necklace of Fireballs. Emphasis on the important bit.

This device appears to be nothing but beads on a string, sometimes with the ends tied together to form a necklace. (It does not count as an item worn around the neck for the purpose of determining which of a character’s worn magic items is effective.) If a character holds it, however, all can see the strand as it really is—a golden chain from which hang a number of golden spheres. The spheres are detachable by the wearer (and only by the wearer), who can easily hurl one of them up to 70 feet. When a sphere arrives at the end of its trajectory, it detonates as a fireball spell (Reflex DC 14 half).

But you cannot take Eldritch Blast as one of the selected Spells. Eldritch Blast is a unique spell-like ability that does not produce the effects of a spell. There is no spell "Eldritch Blast", and even if you research a spell with that name you cannot use the spell Spell Immunity to protect against this warlock class feature. It is still it's own unique writeup, which cannot be replicated completely by a spell due to the way it is tied into the class for progression and adjustment.

Spell Immunity the spell can only protect you from Spell-Like abilities that replicate spells. This reads as "(Spell Name) as per the spell."

[Irreverent Fool]

Snip


The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks.

Only a particular spell can be protected against, not a certain domain or school of spells or a group of spells that are similar in effect.

A creature can have only one spell immunity or greater spell immunity spell in effect on it at a time.

I have to disagree with you, VirOath. Nowhere in the spell does it say that it will not protect against a spell-like ability that does not have a spell equivalent. Eldritch Blast is a completely valid choice for this spell. As has been stated above, if a warlock chooses an invocation that allows him to bypass spell resistance, spell immunity will have no effect.

In short, spell immunity protects says specifically it can protect against a spell-like ability. Warlock invocations are spell-like abilities.

This discussion has been had before, many times: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Eldritch+blast%22+D%26D+%22spell+immunity%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=VEE02fthf5k

Edit: According to Sage Advice (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070328a), Vitrolic Blast would still be affected since apparently immunity is supposed to trump the ability to punch through any level of resistance. I think that's dumb, especially since the ability in question in that Q&A is a 20th-level capstone and spell immunity says that it doesn't protect when the spell in question disallows spell resistance, but if you live by Sage advice, there you go.

Some of the above posters think that a caster of spell immunity needs to know the name of the spell being protected against and that if there is no spell with that name, they cannot protect against it. I think that this very much goes against the spirit of the game. It would be reasonable enough to rule that a spellcraft check is in order to identify the magicks involved or that you have to be familiar with the spell/seen it in action.

obnoxious
sig

[VirOath]

Well, we sit on the opposite sides of the fence on this matter then. To me, the usage of Spell and exclusive usage of it in terms of what you can select to be protected, yet spell like abilities are included in the blanket of sources that it protects from.

Then you have the second clause, which states it doesn't protect against similar spells or groupings, just one spell per four levels. Invocations that are applied to the Eldritch Blast should need to be taken separately, even to the point that the different blasts and shapes change the level it is casted at (Basic is one, or the highest blast or essence applied). Though I do rule the other way for feats applying to it. Delivery System, like a Sword, compared to exacting effects and defenses to those, like Flaming and Frost resist. It doesn't matter what short sword you use, all of your short sword feats will apply, but having resistance to frost won't protect you from a flaming short sword. DR is likely a better example, it may provide protection against a basic sword, but once you start giving it other properties, it may just blow right through it.

If that makes any sense. Eldritch Blast is a weapon-like spell-like effect, able to crit and benefit from weapon feats like Weapon Focus and Improved crit, even Power Attack if you use Eldritch Glaive or Hideous Blow.

But on the other hand, invocations like Chilling Tentacles would be able to be targeted, but not by targeting the invocation but rather by targeting Black Tentacles, it's base spell. Even the Cold Damage. But I don't know if that is a spell subject to SR.

And this is all stretching to the illusion that Innate includes SLAs picked up by classes, which are training. Innate is a term used to point to abilities that you could gain if you took that form or race, taking Human doesn't give you Warlock SLAs, you can't polymorph into Monk.

I can see your point on the discussion, I just can't agree with it and wanted to state my view on this matter completely. But no one wins in an internet argument and everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if yours is wrong :smalltongue::smallbiggrin: </joke>

[Keld Denar]

Warlock's EB is NOT an Innate SLA, since its not a viable target for Supernatural Transformation. Its a SLA gained from class levels. Since the spell Spell Immunity doesn't say anything about non-Innate SLAs, it would be pretty much up to the DM to determine if the list of inclusive protections (Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures.) or the list of excluded protections (It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks.) is exhaustive. I'd be most likely to catagorize it with the included protections since its most like SLAs of Magic Items (something you gain, not something you are born with), but that's me.

Also:

Edit: According to Sage Advice (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070328a), Vitrolic Blast would still be affected since apparently immunity is supposed to trump the ability to punch through any level of resistance. I think that's dumb, especially since the ability in question in that Q&A is a 20th-level capstone and spell immunity says that it doesn't protect when the spell in question disallows spell resistance, but if you live by Sage advice, there you go.

I'm sorry, but the Sage has proved that he knows jack diddly about the game at this point. From the text of Spell Immunity:


Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply.

Since SR doesn't apply to Vitrolic Blast, you can't gain immunity to it. To say otherwise is to blatently disregard the plain text in the freakin spells own description. That's like saying that a Warlock with Vitrolic Blast can't affect a Golem. THE WHOLE POINT OF VITROLIC BLAST IS TO OVERCOME THE SR OF A GOLEM, among other things. If it doesn't do that, then there is no point to it even existing other than to turn an untyped (good) damage into a typed (bad) damage, to which nothing has vulnerabilities (very bad) and some things have resistance/immunity to (even worse). So...if Vitrolic Blast doesn't do what its supposed to do, then its a freakin NERF to a warlock to use it.

[Moriato]

Edit: According to Sage Advice (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070328a), Vitrolic Blast would still be affected since apparently immunity is supposed to trump the ability to punch through any level of resistance. I think that's dumb, especially since the ability in question in that Q&A is a 20th-level capstone and spell immunity says that it doesn't protect when the spell in question disallows spell resistance, but if you live by Sage advice, there you go.

I disagree. The sage is talking about a completely different ability. The beguiler's class ability "automatically overcomes" spell resistance. The spell resistance is still there, he just automatically beats it. With vitriolic balst, it doesn't allow spell resistance. It doesn't enter the equation. As far as it's concerened, there's no spell resistance to beat, just like any other spell that doesn't allow for sr, which spell immunity is specifically vulnerable to.