Conjuration spells that deal damage should apply SR

[Devronq]

So my friend just pointed out this from the DM guide:

Conjuration: These spells are usually not subject to spell resistance
unless the spell conjures some form of energy, such as Melf ’s acid
arrow or power word stun.

Is this not insinuating that all conjuration spells that deal damage should apply SR? (like the orbs)

Also melfs acid arrow does not apply SR and power word stun is not even a conjuration spell...

[Carth]

Note the use of the word usually, meaning any unnamed conjuration spells that don't allow SR aren't a violation of that rule because the rule isn't absolute. Even if the rule were absolute with all spells, and not just the two named ones, specific trumps general, so the spell entry is always going to take precedence.

[eggynack]

Where's it say that, anyways? I haven't found it yet.

Edit: Think I found the section. It's under SR, yeah?

Double edit: Yeah, that's pretty dumb. Just, y'know, do what the spell says. That line lacks source precedence over all of the sources that conflict with it. That section implying that acid arrow is SR:yes doesn't make it so, just like that section doesn't change power word stun into a conjuration.

[TuggyNE]

So my friend just pointed out this from the DM guide:

Conjuration: These spells are usually not subject to spell resistance
unless the spell conjures some form of energy, such as Melf ’s acid
arrow or power word stun.

Is this not insinuating that all conjuration spells that deal damage should apply SR? (like the orbs)

Also melfs acid arrow does not apply SR and power word stun is not even a conjuration spell...

That section is a rule of thumb that's no longer valid. Ignore its bogosity to the fullest extent possible.

[eggynack]

That section is a rule of thumb that's no longer valid. Ignore its bogosity to the fullest extent possible.
Was it valid at the time? It looks a lot like it was just wrong from the moment it was written.

[TuggyNE]

Was it valid at the time? It looks a lot like it was just wrong from the moment it was written.

I was charitably assuming that at some point in drafting it was correct.

[eggynack]

I was charitably assuming that at some point in drafting it was correct.
There is a theoretical possibility. However, my understanding is that the PHB and DMG were written and published approximately contemporaneously, and that section is saying wrong things about the PHB, so if it wasn't wrong from the moment it was written, it was wrong from the moment it was published. I mean, acid arrow is clearly SR: no, and power word stun doesn't even seem to use energy, let alone energy that's being conjured.

[Jack_Simth]

So my friend just pointed out this from the DM guide:

Conjuration: These spells are usually not subject to spell resistance
unless the spell conjures some form of energy, such as Melf ’s acid
arrow or power word stun.

Is this not insinuating that all conjuration spells that deal damage should apply SR? (like the orbs)

Also melfs acid arrow does not apply SR and power word stun is not even a conjuration spell...
From a game-balance perspective, most of them probably should permit SR... at least anything of the d6/level category. But yes, the text is very much wrong.

[Lord Vukodlak]

From a game-balance perspective, most of them probably should permit SR... at least anything of the d6/level category. But yes, the text is very much wrong.

Or considering the weakness of blasting perhaps no energy damaging spell should be subject to SR. From a game balance perspective.

[Devronq]

You know lets take it a step further does anyone know of any conjuration.blasty type spell that does apply SR? It seems as a general rule the opposite is true evocation has blast spells with SR and conjuration has ones without SR?

[TuggyNE]

You know lets take it a step further does anyone know of any conjuration.blasty type spell that does apply SR? It seems as a general rule the opposite is true evocation has blast spells with SR and conjuration has ones without SR?

In Core, (mass) cure X wounds and heal if you're undead, and storm of vengeance. Might be one or two others.

Out of Core I'd guess there are at least a few dozen more.

[jedipotter]

Is this not insinuating that all conjuration spells that deal damage should apply SR? (like the orbs)


This is one of my oldest House Rules: Any attack spell that creates anything harmful used directly as a weapon to harm foes is an Evocation and SR:Yes. Conjuration(creation) spell are 100% direct non combat.

This simple rule fixes the spell lists.

Having conjuration attack spells with SR:NO is just way too much of an out right cheat. If you allow them in a world, then why would not have everyone make every spell a conjuration attack spell. So fireball would 'conjure' real fire, ice storm would 'conjure' real ice, and even magic missle would 'conjure' real 'force'(does anything in the rules even say 'force' is magical? And even if the rules say 'magical force', that would also mean you could 'conjure' 'non-magical force ' too).

[Jack_Simth]

Or considering the weakness of blasting perhaps no energy damaging spell should be subject to SR. From a game balance perspective.
It depends on where you want to put the game balance.

[TuggyNE]

OK, I'm tired of people (rightly) criticizing the orb line and then (wrongly) applying the same criticism to all SR:No Conjurations. So here's a fixed set of orbs (WIP). In particular, it should now be abundantly clear why and how they work, why SR cannot and should not apply to them, and why not all energy types make sense with SR:No orbs. (Electricity and sound are just gone, at least for now, and force is now an SR:Yes Evocation, like all proper [force] spells. :smalltongue:)

[ArcturusV]

I'll look over it in a bit TuggyNE... but.... if I understand the reasoning why something like Orb of Fire is SR: Hahahaha!, is that it is creating non-magical fire in a ball which you then chuck, and thus is AMF immune, etc.

So why would it have Evocation style "Magical Fire" damage variables instead of Mundane Fire "Take 1d6 per round of exposure" damage?

It's just a logical loophole that occurs to me, which popped up due to the tendency towards Power Creep I imagine. But it IS a somewhat valid point. There are damage amounts listed for things like mundane flames, or vials of acid, which these Orbs that supposedly conjure the same things conveniently do far more damage than.

[TuggyNE]

I'll look over it in a bit TuggyNE... but.... if I understand the reasoning why something like Orb of Fire is SR: Hahahaha!, is that it is creating non-magical fire in a ball which you then chuck, and thus is AMF immune, etc.

So why would it have Evocation style "Magical Fire" damage variables instead of Mundane Fire "Take 1d6 per round of exposure" damage?

It's just a logical loophole that occurs to me, which popped up due to the tendency towards Power Creep I imagine. But it IS a somewhat valid point. There are damage amounts listed for things like mundane flames, or vials of acid, which these Orbs that supposedly conjure the same things conveniently do far more damage than.

Yeah. The replacement orbs don't have the evocation-style "magical conveniently-scaling damage", because, as you say, they're supposed to be purely mundane in essence.

[jedipotter]

So why would it have Evocation style "Magical Fire" damage variables instead of Mundane Fire "Take 1d6 per round of exposure" damage?


My point again. If you allow conjuration to ignore SR, then why would you not make every spell that might be effected by SR a conjuration. Why can't you make a lightning bolt spell that ''conjures a real bolt of lightning''? Why not have burning hands conjure real fire? Why not rewrite every evocation in to a conjuration?

See the problem?

This is why it is better to have no attack conjuration spells with No SR.

[eggynack]

My point again. If you allow conjuration to ignore SR, then why would you not make every spell that might be effected by SR a conjuration. Why can't you make a lightning bolt spell that ''conjures a real bolt of lightning''? Why not have burning hands conjure real fire? Why not rewrite every evocation in to a conjuration?

See the problem?

This is why it is better to have no attack conjuration spells with No SR.
You can kinda use that logic on anything in the game. Most spells in the game can be contorted to fit most schools, so little details like that have to mean something. Some spells produce magical fire energy, and some spells just produce regular fire. It's a bit odd how they formatted the orbs, but that's a different thing.

[ryu]

My point again. If you allow conjuration to ignore SR, then why would you not make every spell that might be effected by SR a conjuration. Why can't you make a lightning bolt spell that ''conjures a real bolt of lightning''? Why not have burning hands conjure real fire? Why not rewrite every evocation in to a conjuration?

See the problem?

This is why it is better to have no attack conjuration spells with No SR.

Come to think of why not just do all that normally? Blasting is weak. As a matter of fact just end evocation as a school entirely. Doing that would remove one of the three easy ban schools.

[ArcturusV]

Well, I'm with you to an extent. I don't like Conjuration mostly because it seems to have gotten defined as "Create Anything". Just like Transmutation is "Be Anything".

Which has lead to some silly things in my mind, like Healing no longer being part of Necromancy, but being a Conjuration. Necromancy: The school of life and death... but cannot heal someone, nope need to Conjure for that.

And that's kinda the problem with schools though. How some of them got defined. I don't like how Necromancy was made almost universally evil as all it does is raise dead, channel negative energy, and debuff people (With the rare exception of False Life and Clone, but you're talking a 1% of the school at this rate). Or how Enchantment got defined as "Mindjack people" and doesn't really have much else going for it.

To be honest it probably wouldn't really hurt Conjuration if all it's "Attack" spells were moved to Evocation. But I don't think Evocation would really gain much from it either, other than a few SR: Nopes. But even then people would probably still ban Evoaction without a thought and specialize Conjuration.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It's copied and pasted from 3.0, when the Power Word spells were conjurations and Acid Arrow had SR: Yes (see here (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html)).

It's nothing but sloppy editing, and it should be ignored. They just forgot to reword that section after rethinking the Conjuration school, what you're reading is 3.0 content that they forgot to update to 3.5. Specific trumps general anyway, so take each individual spell for what it says over what a general description of the school says should usually be the case.

[ryu]

The attack spells were never the good part of conjuration anyway. The binding/calling lines are glorious. As is anything to do with teleporting or plane shifting.

[eggynack]

It's copied and pasted from 3.0, when the Power Word spells were conjurations and Acid Arrow had SR: Yes (see here (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html)).

It's nothing but sloppy editing, and it should be ignored. They just forgot to reword that section after rethinking the Conjuration school, what you're reading is 3.0 content that they forgot to update to 3.5. Specific trumps general anyway, so take each individual spell for what it says over what a general description of the school says should usually be the case.
Well, that explains that then. It's a pretty odd thing, all things considered. Perhaps not in the category of maximum oddity (I shudder to even think of it), but perhaps in the category of moderate oddity.