Spell Resistance: settling a gentlemen's quarrel

[QuackParker]

We have been debating when SR should apply when a spell is silent on whether or not it does.

Here are the facts from the Paizo site:


Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not. A creature can have some abilities that are subject to spell resistance and some that are not. Even some spells ignore spell resistance


Each spell includes an entry that indicates whether spell resistance applies to the spell. In general, whether spell resistance applies depends on what the spell does.

Targeted Spells: Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature's spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.

Area Spells: Spell resistance applies if the resistant creature is within the spell's area. It protects the resistant creature without affecting the spell itself.

Effect Spells: Most effect spells summon or create something and are not subject to spell resistance. Sometimes, however, spell resistance applies to effect spells, usually to those that act upon a creature more or less directly, such as web.

Spell resistance can protect a creature from a spell that's already been cast. Check spell resistance when the creature is first affected by the spell.

Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell. Likewise, if the spell resistance succeeds the first time, it always succeeds. If the creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance and is then subjected to a spell, the creature still has a single chance to resist that spell later, when its spell resistance is back up.

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.

Spell resistance does not apply if an effect fools the creature's senses or reveals something about the creature.

Magic actually has to be working for spell resistance to apply. Spells that have instantaneous durations but lasting results aren't subject to spell resistance unless the resistant creature is exposed to the spell the instant it is cast.

But, spells like Acid Arrow, Shocking Grasp, Inflict Wounds, and a myriad of others you can find here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?75400-Spells-that-bypass-Spell-Resistance/page2
for some reason seem to be exempt. What's the rational and how can you tell when the spell entry is silent?

[Juntao112]

ACID ARROW
School conjuration (creation) [acid]; Level sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (rhubarb leaf and an adder's stomach), F (a dart)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect one arrow of acid
Duration 1 round + 1 round per three levels
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

What silence?

[QuackParker]

Not that spell specifically. The rationale why acid arrow isnt hindered by SR is the question. Or how the poster I linked to concluded Inflict Light Wounds isnt subject to SR even though it seems to directly target.

[Juntao112]

Magical acid is subject to spell resistance. Actual acid is not. Acid Arrow creates actual acid as opposed to magical acid.

[QuackParker]

And Inflict Light Wounds? Seems to target directly and magically

[Sir Chuckles]

And Inflict Light Wounds? Seems to target directly and magically

Inflict Light Wounds is subject to Spell Resistance.

Some spells are and some spells aren't. We'd end up hurting ourselves if we tried to figure out why for each and every single one, mostly because there's a metric butternut squash-load of spells. It would be interesting, however.

[QuackParker]

Inflict Light Wounds is subject to Spell Resistance.

Some spells are and some spells aren't. We'd end up hurting ourselves if we tried to figure out why for each and every single one, mostly because there's a metric butternut squash-load of spells. It would be interesting, however.

What do you do then to decide whether or not SR applies when the entry doesnt say if the reasons are so capricious?

[Sir Chuckles]

What do you do then to decide whether or not SR applies when the entry doesnt say if the reasons are so capricious?

Be the DM and adjudicate it as you, or your players, see fit.

[Drachasor]

No spells should be silent on the matter. What spell are you looking at? I didn't think any spells failed to have the SR entry.

Spell-likes are different, but the rules you quoted should be good to determine how almost all spell-likes work.

[Crake]

I think the only time a spell won't say if it is subject to SR or not is when it acts like another spell, in which case it will inherit SR yes/no from that spell.

In general though, spells that affect a target indirectly aren't subject to SR, for example grease, it creates grease on the floor. Have all the spell resistance you want, the floor is still slippery. Same goes for evards tentacles, all the SR in the world isnt gonna stop the tentacles from grabbing you.

The orb line of spells (and acid arrow), being conjuration spells that actually create those elements, arent subject to spell resistance, because they create the ball of energy and then fire it, then the spell is done. Other spells that deal energy damage like fireball arent actually creating real fire, they're converting magical essence into magical fire, which is thus protected by SR.

That's probably a poor explanation, but I can't be bothered looking up the exact fluff reasons behind it all.

[TuggyNE]

What do you do then to decide whether or not SR applies when the entry doesnt say if the reasons are so capricious?

I don't know of any such spells, except if they're Personal-only, in which case it takes serious shenanigans to make the question of SR relevant.

Edit: Inflict X wounds is SR: Yes in both 3.5 and PF.

[QuackParker]

Ok, I think I'm getting it. Some differences between acid arrow and fireball still seem convoluted.

[Drachasor]

Ok, I think I'm getting it. Some differences between acid arrow and fireball still seem convoluted.

It is a bit arbitrary, honestly. Not entirely arbitrary, but a bit.

[TuggyNE]

Ok, I think I'm getting it. Some differences between acid arrow and fireball still seem convoluted.

Fireball burns you with magic. Acid arrow makes acid that then does what acid does.

The orb line is pretty much the only set that's really weird, and since they don't exist in PF it's all good.

[Drachasor]

Fireball burns you with magic. Acid arrow makes acid that then does what acid does.

The orb line is pretty much the only set that's really weird, and since they don't exist in PF it's all good.

Yeah, but you could just as easily have a spell that just creates the conditions for a mundane explosion or the like. In that sense stuff is arbitrary. Though for some reason in PF SR:No is mostly limited to acid -- though there are some exceptions.

[Juntao112]

Yeah, but you could just as easily have a spell that just creates the conditions for a mundane explosion or the like. In that sense stuff is arbitrary. Though for some reason in PF SR:No is mostly limited to acid -- though there are some exceptions.

Its more believable with magical acid vs real acid than, say, magical force vs real force.

[Drachasor]

Its more believable with magical acid vs real acid than, say, magical force vs real force.

Except we're just talking about fire. Lightning is no different either.

[Juntao112]

Except we're just talking about fire. Lightning is no different either.

Well, real fire (ok, technically the part of fire we call the flame) is a hot gas, and lightning is composed of electrons.

Fire that comes from the Evocation school, on the other hand, is not composed of hot gas - perhaps it is just really hot magical energy. By the same token, lightning from an evocation spell is not composed of electrons.

[Drachasor]

Well, real fire is a kind of plasma (hot gas), and lightning is composed of electrons.

Fire that comes from the Evocation school, on the other hand, is not composed of plasma - perhaps it is just really hot magical energy. By the same token, lightning from an evocation spell is not composed of electrons.

I don't really get your point. How does a made-up explanation for why "magical fire" isn't a "real fire" not make it a somewhat arbitrary distinction? The whole reason the Orb spells and other similar spells exist is because it is rather arbitrary.

[Juntao112]

I don't really get your point. How does a made-up explanation for why "magical fire" isn't a "real fire" not make it a somewhat arbitrary distinction? The whole reason the Orb spells and other similar spells exist is because it is rather arbitrary.

I am trying to provide a plausiable in-game explanation for the arbitrary distinction.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Ok so I thought at first the op meant silent spell metamagic or non-verbal spells always got around SR.

Totally confuaing ...

Anyways...

Conjuration's magic is from pulling something from one place to another. The magic is in the teleportation of that object from its initial place to you. The object is not magical.

So if I cast a Conjuration spell called "Conjure Bouncy Ball" I could then throw it into a anti-magic field or at a creature and it would bypass SR. Because the ball that I pulled from the plane of rubber (or wherever it came from) is not a magical item, I just used magic to bring it to me.

Evocation however is the shaping of raw magic into an effect and throwing it (sometimes) at an enemy. In this instance if I cast "Evoke Bouncy Ball" I would take raw magic and smoosh it together to make a ball and then fling it at an enemy. Because the balln is made of pure magic anti-magic and SR can stop it.

[Spore]

Energy damage is very odd. Because when real fire is just heat energy, acid is chemical energy, electricity is energy through moving electrons and cold is - well the absence of energy, what is magical [energy type] then? Why is the nature of energy dependant on the way it was created?

This doesn't make sense on any level of understanding, it's simply illogical. If you're having the theory of magic of Faerun so you manipulate a magical layer or web and creating things is different to changing the magical fabric on the enemy it's still odd why or how the difference is made. Arcane magic is not as sentient as divine magic where you could always say: Well the god sees into the heart of the victims and thus good creatures are extempt by Holy smite. Arcane magic just ... does things.

SR in it's current form is an weird spell balancing mechanic and nothing more.

[Drachasor]

I am trying to provide a plausiable in-game explanation for the arbitrary distinction.

Sure, but that game already does that.

That doesn't mean the difference between Conjuration(Creation) and Evocation isn't extremely blurry.

And there are quite a few evocation spells with SR: no too.


Ok so I thought at first the op meant silent spell metamagic or non-verbal spells always got around SR.

Totally confuaing ...

Anyways...

Conjuration's magic is from pulling something from one place to another. The magic is in the teleportation of that object from its initial place to you. The object is not magical.

So if I cast a Conjuration spell called "Conjure Bouncy Ball" I could then throw it into a anti-magic field or at a creature and it would bypass SR. Because the ball that I pulled from the plane of rubber (or wherever it came from) is not a magical item, I just used magic to bring it to me.

Evocation however is the shaping of raw magic into an effect and throwing it (sometimes) at an enemy. In this instance if I cast "Evoke Bouncy Ball" I would take raw magic and smoosh it together to make a ball and then fling it at an enemy. Because the balln is made of pure magic anti-magic and SR can stop it.

"Conjure Bouncy Ball" working in an AMF depends on the spell. If it has a duration other than "instant" it will wink out. That's only because AMF specifically spells this out for instant conjuration.

Oddly enough, there are instant evocations that are attack spells. A few even leave behind whatever they created -- Call Avalanche. The only reason this doesn't work on someone in an AMF is because conjurations have an explicit exemption -- which does seem a bit arbitrary.

So it really is pretty arbitrary. That's all I am saying.

[TuggyNE]

Energy damage is very odd. Because when real fire is just heat energy, acid is chemical energy, electricity is energy through moving electrons and cold is - well the absence of energy, what is magical [energy type] then? Why is the nature of energy dependant on the way it was created?

There's a substantial difference between burning things with magic directly, and setting something on fire with magic and having that go and burn your enemy. That's why invisibility does not pop when you knock a heavy pillar over onto an enemy, but it does if you shoot at them.

This logic is in fact quite consistent in nearly all cases; if you pick someone up with telekinesis and fling them against something hard and pointy, SR applies, but if you pick up a bunch of swords and fling those against them, it doesn't.


SR in it's current form is an weird spell balancing mechanic and nothing more.

Not at all. It's a careful and deliberate choice made for reasons of consistent fluff/verisimilitude, and little more. While it does have an impact on balance, I'm not aware of any spell that could reasonably be considered to be SR: Yes for balance reasons (and, obviously, the reverse is even more true). Of the many mechanisms thrown around by WotC in 3.x, SR: Yes/No is one of the most sane.

Edit: AMFs are nowhere near as sensible or consistent, mostly because the criteria for which effects work is in no way tied to SR. Ah well.

[ace rooster]

So if I cast a Conjuration spell called "Conjure Bouncy Ball" I could then throw it into a anti-magic field or at a creature and it would bypass SR. Because the ball that I pulled from the plane of rubber (or wherever it came from) is not a magical item, I just used magic to bring it to me.
it.

not quite, because there would never be a spell "Conjure Bouncy Ball". There would be "Summon Bouncy Ball" or "Call Bouncy Ball". The Summon would wink out in an antimagic field, as the magic holding it is suppressed, the called one would not, as the magic that brings it and returns it is not active until the ball is to be returned.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

not quite, because there would never be a spell "Conjure Bouncy Ball". There would be "Summon Bouncy Ball" or "Call Bouncy Ball". The Summon would wink out in an antimagic field, as the magic holding it is suppressed, the called one would not, as the magic that brings it and returns it is not active until the ball is to be returned.

No not summon. That is just an example name I use. I should have added that it was an instantaneous effect.

Instantaneous effects are more like calling/teleporting something rather than summoning something. Summoning something doesn't bring a real creature or object to you, it brings a magical copy whereas the teleporting/calling brings the real deal to you.

[ace rooster]

No not summon. That is just an example name I use. I should have added that it was an instantaneous effect.

Instantaneous effects are more like calling/teleporting something rather than summoning something. Summoning something doesn't bring a real creature or object to you, it brings a magical copy whereas the teleporting/calling brings the real deal to you.

Ah "Create Bouncy Ball", creation subschool. Funnily that spell would have an xp cost!

[Telonius]

What do you do then to decide whether or not SR applies when the entry doesnt say if the reasons are so capricious?

In 3.5, the Cure spells all have (harmless) in their Saving Throw and Spell Resistance descriptions. For Saving Throws, this means (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow):

(harmless)

The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

And for Spell Resistance:

The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless.

So, if you're a typical character targeted by a Cure spell, you don't make a saving throw. If you have SR up, you need to lower it in order to be affected by it. But if you're something that would be harmed by the spell - an Undead, for example - you do get a saving throw, and the spell would be subject to Spell Resistance if you have any.

[Jack_Simth]

No not summon. That is just an example name I use. I should have added that it was an instantaneous effect.

Instantaneous effects are more like calling/teleporting something rather than summoning something. Summoning something doesn't bring a real creature or object to you, it brings a magical copy whereas the teleporting/calling brings the real deal to you.
Counterexample (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/instantSummons.htm).

[HaikenEdge]

I like to think things like Fireball, Cone of Cold and Lightning Bolt create their effects by manipulating weak points between planes and are actually drawing their powers from the elemental planes, so that, while it's certainly fire, cold or electricity, it's still from an elemental plane, which is itself is still somewhat magical. Things like orbs and acid arrows, on the other hand, aren't drawing substance from an elemental plane, but are instead creating the substance in the world.

[Urpriest]

Counterexample (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/instantSummons.htm).

Wow, that's a weird one. Reading the Summoning descriptor, they even specify what happens when an object is summoned. I have no idea why they didn't just make this a Calling effect, though.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Counterexample (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/instantSummons.htm).

It is called "summon" but it is more of a calling/teleportation effect.

Summon monsters on the other hand aren't the real object.

I suspect this is just a oversight by the WotC team because lets face it... They never really had a good track record with hiring a good editor.

[Deophaun]

I like to think things like Fireball, Cone of Cold and Lightning Bolt create their effects by manipulating weak points between planes and are actually drawing their powers from the elemental planes, so that, while it's certainly fire, cold or electricity, it's still from an elemental plane, which is itself is still somewhat magical.
Would an AMF cast on the Plane of Fire suppress the area of the plane it encompasses?

I actually see Conjuration as doing what you see Evocation as doing: pulling in a piece of an elemental plane and then shoving that down an enemy's throat. Evocation, meanwhile, is taking as much raw magical energy you can muster and channeling it at someone with the barest control.

[Urpriest]

It is called "summon" but it is more of a calling/teleportation effect.

Summon monsters on the other hand aren't the real object.

I suspect this is just a oversight by the WotC team because lets face it... They never really had a good track record with hiring a good editor.

Eh, depends on the sort of oversight. If you check out the Summoning subschool description, there's language talking about what happens when you summon an object, and specifying that it sticks around.

Essentially, this is an issue with them not understanding the fact that Calling and Teleportation are both right there, but they still had the foresight to build this sort of possibility into Summoning.

Yeah...that's WotC.

[jedipotter]

So it really is pretty arbitrary. That's all I am saying.

Saddly, this is true. But it just shows either how many people don't get the concept or simply choose to ignore it to powergame or worse.

When making a new spell way too many people go for the sneaky conjuration trick. The spell 'Ball of Fire' explodes for 1d6 per level fire damage, but it is 'normal fire' not 'magic fire'.

The end result is tons of spells that cross the lines between 'normal' and 'magical' in tons of books.

[HaikenEdge]

Would an AMF cast on the Plane of Fire suppress the area of the plane it encompasses?

I actually see Conjuration as doing what you see Evocation as doing: pulling in a piece of an elemental plane and then shoving that down an enemy's throat. Evocation, meanwhile, is taking as much raw magical energy you can muster and channeling it at someone with the barest control.

I can see that, I suppose; I simply meant it in the sense that, SR applies because it's resisting the interplanar tear through which the elemental energy is bleeding through for evocation spells.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Conjured acid vs real acid:
No difference. They work exactly the same. In the case of instantaneous conjurations, AMF doesn't apply due to this. In the case of things like Acid Arrow or Acid Fog AMF applies because the spell keeps creating small amounts of acid over time instead - thus can be suppressed.

Real fire vs evocation fire:
Conjured fire only comes in the orb spells, where it's a small pocket of superhot conjured material the spell launches at someone. Evocation fire OTOH is using magical elements to make non-natural fire - fire spells should cause blastwaves but they don't. Fire spells should not work underwater but they do. And so on and so forth. They are elemental fire, not real fire, and that makes a significant difference.

Real lightning vs evocation lightning:
Even bigger differences than fire. Ever been electrocuted when you cast lightning bolt during the rain or when under water? Ever had lightning bolts veer towards you for carrying a lot of metal? Ever had lightning bolt not travel in a straight line but follow the path of least resistance? Ever had lightning bolt end upon hitting the first target touching ground for being grounded? If the answer to the above was "no" then you were using elemental energy that resembled real electricity but wasn't - and thus was subject to antimagic and similar defenses.

[HaikenEdge]

Real lightning vs evocation lightning:
Even bigger differences than fire. Ever been electrocuted when you cast lightning bolt during the rain or when under water? Ever had lightning bolts veer towards you for carrying a lot of metal? Ever had lightning bolt not travel in a straight line but follow the path of least resistance? Ever had lightning bolt end upon hitting the first target touching ground for being grounded? If the answer to the above was "no" then you were using elemental energy that resembled real electricity but wasn't - and thus was subject to antimagic and similar defenses.

I appreciate your explanation, but can you further separate out the difference between real lighting, evocation lightning, and conjured lightning, like an Orb of Electricity, seeing how Orb of Electricity seems to follow the same rules as evocation lightning.

[ericgrau]

Counterexample (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/instantSummons.htm).
It only affects objects and objects don't have SR. I suppose if the object is being attended by a creature with SR, SR also doesn't apply in that case and that's when the line becomes relevant. Though the creature then has to drop the object after the spell is cast for you to actually summon it.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

I appreciate your explanation, but can you further separate out the difference between real lighting, evocation lightning, and conjured lightning, like an Orb of Electricity, seeing how Orb of Electricity seems to follow the same rules as evocation lightning.
Orb of Electricity is a bunch of charged material thrown at the target by the spell. Think plasma cannon rather than an electric current. The other orbs are similarly some other real phenomenon created by the spell. I.e. orb of force might be gravity, tearing stuff up with tidal stress.

[Jack_Simth]

It only affects objects and objects don't have SR. I suppose if the object is being attended by a creature with SR, SR also doesn't apply in that case and that's when the line becomes relevant. Though the creature then has to drop the object after the spell is cast for you to actually summon it.
I was primarily referring to the "Summoning something doesn't bring a real creature or object to you, it brings a magical copy" bit by SpawnOfMorbo. The counterexample is a Summoning spell that explicitly brings a real object to you.

[ericgrau]

Ah that's more an issue of the summoning rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning) having different rules for objects and creatures. And the calling rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#calling) don't even refer to objects. Seems they only fall under summoning... and then act like something called. Would have made more sense to put objects under calling I think.

As for something like non-magical fire or electricity, if it's non-magical fire or lightning then it would only do 1d6-2d6 fire, or 3d6 electricity, or 1d6-2d6 acid. Or lava does a flat 20d6 but only with total immersion. That's the difference: flat amounts based on what the physical object can do. And why the core conjuration damage spells tend to do very low damage. The magical stuff is magic powered and is however strong the caster can make it. Now the orb spells... they make no sense at all. At least make it "orb of lava" or "orb of plasma" if you want to deal high fire damage with non-magical material. "Orb of fire (but not lesser)" isn't even trying to make sense. It's saying, look, here's the energy type now here's the spell for it. Man, that was the easiest spell to write ever. Umm, let's make it interesting. What's a mechanic I can throw on to my energy type. Ah, daze. Man I'm so clever. Why does fire daze? Um, who cares, I don't need to explain it. In fact, I bet if I pair more energy types with more random status effects I could make 6 more spells in a heartbeat. Ooh, and lesser versions too. Wow, a dozen spells and it's not even 11 yet, well, I've done my work for the week.

[Forrestfire]

On the note of Orb of Force, there is at least one naturally-occurring source of force fields: riverine. Although thinking too hard about how the heck it works is only going to end in tears, because it's not well-thought out at all.

[QuackParker]

Consensus seems to be SR applies to effects that target that are composed of magic while such effects merely pulling forces from elsewhere do not,
UNLESS its all arbitrary and unknowable...

[Jack_Simth]

On the note of Orb of Force, there is at least one naturally-occurring source of force fields: riverine. Although thinking too hard about how the heck it works is only going to end in tears, because it's not well-thought out at all.
No... Riverene is made. And subject to Disjunction (which causes it to explode).

[Forrestfire]

No... Riverene is made. And subject to Disjunction (which causes it to explode).

Ah, so it is. The passage describing it is a bit vague, and I misremembered it.

[Chronos]

Wait a minute... Summoned objects stick around unless the spell specifies otherwise? Summon Instrument (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonInstrument.htm) doesn't specify otherwise... What's the duration for, then?

[Jack_Simth]

Wait a minute... Summoned objects stick around unless the spell specifies otherwise? Summon Instrument (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonInstrument.htm) doesn't specify otherwise... What's the duration for, then?
Confusing people, obviously. Well, I'm off to post in the dysfunctional rules thread.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Confusing people, obviously. Well, I'm off to post in the dysfunctional rules thread.

Obviously it is for how long the instrument can be used as an instrument. After the duration it just turns into a non-functional instrument. This of course will confuse people since that lute will look and seem completely legit... Yet no sounds will come from it when strummed.

>.>

[Segev]

The explanations used when the rules were written have been accurate. I will say that pretty much all of the Conjuration spells that raise this question in your mind are probably things that should have been Evocations and had SR apply. As it stands, it's just Conjuration saying "not only can I do anything Evocation can, but I can do it better." Which is not good design.

[TmasterT]

look the "real" answer is that in 2ed the conjuration school sucked so bad it was the default school you gave up when you made a specialist. so when they wrote 3ed edition they gave it a bonus so that its not the garbage school. that bonus is it ignores SR.
The bigger problem came about after 3.0 core when people still gave it up cause summoning monsters is tedious and doubled players turn time, thus in 3.5 they decided to add the orb spells and change alot of older spells from the abjuration and evocation school into conjuration so that its a totally self sufficient school (ie stinking cloud, mage armor etc..etc.) unfortunatly by keeping the totally arbitrary "all conjurations are SR:no" it created the uber school it is now which forced evocation into the dropped school. (granted evoc was already heading there by the general fact that just about everything 9HD+ has 2x or more hp then they used to in 2ed, and yet evoc spells didnt get a damage increase to compensate)
Every other fluff argument is just a made up cover for this change and can be argued adnausium either way.

[Drachasor]

look the "real" answer is that in 2ed the conjuration school sucked so bad it was the default school you gave up when you made a specialist. so when they wrote 3ed edition they gave it a bonus so that its not the garbage school. that bonus is it ignores SR.
The bigger problem came about after 3.0 core when people still gave it up cause summoning monsters is tedious and doubled players turn time, thus in 3.5 they decided to add the orb spells and change alot of older spells from the abjuration and evocation school into conjuration so that its a totally self sufficient school (ie stinking cloud, mage armor etc..etc.) unfortunatly by keeping the totally arbitrary "all conjurations are SR:no" it created the uber school it is now which forced evocation into the dropped school. (granted evoc was already heading there by the general fact that just about everything 9HD+ has 2x or more hp then they used to in 2ed, and yet evoc spells didnt get a damage increase to compensate)
Every other fluff argument is just a made up cover for this change and can be argued adnausium either way.

Except the ones that are SR:Yes because it's not just arbitrary, it is inconsistent. (Same with evocations, some are SR:no but this is rare).

[TuggyNE]

look the "real" answer is that in 2ed the conjuration school sucked so bad it was the default school you gave up when you made a specialist. so when they wrote 3ed edition they gave it a bonus so that its not the garbage school. that bonus is it ignores SR.
The bigger problem came about after 3.0 core when people still gave it up cause summoning monsters is tedious and doubled players turn time, thus in 3.5 they decided to add the orb spells and change alot of older spells from the abjuration and evocation school into conjuration so that its a totally self sufficient school (ie stinking cloud, mage armor etc..etc.) unfortunatly by keeping the totally arbitrary "all conjurations are SR:no" it created the uber school it is now which forced evocation into the dropped school. (granted evoc was already heading there by the general fact that just about everything 9HD+ has 2x or more hp then they used to in 2ed, and yet evoc spells didnt get a damage increase to compensate)
Every other fluff argument is just a made up cover for this change and can be argued adnausium either way.

I would be more inclined to believe this reading of events if a) I didn't think SR was actually pretty consistent, per my post above and b) maze, planar binding, storm of vengeance, trap the soul, and plane shift didn't exist in Core, to name some offensively-useful SR:Yes Conjurations.

[TmasterT]

spells in this game in general are totally inconsistant, hell even more so on a splat book by splat book basis. saves are inconsistant by type of attack, SR is inconsistant by school of magic, almost every spell introduced in later editions has the down fall of newest splat book needs to sell so it needs better more powerful spells in it. none of that really changes the most basic reason why conjuration is now (arguably) "the most complete" school because it was the worst school in older editions.

[Drachasor]

I would be more inclined to believe this reading of events if a) I didn't think SR was actually pretty consistent, per my post above and b) maze, planar binding, storm of vengeance, trap the soul, and plane shift didn't exist in Core, to name some offensively-useful SR:Yes Conjurations.

How consistent are we talking about here?

Because a quick search on dndtools shows 76 Conjuration(Creation) spells with SR:Yes, and 249 with SR:NO. So, I can't say I am very impressed by the consistency when about a fourth of them don't fit.

Evocation has a number of SR:NO spells as well (~100, and ~500 that are SR:YES). Though this is perhaps a bit less useful as an indicator, since the type of spell can't be as neatly group the same way Conjuration(Creation) spells can.

[TuggyNE]

spells in this game in general are totally inconsistant, hell even more so on a splat book by splat book basis. saves are inconsistant by type of attack, SR is inconsistant by school of magic, almost every spell introduced in later editions has the down fall of newest splat book needs to sell so it needs better more powerful spells in it. none of that really changes the most basic reason why conjuration is now (arguably) "the most complete" school because it was the worst school in older editions.

You keep making assertions when I am looking for examples to back them up. This does not help anything.


How consistent are we talking about here?

Because a quick search on dndtools shows 76 Conjuration(Creation) spells with SR:Yes, and 249 with SR:NO. So, I can't say I am very impressed by the consistency when about a fourth of them don't fit.

Well, what are some of the SR:Yes ones?

[Drachasor]

Well, what are some of the SR:Yes ones?

Acid Breath, Black Blade of Disaster, Corrosive Grasp, Frostbite, Ice Dagger.

Hmm, the ratio goes down to more like 30:200 when I limit it to 3.5. However, it looks like SR:No spells have a lot more repeats and also include stuff like Beget Bogun -- 'false negatives' like that are a lot less common with SR:Yes just because of the nature of SR.

[Juntao112]

Acid Breath, Black Blade of Disaster, Corrosive Grasp, Frostbite, Ice Dagger.

Don't forget Maze.

[Drachasor]

Don't forget Maze.

I was just naming Conjuration(Creation) spells. Trying to highlight how arbitrary the distinction between Creation of energy/matter/force and the Evocation of energy/matter/force. To the extent that even the spells have quite a bit of overlap. This is mainly funky where with instant or temporary effects, such as direct damage.

Conjuration also gets a bit blurry with the Summoning and Teleportation of objects. Like I said earlier, probably any object summoning should be teleportation or creation.

[TuggyNE]

Acid Breath, Black Blade of Disaster, Corrosive Grasp, Frostbite, Ice Dagger.

Hmm. Those do indeed seem to be fishy, at least mostly. I guess SR consistency was best in Core. :smalltongue:

[Drachasor]

Hmm. Those do indeed seem to be fishy, at least mostly. I guess SR consistency was best in Core. :smalltongue:

I'd only note that as far as fluff is concerned, there's really no reason Evocation should get screwed out of SR:No stuff.

"Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage."

There's no reason why you can't manipulate energy to cause an otherwise mundane explosion for instance. Or gather heat from all around you and toss it* at someone -- but after you toss it you just let nature take it's course. Or even manipulate kinetic energy to toss a boulder at someone.

Evocation kind of got completely screwed for no good reason.

Similarly, Conjuration: Creation spells can have a limited duration. So there's no particular reason why the attack spells should always be SR:NO.

*align the kinetic energy in one direction let's say. But it would be heat damage due to the friction from all the particles.

[TuggyNE]

I'd only note that as far as fluff is concerned, there's really no reason Evocation should get screwed out of SR:No stuff.

"Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage."

There's no reason why you can't manipulate energy to cause an otherwise mundane explosion for instance. Or gather heat from all around you and toss it* at someone -- but after you toss it you just let nature take it's course. Or even manipulate kinetic energy to toss a boulder at someone.

Evocation kind of got completely screwed for no good reason.

Similarly, Conjuration: Creation spells can have a limited duration. So there's no particular reason why the attack spells should always be SR:NO.

*align the kinetic energy in one direction let's say. But it would be heat damage due to the friction from all the particles.

My philosophy on how spells should be designed around SR is, I think, rather lengthily elucidated in my orb fix, so I shall say no more on that here. I do not wholly disagree, though.

[Sith_Happens]

Well, real fire (ok, technically the part of fire we call the flame) is a hot gas, and lightning is composed of electrons.

Fire that comes from the Evocation school, on the other hand, is not composed of hot gas - perhaps it is just really hot magical energy. By the same token, lightning from an evocation spell is not composed of electrons.

This is somewhat backed up by the fact that a standard Fireball spell specifically does not include a pressure wave. So there's obviously some sort of difference between a Fireball and an "actual" explosion.

EDIT: Somehow didn't notice there were two more pages, so no idea at this time whether someone else has already said the above.

[Drachasor]

My philosophy on how spells should be designed around SR is, I think, rather lengthily elucidated in my orb fix, so I shall say no more on that here. I do not wholly disagree, though.

Well, then I'll argue with you until you do wholly disagree, because that's how I roll! :smallfurious:

[TuggyNE]

Well, then I'll argue with you until you do wholly disagree, because that's how I roll! :smallfurious:

This … this explains so much! About every argument I've ever been in! *headasplode*

[jedipotter]

Trying to highlight how arbitrary the distinction between Creation of energy/matter/force and the Evocation of energy/matter/force. To the extent that even the spells have quite a bit of overlap. This is mainly funky where with instant or temporary effects, such as direct damage.



The problem is that there are two main views on Conjuration and Evocation. And the split between gamers is 50/50. So depending on the view, you get a spell with effects based on that view.

View 2 Conjuration spells create matter or transport matter from elsewhere. Air, Acid, Earth, Ice, and Water are all forms of matter, so any spell that creates and/or transports them from nothing/elsewhere is a conjuration. As all created/transported matter is normal non-magical matter, all conjuration spells are SR:No.

Evocation spells create energy. Fire, Sound, Electricity, and Force are all forms of energy, so any spells that create them are evocations. As all created energy is magical, all evocation spells are SR:Yes.


View 1 Conjuration spells create matter and/or energy. Created matter and/or energy is slow to form, non aggressive and tame. Created matter and/or energy is not able to cause harm or damage directly. Created matter and/or energy is around forever once created. Conjuration spells are SR:No.

Evocation spells create matter and/or energy. Created matter and/or energy is fast, aggressive and energetic. Created matter and/or energy is able to cause harm or damage directly. Created matter and/or energy is around for only a short time. Evocation spells are SR:Yes.


And just looking through the spell lists, even just in Core, and you will see both views. Ice Storm follows view 1, but Sleet Storm is of view 2. Wall of Ice is view one, Wall of Stone view 2.

And when you add all the other books, it only gets worse. Ice Dagger is view 1, but Ice Knife is view 2 and the spells do close to the same thing.

And that does not even count crazy View 3 of ''I don't like SR so I will just make my spells Conjuration and ignore it!"

[eggynack]

And that does not even count crazy View 3 of ''I don't like SR so I will just make my spells Conjuration and ignore it!"
I kinda like crazy view three. It requires a significantly lesser degree of brain-space than trying to divine the intent of game designers by sheer force of will. Also, I get to ignore SR, which is always a plus, at least for the caster. My brain usually just tends to skip over what the thing I'm doing is supposed to actually be or look like, and right into the base mechanics of the game. Bad for some things, and good for ignoring conjuration based scruples.

[Sith_Happens]

And that does not even count crazy View 3 of ''I don't like SR so I will just make my spells Conjuration and ignore it!"

See also: Whoever wrote Assay Spell Resistance. And, to a slightly lesser extent, the Arcane Mastery feat.