Are "SR: No" spells really magic?

[Melcar]

If magic immunity is simply an unbeatably spellresistance and spells like wall of iron or acid orb have "SR: No", would that not imply that the energy/effect created by the spell is no longer magic but mundane? Meaning that standing behind a Prismatic Sphere or AMF or Globe of Invulnerability would offer no protection against such spells?

[jiriku]

If magic immunity is simply an unbeatably spellresistance and spells like wall of iron or acid orb have "SR: No", would that not imply that the energy/effect created by the spell is no longer magic but mundane?

Correct.


Meaning that standing behind a Prismatic Sphere or AMF or Globe of Invulnerability would offer no protection against such spells?

It depends. Prismatic sphere would probably destroy or deflect any sort of nonmagical projectile sent through it unless the appropriate layers have already been dispelled. Casting SR: No spells like orb of fire into an AMF is a classic method for bypassing its protection, but while the spell can be cast into it from outside, it can't be cast within the sphere. Globe of invulnerability would probably need to be decided on a case-by-case basis because the wording of the spell is very specific.

[Werephilosopher]

If magic immunity is simply an unbeatably spellresistance and spells like wall of iron or acid orb have "SR: No", would that not imply that the energy/effect created by the spell is no longer magic but mundane?

In some cases, I'd say yes. Magic creates/summons/whatevers the acid orb or wall of iron, but they are not inherently magical. It depends though.


Meaning that standing behind a Prismatic Sphere

Protects you from all attacks.


or AMF

Doesn't protect against instantaneous conjurations, such as orb of acid.


or Globe of Invulnerability

...hm. The rules are clear in that spell effects of certain levels don't work, but nothing about those that don't offer SR.

[Knaight]

The prismastic sphere protects against nonmagical stuff if I remember correctly, but SR: No spells generally clearly make something then have it do stuff. An AMF or similar doesn't protect against that sort of thing - if you magically levitate a rock about someone then cut the magic, there's really no way that taking magic away from the situation helps the target.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Globe of Invulnerability's language is specific enough to block all spell effects, which would include mundane spell effects. If you cast wall of stone in front of someone with GoI, there would be a hole in the wall shaped like the spherical cross section of the globe. Also, it goes into detail about how you can specifically dispel it, implying that you couldn't normally.

[137beth]

GoI protects against spell effects (a wording inherited from lesser GoI). That includes spells, and nonmagical things created by spells (like the orb spells).

AMF protects against magical things only.

Prismatic Sphere protects against everything, magical or otherwise.

[DevilsAttorney]

The way I see it, when a spell has no SR, it's generally because something is conjured first (reason why Orb spells have no SR; they are conjuration spells), then THAT CONJURED OBJECT, which is a physical thing, deals the damage or does the action explained in the spell. A fireball is a ball of magical fire. An orb of fire is a physical flaming orb that hits you in the face and burns your skin.

[Psyren]

SR is a specific kind of defense. It doesn't and wasn't meant to protect against everything, and there are plenty of SR: No spells that are not conjurations. SR won't protect you from being picked up by the energy of a Detect X or Alarm spell, nor will it protect your buffs or items from a targeted Dispel Magic, nor will it protect you from the magical energies infused into a Flame Arrow or Holy Sword.

[Melcar]

GoI protects against spell effects (a wording inherited from lesser GoI). That includes spells, and nonmagical things created by spells (like the orb spells).

AMF protects against magical things only.

Prismatic Sphere protects against everything, magical or otherwise.

Does this include summoned creatures? And what about animated undead?



SR is a specific kind of defense. It doesn't and wasn't meant to protect against everything, and there are plenty of SR: No spells that are not conjurations. SR won't protect you from being picked up by the energy of a Detect X or Alarm spell, nor will it protect your buffs or items from a targeted Dispel Magic, nor will it protect you from the magical energies infused into a Flame Arrow or Holy Sword.

But doesnt it mean that if the spell allows no spell resistance (SR: No), then the signature of the spell is not magical. regardless of school, as long as they are instanteneous?

[bekeleven]

Casting SR: No spells like orb of fire into an AMF is a classic method for bypassing its protection, but while the spell can be cast into it from outside, it can't be cast within the sphere.

Note that this is up for debate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?353503-AMF-Why-a-sane-caster-uses-that/page2), but rather than go through 3 more pages arguing again, I'll summarize:


AMF does not prevent or block spellcasting.
AMF does not stop the effects of instantaneous conjurations.
The argument against casting inside an AMF is that there's a step between casting a spell and the spell effect. It's been described as the "Spell" (as in spellcasting, spell, spell effect) by Esgath.
As a sample fluff reason why casting works, consider that AMF is a field that proactively destroys magic within it, and casting an instantaneous conjuration finishes the spell too quickly for the field to react. There are, obviously, other fluff explanations.


And that's all I've got to say about that.

[Psyren]

But doesnt it mean that if the spell allows no spell resistance (SR: No), then the signature of the spell is not magical. regardless of school, as long as they are instanteneous?

What in the Nine Hells is a "signature?"


Note that this is up for debate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?353503-AMF-Why-a-sane-caster-uses-that/page2), but rather than go through 3 more pages arguing again, I'll summarize:


AMF does not prevent or block spellcasting.
AMF does not stop the effects of instantaneous conjurations.
The argument against casting inside an AMF is that there's a step between casting a spell and the spell effect. It's been described as the "Spell" (as in spellcasting, spell, spell effect) by Esgath.
As a sample fluff reason why casting works, consider that AMF is a field that proactively destroys magic within it, and casting an instantaneous conjuration finishes the spell too quickly for the field to react. There are, obviously, other fluff explanations.


And that's all I've got to say about that.

I agree, this is far from clear. Personally I agree with the interpretation that the "step between the casting and the effect" needs to happen outside the field, but I can see the other interpretation too. I wish we had some clarity on the matter.

[Melcar]

What in the Nine Hells is a "signature?"

I suggest that spells that create an effect that does not allow for SR, is not a magical effect, but that only the creation or summoning of this effect is. And that means that AMF would not stop any SR: No spell, since it does no read as a magical effect, but a mondane element/thing. Where I am torn is between instantaneous and durative spells. For sure I would rule as above when instant SR: No effects are spoken for, but a SR: No durative effect is less obvious for me.

Do I make sense?

[Psyren]

And that means that AMF would not stop any SR: No spell, since it does no read as a magical effect, but a mondane element/thing.

No, this is not the case. Only instantaneous conjurations with the (calling) or (creation) descriptor are capable of getting around AMF this way.

Other SR:No spells cannot get around AMF this way. If you cast an earthquake inside an AMF, nothing will happen. If you try to detect evil and an evil creature is standing inside an AMF within range, you will get no reading. If you fire a flame arrow into an AMF, the flame will be suppressed.

Some spells get around SR, not because they are not magic, but simply because SR is not designed to protect against the way they apply their magic.

[Killer Angel]

The way I see it, when a spell has no SR, it's generally because something is conjured first (reason why Orb spells have no SR; they are conjuration spells), then THAT CONJURED OBJECT, which is a physical thing, deals the damage or does the action explained in the spell. A fireball is a ball of magical fire. An orb of fire is a physical flaming orb that hits you in the face and burns your skin.

And the orb of force is...?

[VoxRationis]

The effects of some SR: No spells are not magical, but in many cases, that descriptor merely indicates that the effect of the spell doesn't directly target the person who is likely to be harmed by it, and so any spell resistance they might have doesn't matter. Take Grease. It does not allow spell resistance, because the magic is directed not at its victims, but at the ground around them; the slipping and sliding is incidental to the actual action of the magic.

[Bronk]

Another indicator that they are still considered 'magical' is that no matter the spell, any damage from it still bypasses DR, at least as long as the duration lasts.

For example, the 'deadfall' spell creates a bunch of logs that fall and damage anyone in the area of effect. That damage, while caused by very real logs, bypasses DR. However, the logs remain, and if you were to make a club out of them later, the club would be affected by DR because they are no longer part of the spell.

[Melcar]

Another indicator that they are still considered 'magical' is that no matter the spell, any damage from it still bypasses DR, at least as long as the duration lasts.

For example, the 'deadfall' spell creates a bunch of logs that fall and damage anyone in the area of effect. That damage, while caused by very real logs, bypasses DR. However, the logs remain, and if you were to make a club out of them later, the club would be affected by DR because they are no longer part of the spell.

Just as a falling wall of Iron is subject to DR so too is Deadfall. I must wholle disagree with you on this one... sorry. The damage is entirely mundane.

I think its pretty clear when it comes to instant conjuration (creation) spells, which by its very nature creates something real (non-magic) either elemement or thing. Its all the other instant SR: No spells which are unclear to me.

[jiriku]

Agreed. Nonmagical damage sources, even when created by spells, deal physical damage, which is resisted by damage reduction. This isn't completely consistent with RAW, because in some cases this isn't spelled out explicitly. However, you can see the RAI design intent all over the game system, such as in the (unpopular) nerfs imposed in Complete Psionic which clarified that the various SR: No psionic powers that hurl crystals deal physical damage.

[Urpriest]

Just as a falling wall of Iron is subject to DR so too is Deadfall. I must wholle disagree with you on this one... sorry. The damage is entirely mundane.

I think its pretty clear when it comes to instant conjuration (creation) spells, which by its very nature creates something real (non-magic) either elemement or thing. Its all the other instant SR: No spells which are unclear to me.

DR might not apply against environmental damage, either, which would explain why it doesn't apply to things like Deadfall. The only things DR explicitly applies to are weapon and natural attack damage, with falling damage being frequently argued for either side.

[DevilsAttorney]

And the orb of force is...?

Hum... A big gust of wind that hits you in the face?!

[georgie_leech]

Hum... A big gust of wind that hits you in the face?!

Nope, wind doesn't effect incorporeal creatures properly, OoF works just fine.

[Necroticplague]

Hum... A big gust of wind that hits you in the face?!

A ball made of the same substance that Walls of Force, Force Dragons, Magic Missiles, Manyjaws, and other force effects are. You make one, then hurl it at them.

[Bronk]

Just as a falling wall of Iron is subject to DR so too is Deadfall. I must wholle disagree with you on this one... sorry. The damage is entirely mundane.

I hear ya on that... it just makes sense that it would be that way, and I want it to be true. Unfortunately, the falling wall isn't a weapon attack or a natural attack... you conjure it up, and it is now a wall. Later, you or someone else can push the now totally real iron wall over, and the people on the other side get a reflex save to avoid it. It has odd special rules, like a trap... Maybe DR would apply if a giant used it as an improvised weapon.

Deadfall, on top of all that, does it's damage instantaneously, so it's hard to say that it isn't part of the spell...


DR might not apply against environmental damage, either, which would explain why it doesn't apply to things like Deadfall. The only things DR explicitly applies to are weapon and natural attack damage, with falling damage being frequently argued for either side.

It would certainly make things easier if it did apply to falling damage (well, and environmental damage too)... do you happen to remember the arguments for that? I haven't looked into it since I got schooled over on the Q and A thread a while back.

[Killer Angel]

I would have said it was the creation of a temporary feebleminded designer... because really, it doesn't make sense.

[Melcar]

And the orb of force is...?

Hmm... I would again say that this is a design blunder.

I would say thoug that since Conjuration (Creation) creates something real, that Orb of Force (even though all force is magic, IMO) would not go away after creation. Effectively you could just create orbs of force and sell them, since its instantaneous creations.

[Psyren]

A long time ago I explained the orbs as low-sentience, volatile elementals, assembled in the caster's vicinity and programmed to crash into an opponent, transfer their energy, and dissipate. I don't think that orbs of force persist once they've been fired, any more than vitriolic sphere or arc of lightning do.

[Heliomance]

The way I see it, when a spell has no SR, it's generally because something is conjured first (reason why Orb spells have no SR; they are conjuration spells), then THAT CONJURED OBJECT, which is a physical thing, deals the damage or does the action explained in the spell. A fireball is a ball of magical fire. An orb of fire is a physical flaming orb that hits you in the face and burns your skin.

There's a sonic orb too, I'm pretty sure. Orb of electricity makes little sense either.

Personally I just houserule the Orb line to be Evocation, SR: Yes. They really make no sense as Conjurations.

[Dalebert]

They really make no sense as Conjurations.

Sure they do, generally. Fire, lightning, acid, all exist in the mundane world. You can summon a ball of flaming fuel substance and send it flying. Ball lightning is a real thing. It can certainly be created by magic and sent in a certain direction. I like the idea of SR not being total immunity to everything. It's nice that it has some weaknesses.

It's just orb of force thing that doesn't jive for me. We haven't even created force fields with modern technology. That's something that needs to be sustained by magic. That one should be evocation. Practically every other force effect in the game is evocation.

[Psyren]

Personally I just houserule the Orb line to be Evocation, SR: Yes. They really make no sense as Conjurations.

Why not? There are many spells besides orbs that Create the various energy types.

I agree that Force should be evocation's special thing though.

[Urpriest]

In my opinion, the whole Evocation school should be SR: No. SR should be for spells that directly affect you, not spells that create energy that damages you.

[Psyren]

In my opinion, the whole Evocation school should be SR: No. SR should be for spells that directly affect you, not spells that create energy that damages you.

Disagree heartily - evocations are some of the most commonly-applied magic in a large-scale battlefield setting, and both racial and class-based (trained) SR have swung the tide of wars because of it.

[Heliomance]

Why not? There are many spells besides orbs that Create the various energy types.

I agree that Force should be evocation's special thing though.

Because, quite apart from anything else, Conjuration has enough shiny toys already. The existence of the Orb spells as SR: No Conjurations is one of the biggest reasons that Evocation is widely considered useless. Direct damage is supposed to be Evocation's schtick, and the Orb spells let Conjuration beat it at its own game.

[Urpriest]

Disagree heartily - evocations are some of the most commonly-applied magic in a large-scale battlefield setting, and both racial and class-based (trained) SR have swung the tide of wars because of it.

Plenty of races have energy resistance. Why isn't that more appropriate?

[Psyren]

Because, quite apart from anything else, Conjuration has enough shiny toys already. The existence of the Orb spells as SR: No Conjurations is one of the biggest reasons that Evocation is widely considered useless. Direct damage is supposed to be Evocation's schtick, and the Orb spells let Conjuration beat it at its own game.

Eh, people who consider evocation useless are just unimaginative. Yeah it's one of the less painful schools to ban but there are still plenty of good reasons to keep it around too without nerfing the other schools.

[Necroticplague]

Disagree heartily - evocations are some of the most commonly-applied magic in a large-scale battlefield setting, and both racial and class-based (trained) SR have swung the tide of wars because of it.

Actually, due to the importance of logistics and battlefield control in a war, evocation would be of mediocre use at best. Divination for the all-important information gathering, abjuration to stop that from happening back to you, transmutation/conjuration to build or undermine fortifications quickly, necromancy for the ability to unleash self-perpetuating undead (wights) on your enemy (now allowing for combining scorched-earth AND human-wave tactics!),as well as accessing knowlege of dead and turning attrition in your favor, conjuration for calling (bring extra, exotic troops into the battle), summoning (bring up some temporary meatshields to take hits for your less expendable soldiers), teleportation (letting you more efficiently move around troops), creation (an army marches on its belly. So bring your supply line to the front line), illusions to fool your enemies (make them have second thoughts by appearing to have a force at your flank you don't have, or look like a much larger force than you are), or enchantment (extraction of information and conversion of enemy spies, sabetours, scouts, and other covert sources.), transmutation to increase the strength of your own forces and shape the battlefield in a preferable way. So evocation does one, small part of a war, at best.

[Psyren]

Actually, due to the importance of logistics and battlefield control in a war, evocation would be of mediocre use at best. Divination for the all-important information gathering, abjuration to stop that from happening back to you, transmutation/conjuration to build or undermine fortifications quickly, necromancy for the ability to unleash self-perpetuating undead (wights) on your enemy (now allowing for combining scorched-earth AND human-wave tactics!),as well as accessing knowlege of dead and turning attrition in your favor, conjuration for calling (bring extra, exotic troops into the battle), summoning (bring up some temporary meatshields to take hits for your less expendable soldiers), teleportation (letting you more efficiently move around troops), creation (an army marches on its belly. So bring your supply line to the front line), illusions to fool your enemies (make them have second thoughts by appearing to have a force at your flank you don't have, or look like a much larger force than you are), or enchantment (extraction of information and conversion of enemy spies, sabetours, scouts, and other covert sources.), transmutation to increase the strength of your own forces and shape the battlefield in a preferable way. So evocation does one, small part of a war, at best.

Divination is useful, but also unreliable since abjurations can block it and illusions can fool it. Conjured fortifications are like building on sand (in the case of ongoing magic) or tend to lack precision/refinement (in the case of instantaneous.) Necromancy, quite apart from the moral implications (somehow I doubt the high elves or paladins will be using that particular strategy) is also highly dangerous because undead have no concept of loyalty and are also generally vulnerable to various large-scale uses of energy. Enchantments are seldom useful in large-scale conflicts and illusions are far too ephemeral.

Large-scale teleportation is great if you have the levels for it, but it tends to be a lot higher up than the simple expedient of flinging fireballs and lightning as artillery. In short I think you're too quick to write off evocation as "mediocre."

[Heliomance]

Eh, people who consider evocation useless are just unimaginative. Yeah it's one of the less painful schools to ban but there are still plenty of good reasons to keep it around too without nerfing the other schools.

Conjuration already does almost everything better than almost every other school. Not letting it be the king of direct damage when Evocation is all about direct damage hardly constitutes nerfing it, I feel. And even if it does, it can bear nerfing, seeing as how Conjuration and Transmutation are considered hands down the two most powerful schools in the most powerful spell list in the game.

[VoxRationis]

Divination is useful, but also unreliable since abjurations can block it and illusions can fool it. Conjured fortifications are like building on sand (in the case of ongoing magic) or tend to lack precision/refinement (in the case of instantaneous.) Necromancy, quite apart from the moral implications (somehow I doubt the high elves or paladins will be using that particular strategy) is also highly dangerous because undead have no concept of loyalty and are also generally vulnerable to various large-scale uses of energy. Enchantments are seldom useful in large-scale conflicts and illusions are far too ephemeral.

Large-scale teleportation is great if you have the levels for it, but it tends to be a lot higher up than the simple expedient of flinging fireballs and lightning as artillery. In short I think you're too quick to write off evocation as "mediocre."

You're not using enchantments or illusions properly, then. Hallucinatory terrain can destroy entire armies if used properly (I just ran a battle where that very thing happened), and a good enchantment on low-level commanders can cause them to destroy even the best-laid plans of their generals.

[Psyren]

Conjuration already does almost everything better than almost every other school. Not letting it be the king of direct damage when Evocation is all about direct damage hardly constitutes nerfing it, I feel. And even if it does, it can bear nerfing, seeing as how Conjuration and Transmutation are considered hands down the two most powerful schools in the most powerful spell list in the game.

I get your point but I don't feel it's a big enough issue to warrant rewriting a bunch of spells.


You're not using enchantments or illusions properly, then. Hallucinatory terrain can destroy entire armies if used properly (I just ran a battle where that very thing happened), and a good enchantment on low-level commanders can cause them to destroy even the best-laid plans of their generals.

If you're fighting a bunch of muggles then sure. Even Grease can win wars at that point.

But against an army with magic of their own, spotting and neutralizing your illusions should be cake or they may as well be muggles themselves.

[Dalebert]

Evocation still seems to rule when it come to AoE DD. Yes, there are some AoEs in conj. but I know from playing someone who gave up evocation that it was a very noticeable loss, particularly when I was exploring some really nice metamagic feats with regard to manipulating AoEs.

[Necroticplague]

Divination is useful, but also unreliable since abjurations can block it and illusions can fool it. Only against the enemy itself. Against the non-sentient land, you can still get a good amount of information. Know the lay of the land, possible fall-back points, good places for fortification, all in a few mere hours, instead of days of surveying. And even if they do block it, you've essentially forced your enemy to waste resources: the spells they used to fool your aren't going towards building forts, or healing the damaged, or setting up traps, or any of the other half-dozen things it could be doing. That sounds like a win-win to me (either you get info, or your enemy has wasted resources).



Conjured fortifications are like building on sand (in the case of ongoing magic) or tend to lack precision/refinement (in the case of instantaneous.)True, non-instantaneous spells are a bad idea to use as fortification. Those things can be taken down by a simple Dispel Magic. However, fortification don't have to be precise. Simply "a pit here", or "some wall here" are good enough. A solid wall of iron will stop a good chunk of attacks cold (including most evocations, since energy damage is divided, and then subtracted. Good luck fireballing that wall down).


Necromancy, quite apart from the moral implications (somehow I doubt the high elves or paladins will be using that particular strategy) is also highly dangerous because undead have no concept of loyalty and are also generally vulnerable to various large-scale uses of energy.
Morality is irrelevant, as the saying goes ,"all's fair in love and war". If someone is to squeemish to use some effective weapons at their disposal, its their loss. As for the loyalty, that only is true in a specific case , that of wights made from negative level drain to 0. Mindless undead are compltely loyal, since they obey the exact command of their masters. And undead that keep their mind (corpse creatures, bone creatures, death knights, vampires, to name a few) would be just as loyal as before (evil =/= backstabbing). The wights, however, i recommend using like land mines: since they rise the next night, that means you can take the sick and dying, drain them, and leave their bodies behind while retreating. Then, the enemy has to either waste time desecrating corpses so they can't rise, or else get attacked from the back later on (allowing you to flank them effectively). The wights would more than likely die, but you still forced your enemy to waste much more lives for little investment.And if they know you use this technique, then you can slow down their chase by just dumping normal corpses behind Not even considering the necromancy can also be used for spreading diseases around, a big killer in warfare (necrotic cyst on some rats, contagion for some Slimy Doom, necrotic domination to have it rub itself up against enemy soldiers to spread it).


Enchantments are seldom useful in large-scale conflicts and illusions are far too ephemeral. War isn't all about the large scale. Before you even get to the large scale, the fight, a lot of things need to happen. One of those is getting information. Going in with bad information is an excellent way to get killed. By Enchanting their scouts and spies, you can not only not give them good information, but actively give them bad information. So now, instead of simply suspecting you have a vantage point in the mountains, they "know" you took a defensive position in the valleys instead. The same can go for illusions; hallucinatory terrain, programmed image, major image, can all be used to obfuscate you movements. Maybe you look like your flank is more guarded than it is, so they don't try and attack it. yes, they can be beat. But that goes back to the "make the enemy waste resources" objective mentioned several time eariler. A divination used to see if your illusions are real or not is a spell not used to look for your scouts and spies, or ask if their camp has any traitors, or figure out what your supply routes are.


Large-scale teleportation is great if you have the levels for it, but it tends to be a lot higher up than the simple expedient of flinging fireballs and lightning as artillery. In short I think you're too quick to write off evocation as "mediocre."
Why do you need large-scale for it to be useful in a war? A small team of commandos, stealthily inserted deep behind enemy lines in order to sabotage supply lines (say, collapse a tunnel their wagons go through), can be more useful. Fire an artillery, you kill 50 men. Make it so they don't get food in the winter, you can kill hundreds. And if their own bases aren't protected against teleportation, you can drop assassins to target vital places in their chain of command. And if they do protect their own bases from teleportation, you've again forced them to waste resources that could be used elsewhere.

[Psyren]

Only against the enemy itself. Against the non-sentient land, you can still get a good amount of information. Know the lay of the land, possible fall-back points, good places for fortification, all in a few mere hours, instead of days of surveying. And even if they do block it, you've essentially forced your enemy to waste resources: the spells they used to fool your aren't going towards building forts, or healing the damaged, or setting up traps, or any of the other half-dozen things it could be doing. That sounds like a win-win to me (either you get info, or your enemy has wasted resources).

Putting aside that divining locations tends to be more difficult than divining people, if your enemy is doing the same thing then at best you've achieved parity. But yeah, Divination is useful in war, not going to argue with that.



True, non-instantaneous spells are a bad idea to use as fortification. Those things can be taken down by a simple Dispel Magic. However, fortification don't have to be precise. Simply "a pit here", or "some wall here" are good enough. A solid wall of iron will stop a good chunk of attacks cold (including most evocations, since energy damage is divided, and then subtracted. Good luck fireballing that wall down).

I'd probably sonic it down actually, which does full damage to most objects, and some of which even ignores hardness. Failing that, iron is only hardness 10 and 30hp/4 levels - a good bit of optimization even with a less effective element can do the trick.



Morality is irrelevant, as the saying goes ,"all's fair in love and war".

Morality is actually quite relevant if abusing it can screw over all your divine casters. Sorry to say, but there are many armies in fantasy that simply will not employ necromancy the way you suggest, end of.



War isn't all about the large scale. Before you even get to the large scale, the fight, a lot of things need to happen. One of those is getting information. Going in with bad information is an excellent way to get killed. By Enchanting their scouts and spies, you can not only not give them good information, but actively give them bad information.

Enchanting spies is a pretty terrible plan considering that detecting a compulsion is only a DC 15 skill check even without magic. It's also very difficult to do across any significant number.



Why do you need large-scale for it to be useful in a war? A small team of commandos, stealthily inserted deep behind enemy lines in order to sabotage supply lines (say, collapse a tunnel their wagons go through), can be more useful. Fire an artillery, you kill 50 men.

Hold it, we're talking armies with teleportation here. What "wagons?" What "supply lines?" You're assuming one force that is drastically behind the other in magical capability, and if that is the case then it hardly matters what spells you use, you're going to win.

[Melcar]

Good points all around.

I guess no rule apply throughout the game... except perhaps instant cunjuration (creation)

[Zombimode]

I guess no rule apply throughout the game... except perhaps instant cunjuration (creation)

There are spontaneous creation spells that deal damage and are SR: yes...

[Thurbane]

And the orb of force is...?

Something dreamed up by a direct-damage Wizard fanboy that thought there must absolutely, positively be a spell that can affect incorporeal monsters with SR.

As much as I might use them myself on a caster (I am a fan of Warmages), part of me truly despises the "Orb of -" spells for simply being designed as a cheat/workaround. As if casters didn't have enough ways to obliterate monsters. Not only that, it makes Evocation even more redundant as the primary blasting school of spells.

[Psyren]

It's not like they're that big a deal without metamagic abuse anyway (which is a much bigger problem.)

[Melcar]

There are spontaneous creation spells that deal damage and are SR: yes...

Which ones?

Never mind... I found some, and yeah well that makes no sense to me.

[VoxRationis]

Something dreamed up by a direct-damage Wizard fanboy that thought there must absolutely, positively be a spell that can affect incorporeal monsters with SR.

As much as I might use them myself on a caster (I am a fan of Warmages), part of me truly despises the "Orb of -" spells for simply being designed as a cheat/workaround. As if casters didn't have enough ways to obliterate monsters. Not only that, it makes Evocation even more redundant as the primary blasting school of spells.

To be fair, your DM is being a jerk if he sends incorporeal creatures with spell resistance at you, unless it's been previously established that your party all carry ghost strike weapons.

[Business Scrub]

Side question very related to this thread: so creatures with immunity to magic, such as golems. Are they still affected by SR: No spells, such as Orb of X?

[Psyren]

Side question very related to this thread: so creatures with immunity to magic, such as golems. Are they still affected by SR: No spells, such as Orb of X?

Yes. Magic Immunity is treated in the rules as "SR 65535" (or wherever your overflow error would start.) Basically it's just arbitrarily high SR.

[Business Scrub]

Yes. Magic Immunity is treated in the rules as "SR 65535" (or wherever your overflow error would start.) Basically it's just arbitrarily high SR.

Using a short for MR? So what your saying is all I need to do is improve it's SR by 1 to totally bypass it's spell resistance? :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, thanks.

[Knaight]

To be fair, your DM is being a jerk if he sends incorporeal creatures with spell resistance at you, unless it's been previously established that your party all carry ghost strike weapons.

There are a number of ways to handle them, it's hardly a jerk move for them to show up. Even if nobody has ghost strike weapons, there's always mundane fire.

[Psyren]

Using a short for MR? So what your saying is all I need to do is improve it's SR by 1 to totally bypass it's spell resistance? :smallbiggrin:

Exactly :smallbiggrin:


There are a number of ways to handle them, it's hardly a jerk move for them to show up. Even if nobody has ghost strike weapons, there's always mundane fire.

That won't work - mundane energy will not harm incorporeal creatures at all.

"It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms."

[Knaight]

That won't work - mundane energy will not harm incorporeal creatures at all.

"It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms."

Huh. I was thinking that energy forms got through. Nevermind then.