Is spell resistance terrible?

[LoyalPaladin]

A while back I posted about making an natural weapon fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?380777-Natural-Weapon-Fighter&p=18334890#post18334890) that had the half-dragon template and I had originally planned on taking the "Awaken Spell Resistance" feat. But after talking to a friend about SR, it seems that if you had any equally leveled caster vs someone with SR based on their level is basically just useless? A level 20 Half-Dragon (lets say they have no LA for the purpose of this thread) with the SR feat would have 22 SR. But unless I am misunderstanding the rules, a level 20 Wiz gets to add 20 to his roll against my SR? Which means if he rolls a 2 or higher he makes it through. Perhaps the playground has some light to shed on this subject or maybe a way to improve SR on a character.

[commander panda]

my understanding is that creatures with spell resistance usually have their hit dice+around ten. the drow, for instance, have SR 11+HD. so unless your half dragon has spell resistance 2+HD, it should be closer to thirty something.
in other words, an equal level caster should have to roll a ten or more to get through.

[Jeraa]

The real problem with spell resistance is that it applies against the beneficial spells you party may want to cast on you as well. Dying is bad enough - dying because the clerics healing spell didn't penetrate your spell resistance is worse. (You can choose to lower your spell resistance, but it takes a standard action on your part to do so.)

[LoyalPaladin]

my understanding is that creatures with spell resistance usually have their hit dice+around ten. the drow, for instance, have SR 11+HD. so unless your half dragon has spell resistance 2+HD, it should be closer to thirty something.
in other words, an equal level caster should have to roll a ten or more to get through.
Maybe I am figuring this out wrong then. It looked to me like Half-Dragons (http://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/halfdragon.shtml) have no natural SR and the feat (http://www.realmshelps.net/cgi-bin/featbox.pl?feat=Awaken_Spell_Resistance) just provided HD+2... Maybe someone has a better feat?


The real problem with spell resistance is that it applies against the beneficial spells you party may want to cast on you as well.
That is a valid fear too...

[Doc_Maynot]

Yeah, unfortunately SR is just another thing Spellcasters can bypass.
They make a d20 roll and add their caster level plus other modifiers (feats, Assay Spell Resistance, etc) and there are ways to just shred it away or ignore it (Trait Removal, Factotum's Cunning Breach, Orb of X, etc).
So like, Armor Class, if you are going to depend upon it, you need to find ways to make it stronger. And unfortunately it's also one of those things that if from a racial, class, or template based source is harder to make stronger.

[JeenLeen]

I found that most ways to get spell resistance for PCs weren't worth it. If based off level, it was too low, and by the time I could afford any magic item that granted it, the amount granted was too weak to be worth buying. It might help, but the SR would be so low that most casters would beat it easily.

The only exception I found that was worth it was a level 7-9 spell (forget which) which gave something like 18+level SR. That was worthwhile (at least, it was worthwhile when my War Weaver casted it on our party of tier 1 classes with several other buffs; might not be worth the action economy for one person).
It's been a while since I played high-level D&D, but I think the spell was in the Player's Handbook; could be wrong, though.

EDIT: another thing that's bad about SR is, if I remember correctly, it takes an action to suppress it. And maybe to restore it? I'm fuzzy on these rules. We houseruled that away, but by the books it can make it hard to get buffed by your allies.
EDIT 2: a lot of folk said what I said with more precision while I was typing it. Excellent :smallbiggrin:

[AmberVael]

so unless your half dragon has spell resistance 2+HD, it should be closer to thirty something..

That is indeed what Awaken Spell Resistance does.

And yes, this is a very legitimate problem for the Awaken Spell Resistance feat. It gets even worse when you realize that real threats to your character will have an even higher level... which means they'll be able to pass the check every time, even if they roll a 1. Meanwhile, your equally leveled allies may sometimes cast a friendly spell and have it fail.

Of course, a spellcaster that really wants to get past resistance has a multitude of other ways to either boost their check absurdly (assay resistance) or just get around the issue altogether (spells that offer no SR, or things like summons and battlefield control), so I can't even recommend getting more substantial SR either.

Its not always terrible but it isn't really worth spending much on.

[MilesTiden]

A Half-Dragon would in almost all cases have no SR at all, as it exclusively works on racial hit dice. You would have to apply it to a monster with racial HD, and then it would be even less useful. Honestly, the feat is just a monster feat, and completely useless for PCs.

[LoyalPaladin]

A Half-Dragon would in almost all cases have no SR at all, as it exclusively works on racial hit dice. You would have to apply it to a monster with racial HD, and then it would be even less useful. Honestly, the feat is just a monster feat, and completely useless for PCs.
Sigh... well my dreams of having a Barb able to terrorize casters and mundanes alike have been shattered. At least I can be immune to fire...

[nedz]

I found that most ways to get spell resistance for PCs weren't worth it. If based off level, it was too low, and by the time I could afford any magic item that granted it, the amount granted was too weak to be worth buying. It might help, but the SR would be so low that most casters would beat it easily.

The only exception I found that was worth it was a level 7-9 spell (forget which) which gave something like 18+level SR. That was worthwhile (at least, it was worthwhile when my War Weaver casted it on our party of tier 1 classes with several other buffs; might not be worth the action economy for one person).
It's been a while since I played high-level D&D, but I think the spell was in the Player's Handbook; could be wrong, though.

EDIT: another thing that's bad about SR is, if I remember correctly, it takes an action to suppress it. And maybe to restore it? I'm fuzzy on these rules. We houseruled that away, but by the books it can make it hard to get buffed by your allies.
EDIT 2: a lot of folk said what I said with more precision while I was typing it. Excellent :smallbiggrin:

It's a standard action to lower SR for 1 round — until the start your next turn. Which makes it quite awkward if you, say, wanted to UMD a Wand of Healing on yourself.

[sleepyphoenixx]

SR is kind of a double-edged sword. It protects against a lot of magic, but there's also quite a few SR:no effects, some of which are rather strong (and thus, popular).
Also, SR doesn't care if a spell is helpful or harmful. You can ignore your own SR, but your party members will have to roll even if they're trying to buff or heal you. You can voluntarily lower your SR but it takes a standard action every round, so it's not really feasible in combat (or when your incapacitated for some reason).

As for your question, you are correct. You roll 1d20 + casters CL vs. your SR, so you need at least CL +2 to even make a difference. This also means that your SR gets less useful the more you need it (against strong casters), which is obviously not optimal.
The only way to boost already existing SR that i know of is Dazzik's Vest (DMG2), which increases SR by 5 iirc. but is on the expensive side. There may be a feat or two that add 2-3 to SR but that's a horrible waste of a feat slot.

Awaken Spell Resistance is pretty much monster-only, because those often have HD in excess of their CR so it actually has a measurable effect.

[LoyalPaladin]

As for your question, you are correct. You roll 1d20 + casters CL vs. your SR, so you need at least CL +2 to even make a difference. This also means that your SR gets less useful the more you need it (against strong casters), which is obviously not optimal.
I guess I will just pick up rapid strike instead... :( stupid casters and their stupid sparkly magic.

[Eldariel]

That is indeed what Awaken Spell Resistance does.

And yes, this is a very legitimate problem for the Awaken Spell Resistance feat. It gets even worse when you realize that real threats to your character will have an even higher level... which means they'll be able to pass the check every time, even if they roll a 1. Meanwhile, your equally leveled allies may sometimes cast a friendly spell and have it fail.

Of course, a spellcaster that really wants to get past resistance has a multitude of other ways to either boost their check absurdly (assay resistance) or just get around the issue altogether (spells that offer no SR, or things like summons and battlefield control), so I can't even recommend getting more substantial SR either.

Its not always terrible but it isn't really worth spending much on.

The feat is generally fine for the monsters it's designed for (i.e. dragons) as they have way more HD than they have CR higher up so it tends to actually lead to a fairly significant Spell Resistance. It can also be stacked somewhat efficiently (+2 per feat as opposed to +1 and Dragons, again, have a lot of HD and thus a lot of feats) so it can be used to make them somewhat difficult to affect. Of course, the general issue with all this is that spellcasters have plenty of means to scale their checks against spell resistance (Assay Resistance [Spell Compendium] lowers target's resistance by 10 basically automatically, True Casting [Complete Mage] gives +10 on a single spell, and level 20 casters generally operate at a much higher caster level than their class level due to various bonuses from classes, spells, feats and magic items increasing their caster level anyways), few to outright ignore it even with spells that normally allow it (Dweomerkeeper's Supernatural Spell [Complete Divine Web Enhancement], Factotum's Cunning Breach [Dungeonscape], a handful of others) and there are spells that don't allow it that can be plenty harmful too. This is all in addition to the issue of protecting vs. positive spells (due to action economy considerations higher up especially for big monsters, even Reactive Spell Resistance [Drow of the Underdark] does little to alleviate this).

As such, for spell resistance to be worth it, it needs to be way higher than the level of the characters it's supposed to be useful against. This basically means the only ways to achieve reliable Spell Resistance are having absurdly high values by default, HD-based spell resistance with an absurd amount of HD (not an option for PCs) or using something else, such as the Spell Resistance-spell combined with caster level buffing (which, again, is fairly useless against equally buffed caster level from an equal level caster due to the other mentioned considerations).


Even in Core, I'd assume casters to be a couple of caster levels ahead of their level (Orange Prism Ioun Stone, Archmage/Thaumaturgist, though I don't especially recommend the latter in any significant quantity) and with access to both Spell Penetrations, we can easily look at high level casters slinging spells with penetration rolls of their Character Level + 6 as a baseline without using Beads of Karma or Limited Wish go way higher (that is, every spell cast by a level 20 caster with no preparation is essentially looking at +26 spell penetration roll with just PHB, DMG and MM).

[Necroticplague]

Yeah, pretty much. Non-scaling sources of SR are quickly completely trivial, and most scaling SR only manages to make itself useful for a bit before falling behind again. And its very hard to find different version of it that stack. So far, for SR-building, I've looked at Spellwarped (LA+3, SR 15+hd), a dip in Forsaker (11 SR, stacks with others), and a vest from the DMG2 that increases SR by 5 (bought as a prestige race to avoid forsaker vow issues). Effective, but it better be for all the XP you dumped into it (your pretty much abusing 'xp is a river' as your modus operandi, assuming LA buyoff).

Honestly, it's easier to just become a galf-golem for outright Spell Immunity (avoid the LA - by becoming one in-game, the process is pretty clearly described.)

Add to the above that there are plenty of SR:no attacks that can mess up your day, a whole ton of SR: yes buff spells to try and help you, and getting SR is really an uphill battle.

[Eldariel]

Honestly, it's easier to just become a galf-golem for outright Spell Immunity (avoid the LA - by becoming one in-game, the process is pretty clearly described.)

Add to the above that there are plenty of SR:no attacks that can mess up your day, a whole ton of SR: yes buff spells to try and help you, and getting SR is really an uphill battle.

If you want to do nothing quite so drastic, just use the Shapechange spell to assume a magic-immune form. Reversible with a free action, gives you much of the defense the trait offers anyways and acts as SR: infinite. Best of both worlds, minimal resource expediture, Shapechange is cool.

[StoneCipher]

I think as long as the party isn't crazy optimized, it's okay to entirely scrub SR from play. It has a scaling importance based on optimized character concepts that seek to exploit certain weaknesses, and if you allow those types of players to ignore spell resistance, they'll abuse the hell out of it.

But if you have players that go "hey I want to make a neat character that does some neat things and doesn't suck too hard," I think spell resistance is trivial.

One of my big gripes with 3.5 is that there is too much dice rolling for every little thing and having saves and SR for spells is just nutty, combine them in some way or get rid of one.

[LoyalPaladin]

I think as long as the party isn't crazy optimized, it's okay to entirely scrub SR from play. It has a scaling importance based on optimized character concepts that seek to exploit certain weaknesses, and if you allow those types of players to ignore spell resistance, they'll abuse the hell out of it.

But if you have players that go "hey I want to make a neat character that does some neat things and doesn't suck too hard," I think spell resistance is trivial.
I think I was hoping to mostly have a character that shrugs off spells. I guess I still have uncanny dodge and a ridiculous amount of HP.

[StoneCipher]

I think I was hoping to mostly have a character that shrugs off spells. I guess I still have uncanny dodge and a ridiculous amount of HP.

Well if that's where you were going, Spell Resist is definitely not going to get you much farther. It will block some things, but as others have mentioned, there's plenty of other things that are not SR based that can ruin your day.

If you wanna shrug off spells, you'll want some sort of AMF build. Even then it can be bypassed, but its a much easier fit to your idea.

[Jack_Simth]

Yes, Spell Resistance is terrible to have from a PC perspective.

In the specific case of Awaken Spell Resistance (Draconomicon), it's "You gain innate spell resistance equal to your racial Hit Dice" (+2 for every additional iteration of the feat). And that's... well, 0 for most PC's. Ignoring that, if you get it up to 'reasonable' levels (SR=10+level), then... you're still not doing so good. Most of the time when you're fighting enemy spellcasting creatures, they're higher level than you are. So at 10th level, you'll likely be fighting something like a 12th level Sorcerer, who needs to roll an 8 on SR penetration... actually, less than that, due to things like Assay Spell Resistance (Swift action, +10 to SR penetration) and the Spell Penetration feat pair. Meanwhile, you're forcing the party to waste resources - it takes a standard action to lower your SR for one round, or they need to invest in Assay Spell Resistance or Spell Penetration feats to get through your SR to lay buffs and/or healing spells on you (forget wands).

So... yeah. Nature of the game means SR is something you put on monsters and nowhere else.

[LoyalPaladin]

Yes, Spell Resistance is terrible to have from a PC perspective.
Many a half-dragon have shed a tear today... by many I mean one... and by one I mean my PC. :smallfrown:

[nedz]

Yeah, another way to illustrate how bad SR is: Monk's get it, at level 13.

[Duke of Urrel]

The real problem with spell resistance is that it applies against the beneficial spells you party may want to cast on you as well. Dying is bad enough - dying because the clerics healing spell didn't penetrate your spell resistance is worse. (You can choose to lower your spell resistance, but it takes a standard action on your part to do so.)

Of course, we can make house rules to avoid this problem. Indeed, I believe we are justified in doing so, because I believe a simple mistake has persisted, uncorrected, in every edition of the Player's Handbook, right up to the final edition.

To make my case, let me start with "Chapter 10: Magic," section Spell Descriptions / Saving Throw / (harmless), which appears on page 177 of the Player's Handbook v. 3.5 (2008). If you prefer, refer to the SRD (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.

I used to wonder why the rule writers ever added this seemingly superfluous information to the "Saving Throw" line of any spell's statistics block. Can't we figure out for ourselves whether a spell is harmless or not?

Then I read this passage again, and it dawned on me: This is an exception to the general rule, which is that every creature affected by a spell that allows a saving throw makes a saving throw against it, as a reaction that requires no action. In contrast, if a spell that allows a saving throw is also explicitly identified as "(harmless)," the default is that the affected creature gets no saving throw at all. A creature affected by a "harmless" spell makes a saving throw only if it "desires," that is, only if it consciously chooses to do so. This is the opposite of the normal case. Normally, when a creature is affected by the usual kind of spell, the kind that is not explicitly identified as "harmless," the creature can forfeit its saving throw only if it consciously chooses to do so.

Enlightened by this new knowledge, I re-read the following passage from "Chapter 10: Magic," section Spell Descriptions / Spell Resistance, which appears on the same page of the PH, page 177. If you prefer, refer once again to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#spellResistance).


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.

In this passage, I argue, the second sentence stands in open, unresolved conflict with the first.


As we have just read on the same page, a spell explicitly identified as "harmless" does not provoke the saving throw of an affected creature unless the creature consciously chooses to resist the spell. By default, the harmless spell simply takes effect.

Now, if the term "harmless" really does mean the same thing for spell resistance as it does for saving throws, then a spell explicitly identified as "harmless" should not provoke the spell resistance of an affected creature, either, unless the creature consciously chooses to resist the spell. By default, the harmless spell should simply take effect.

I conclude that there must be a mistake here. I believe the passage quoted above should read as follows, with my recommended correction in boldface type.


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 not noted as harmless.

Doesn't this re-write make much better sense (in addition to having an outcome that most of us would prefer anyway)?


It should be necessary to lower your spell resistance only when it is engaged against a spell, as it is in the normal case, for example when the spell that targets you is something like the Veil spell or the Seeming spell.

It should not be necessary to lower your spell resistance when it is disengaged, as it ought to be, by default, with respect to a spell "noted as harmless."


In this case, I argue, common sense should prevail over the RAW, which I believe in this particular case is a Rule As Mistakenly Written and Somehow Never Corrected.

I submit this argument here for everyone's consideration.

EDIT: I replaced a bad example with a better one.

[Flickerdart]

Now, if the term "harmless" really does mean the same thing for spell resistance as it does for saving throws, then a spell explicitly identified as "harmless" should not provoke the spell resistance of an affected creature, either, unless the creature consciously chooses to resist the spell. By default, the harmless spell should simply take effect.
This would be an equivalence if foregoing saving throws took actions, which it does not. The creature with SR is made aware that the spell is harmless, but SR is a special case and cannot be ignored without being lowered first.

[Duke of Urrel]

This would be an equivalence if foregoing saving throws took actions, which it does not. The creature with SR is made aware that the spell is harmless, but SR is a special case and cannot be ignored without being lowered first.

The equivalence lies not in what an affected creature does to a "(harmless)" spell. The equivalence lies in what a "(harmless)" spell does to all creatures, by default. What it does is switch off all creatures' saving-throw reflex, which otherwise is always active by default.

If "(harmless)" spells work the same way for an affected creature with spell resistance, they should simply switch off the spell-resistance reflex. There should be nothing that the affected creature has to do, because it's the "(harmless)" spell that does it.

Moreover, there is never any awareness involved here on the part of the affected creature. Spells that are not "(harmless)" activate the saving-throw reflex by default. Spells that are "(harmless)" switch off the saving-throw reflex by default. In neither case does the affected creature have to be aware of anything. It's just the effect that a "(harmless)" spell has because it is "(harmless)."

If it is the same with spell resistance, as the rule states, then by default, a "(harmless)" spell should simply switch off this reflex, too, without the affected creature having to be aware of anything.

[Flickerdart]

The equivalence lies not in what an affected creature does to a "(harmless)" spell. The equivalence lies in what a "(harmless)" spell does to all creatures, by default. What it does is switch off all creatures' saving-throw reflex, which otherwise is always active by default.

If "(harmless)" spells work the same way for an affected creature with spell resistance, they should simply switch off the spell-resistance reflex. There should be nothing that the affected creature has to do, because it's the "(harmless)" spell that does it.

Moreover, there is never any awareness involved here on the part of the affected creature. Spells that are not "(harmless)" activate the saving-throw reflex by default. Spells that are "(harmless)" switch off the saving-throw reflex by default. In neither case does the affected creature have to be aware of anything. It's just the effect that a "(harmless)" spell has because it is "(harmless)."

If it is the same with spell resistance, as the rule states, then by default, a "(harmless)" spell should simply switch off this reflex, too, without the affected creature having to be aware of anything.
SR is not a reflex. SR is a passive property. Imagine that someone was trying to punch you in the face, but your head was turned around so they were punching the back of your head. If they suddenly stopped punching you and started applying make-up, you would still have to turn around in order to properly receive the benefit (or hope that their arms are long enough to reach around to the front of your head) even though you know that the make-up is beneficial.

By contrast, if you were already facing them, you would be dodging the punches, but as soon as they pull out the mascara you can just stop dodging.

[atemu1234]

Quite frankly, it's kind of an NPC thing. Because it's not often NPCs get healed, but PCs... well, they kind of need it. I'd recommend instead giving it this as a SQ:

Improved Spell Resistance (Ex): Treat this ability as Spell Resistance equal to 13 + the character level, except it can be lowered and raised as a free action.

[Scipio_77]

It can be decent.

No, most SR builds won't stop casters around your level... but you can become very good vs items (scrolls/wands etc) and lower level casters. In some campaigns and with some DMs that won't matter much, but with others it can be absolutely brilliant. If you invade a temple, it can be pretty neat to shrug of half the spell arsenal of its lower level denizens. Also, in my campaign the ancient lich is hardly going to just stand around alone in its lair waiting for your barbarian to come around. It would like also be aware that its magical hoard of 12 evocation wands could be put to good use in the hands of some lowly skeletal mages.

So, I would say it is situational.

[LoyalPaladin]

Quite frankly, it's kind of an NPC thing. Because it's not often NPCs get healed, but PCs... well, they kind of need it. I'd recommend instead giving it this as a SQ:

Improved Spell Resistance (Ex): Treat this ability as Spell Resistance equal to 13 + the character level, except it can be lowered and raised as a free action.
Maybe I am looking at the wrong feat (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Improved_Spell_Resistance)... but that doesn't look right to me. Is that a homebrew thing or another feat?

[Necroticplague]

Maybe I am looking at the wrong feat (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Improved_Spell_Resistance)... but that doesn't look right to me. Is that a homebrew thing or another feat?

It is homebrew. He's saying "the official thing isn't very good, you should probably replace it with this instead".

[LoyalPaladin]

It is homebrew. He's saying "the official thing isn't very good, you should probably replace it with this instead".
Gotchaaaa. Maybe I will talk to my DM about that.

[Flickerdart]

I'm skeptical that PCs need 13+HD SR to have it matter - 13 is so good that it might make this a feat tax that you need just to stand up to casting enemies. Monster CLs are frequently very low for their CR, and ultimately it's up to the DM whether or not to have NPCs use things like Assay Spell Resistance in the first place. 2+HD is too low, but somewhere in the 8+HD range is probably going to be fine.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I'm skeptical that PCs need 13+HD SR to have it matter - 13 is so good that it might make this a feat tax that you need just to stand up to casting enemies. Monster CLs are frequently very low for their CR, and ultimately it's up to the DM whether or not to have NPCs use things like Assay Spell Resistance in the first place. 2+HD is too low, but somewhere in the 8+HD range is probably going to be fine.

It depends on what enemies your DM uses. Dragons and various other monsters with innate casting generally have relatively low CL for their CR. That's usually accompanied by worse save DCs, too, so it's not like you particularly need SR to deal with them. It's not really worth investing resources into defenses against weak enemies after all, especially if those defenses also hinder your allies helping you.

If your DM mostly uses humanoids with class levels your enemy casters will be a whole lot more dangerous, provided they're at a level of optimization similar to the PCs. You might even have a caster as a BBEG, in which case his CL is probably going to be higher than your HD.
That's where you want all the defenses against magic you can get, and that's where SR is worse than useless.
Not only will the enemy succeed the majority of his SR checks, your allies will fail a lot more with their beneficial spells on you than he does with his harmful ones.

[Flickerdart]

If you're fighting optimized spellcasters, it doesn't really matter how much SR you have.

[Duke of Urrel]

SR is not a reflex. SR is a passive property. Imagine that someone was trying to punch you in the face, but your head was turned around so they were punching the back of your head. If they suddenly stopped punching you and started applying make-up, you would still have to turn around in order to properly receive the benefit (or hope that their arms are long enough to reach around to the front of your head) even though you know that the make-up is beneficial.

By contrast, if you were already facing them, you would be dodging the punches, but as soon as they pull out the mascara you can just stop dodging.

Again, the difference between what a saving throw represents and what spell resistance represents is not what matters here. What matters is the effect that a "(harmless)" spell has, by the rules, on both of these things.

Most spells that allow saving throws and are affected by spell resistance are not "(harmless)." These spells all have the effect of triggering, in all affected creatures, a saving throw, and in creatures that have it, spell resistance as well.

But "(harmless)" spells, by default, don't trigger saving throws. If, as the PH says, "[t]he terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws," then it follows that "(harmless)" spells shouldn't trigger spell resistance, either.

When a saving throw fails to be triggered by a "(harmless)" spell, it does not happen because the affected creature reflexively or even automatically suppresses its capacity to make saving throws. And it doesn't require the creature to be consciously or even subconsciously aware that the spell is harmless; this is why an unconscious creature makes no Will save when you cast the Cure Light Wounds spell upon it. The affected creature makes no saving throw because the "(harmless)" spell simply doesn't trigger this automatic response in the first place.

Likewise, when I say that a "(harmless)" spell should not trigger spell resistance, I don't mean that the creature somehow spontaneously (without having to take any action) suppresses its spell resistance because of some extra-sensory awareness of the spell's harmlessness. What I mean is that because the spell is "(harmless)," it simply does not trigger the creature's spell resistance in the first place.

[Flickerdart]

Again, the difference between what a saving throw represents and what spell resistance represents is not what matters here.
Sure it is. Your argument relies on ignoring any rules associated with saving throws and spell resistance and looking at one phrase in utter isolation.

[Duke of Urrel]

Sure it is. Your argument relies on ignoring any rules associated with saving throws and spell resistance and looking at one phrase in utter isolation.

I intend to change only one very specific rule concerning spell resistance, because I believe it was simply mis-written. I believe this because it directly conflicts with the preceding sentence, which I believe you choose to ignore.

In any event, you have not yet explained how we are to resolve the conflict between these two sentences, namely:


The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws.

and


A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless.

If you maintain that the second sentence was correctly written, then I would appreciate it if you or somebody else would explain how I should interpret the first sentence. It seems to me that if the second sentence was written correctly and we must accept it as written, then the first sentence must be wrong, because in this case, the term "(harmless)" apparently does not mean the same thing for spell resistance as it does for saving throws.

I admit that my argument is controversial, because it relies on interpretive logic alone to reverse an actual written rule. I can understand why many players and dungeon masters will be reluctant to accept it. But please don't accuse me of ignoring or disregarding the rules generally.

[Necroticplague]

If you maintain that the second sentence was correctly written, then I would appreciate it if you or somebody else would explain how I should interpret the first sentence. It seems to me that if the second sentence was written correctly and we must accept it as written, then the first sentence must be wrong, because in this case, the term "(harmless)" apparently does not mean the same thing for spell resistance as it does for saving throws.

I admit that my argument is controversial, because it relies on interpretive logic alone to reverse an actual written rule. I can understand why many players and dungeon masters will be reluctant to accept it. But please don't accuse me of ignoring or disregarding the rules generally.

Easy: "Unless other things say otherwise, harmless means the same thing for SR as it does for saving throws. One such exception is that they have to lower their spell resistance as a standard action to be effected by a spell noted as harmless".

Interestingly, when we go to the section of 'spell resistance' under Special Abilities, it has a list of when spell resistance applies. Notably, it provides no exemption for harmless spells, and still has that section about lowering it as a standard action. Since your argument appear to be, "if that was true, why does this clause even exist", then I now turn the question back on you: if you could let harmless spells through your spell resistance without any action economy costs, why the heck would you ever need, want, or think you should drop your spell resistance? Anything you wanted to effect you would be harmless, by definition, since you wanting it would mean it was beneficial.

[ericgrau]

SR ~= level is useless. SR ~= level + 10 at least gives you a 50:50 shot, probably a 60-70% shot since foes tend to be lower level than PCs (or you'd have a lot more TPKs). This is incredibly powerful and highly underrated because no one online wants to admit the slightest weakness to spells. Foes can get around it with some expense or cheese, but in practice a large number of foes do not.

Blocking beneficial spells is likewise highly overstated, and more a result of loathing & mocking anything anti-spells rather than any significant drawback. Most buffs and heals aren't worth the combat round and should be cast between combat. Between combat you can lower your SR. Spells you cast on yourself also bypass SR. And if anyone can bypass or laugh at SR, it's much more likely to be a carefully built PC than a foe thrown together for a quick session. There are many other trivial work-arounds such as carrying an emergency magic item to heal or get away, which is affordable because this is such an uncommon situation. There are emergency potions and many SR bypassing spells like resilient sphere that other PCs may administer too.

[Duke of Urrel]

Easy: "Unless other things say otherwise, harmless means the same thing for SR as it does for saving throws. One such exception is that they have to lower their spell resistance as a standard action to be effected by a spell noted as harmless".

Interestingly, when we go to the section of 'spell resistance' under Special Abilities, it has a list of when spell resistance applies. Notably, it provides no exemption for harmless spells, and still has that section about lowering it as a standard action. Since your argument appear to be, "if that was true, why does this clause even exist", then I now turn the question back on you: if you could let harmless spells through your spell resistance without any action economy costs, why the heck would you ever need, want, or think you should drop your spell resistance? Anything you wanted to effect you would be harmless, by definition, since you wanting it would mean it was beneficial.

My proposed rule change would affect only those spells that are explicitly identified as "(harmless)" in their "Saving Throw" line. It would not affect spells that are not so labeled.

For example, suppose you have spell resistance, but you want to be affected by the Enlarge Person spell. This spell is not explicitly identified as "harmless," so even under my proposed rule change, you would still have to take a voluntary standard action to lower your spell resistance. And this would still have the same consequence, namely being vulnerable to hostile spells until your next turn begins and your spell resistance reactivates itself. Under my proposed rule, nobody gets to pick and choose which spells are "(harmless)."