RAI rules help: Bonus HP from Temp CON, SR vs Divinations, action swapping etc.

[Zancloufer]

So I've encountered a few things that I'm not 100% certain how to rule in my current game. Especially in the case where the RAW either is strangely absent or just plain makes no sense.


1st: Bonus HP from a Temporary Constitution increase: I have an idea here but it still doesn't make sense. The Barbarian Rage somewhat explains it, but it still falls flat. Bonus HP from a Temp CON score increase is not the same as some bonus HP, ie "it doesn't get lost first". What I don't get is what happens to the current HP as the max HP increases/decreases. The way I read it is that current HP stays the same when the CON goes up, and the current HP does, well it doesn't say. If we assume the current HP drops by the amount (or even percent) that the max HP does when the buff runs out, buffing your CON can literally cause you HP damage. I suppose the easiest way would be the the MAX HP increases/decreases and the current only drops if its above max, but still not 100% certain.


2nd: Divination vs SR. Someone tries, let's say detect alignment. There is an Evil Succubus within range, but mad hidden themselves mundanely (+18 Hide). Said Succubus has SR 18 and resists the spell. Therefore the Divination fails right? No indication of where it is, or even if there is anything out there? Would the same thing apply to something like True-sight vs invisibility?


3rd: Action swapping. Okay, not the best wording but title word limits. You have three actions in a round: A Standard Action, which is usually a Spell, Attack or major item use. A Move action, which is usually moving/jumping/swimming/prancing though can be some item or spell uses. A swift action, which is something quick, like a quicken spell/SLA, a fast slight of hand etc. Finally the Full-Round action, which is the Move + Standard action (can still swift).

All correct right? So is there any RAW, or even RAI reason to not let someone use a "bigger action" to do something they normally can't. Like use a Standard Action to preform something that is usually swift or move action, or use a move action on something that is usually swift. Asking this as in my current game I am running players have A LOT of actions that are swift or move (same with a number of NPCs and enemies). I just don't see the advantage in saying "You can use this ability OR move" instead of "If you want to use this ability and move you can, but you'd have to spend your standard actions on one of those". Brings about more tactical diversity.

[Necroticplague]

1st: Bonus HP from a Temporary Constitution increase: I have an idea here but it still doesn't make sense. The Barbarian Rage somewhat explains it, but it still falls flat. Bonus HP from a Temp CON score increase is not the same as some bonus HP, ie "it doesn't get lost first". What I don't get is what happens to the current HP as the max HP increases/decreases. The way I read it is that current HP stays the same when the CON goes up, and the current HP does, well it doesn't say. If we assume the current HP drops by the amount (or even percent) that the max HP does when the buff runs out, buffing your CON can literally cause you HP damage. I suppose the easiest way would be the the MAX HP increases/decreases and the current only drops if its above max, but still not 100% certain.
If your CON score increases, both your maximum and current HP are changed based on the new score. However, this process also reverses itself if you lose the CON bonus.

So, let's say a level 12 barbarian rages. He was at 50/100 before. When he rages, his HP would jump to 86/136. Then, he takes 10 points of damage, leaving him at 76/136. Then he stops raging, leaving him at 40/100.



2nd: Divination vs SR. Someone tries, let's say detect alignment. There is an Evil Succubus within range, but mad hidden themselves mundanely (+18 Hide). Said Succubus has SR 18 and resists the spell. Therefore the Divination fails right? No indication of where it is, or even if there is anything out there? Would the same thing apply to something like True-sight vs invisibility? Detect Evil is SR:no, so is irrelevant to this question. You can't resist it.

Spell Resistance only effects spells that effect you. True Seeing does not effect you, it effects the person buffed with it (remember, target:touched. This touched target is the person the SR applies to. Note it's labelled harmless for a reason). So your SR wouldn't help you against someone with true seeing, but it could stop you from being buffed with true seeing.



3rd: Action swapping. Okay, not the best wording but title word limits. You have three actions in a round: A Standard Action, which is usually a Spell, Attack or major item use. A Move action, which is usually moving/jumping/swimming/prancing though can be some item or spell uses. A swift action, which is something quick, like a quicken spell/SLA, a fast slight of hand etc. Finally the Full-Round action, which is the Move + Standard action (can still swift).

All correct right? So is there any RAW, or even RAI reason to not let someone use a "bigger action" to do something they normally can't. Like use a Standard Action to preform something that is usually swift or move action, or use a move action on something that is usually swift. Asking this as in my current game I am running players have A LOT of actions that are swift or move (same with a number of NPCs and enemies). I just don't see the advantage in saying "You can use this ability OR move" instead of "If you want to use this ability and move you can, but you'd have to spend your standard actions on one of those". Brings about more tactical diversity.

It's flat out in the rules that you can use a Standard action to take a Move action, so nothing wrong there. There's technically nothing in the rules that allows you to convert Standards or Moves to Swifts, but allowing such is an exceptionally common houserule on par with monks being proficient with their unarmed strikes, Drown-healing not working, and LA or RHD only taking up one side of gestalt (i.e, so common, most people forget it's not actually a rule).

[Jeff the Green]

So I've encountered a few things that I'm not 100% certain how to rule in my current game. Especially in the case where the RAW either is strangely absent or just plain makes no sense.


1st: Bonus HP from a Temporary Constitution increase: I have an idea here but it still doesn't make sense. The Barbarian Rage somewhat explains it, but it still falls flat. Bonus HP from a Temp CON score increase is not the same as some bonus HP, ie "it doesn't get lost first". What I don't get is what happens to the current HP as the max HP increases/decreases. The way I read it is that current HP stays the same when the CON goes up, and the current HP does, well it doesn't say. If we assume the current HP drops by the amount (or even percent) that the max HP does when the buff runs out, buffing your CON can literally cause you HP damage. I suppose the easiest way would be the the MAX HP increases/decreases and the current only drops if its above max, but still not 100% certain.

Track damage, not HP. If your damage is equal to your max HP, you're staggered. If it's higher, you're staggered. If it's 10 higher, you're dead.


3rd: Action swapping. Okay, not the best wording but title word limits. You have three actions in a round: A Standard Action, which is usually a Spell, Attack or major item use. A Move action, which is usually moving/jumping/swimming/prancing though can be some item or spell uses. A swift action, which is something quick, like a quicken spell/SLA, a fast slight of hand etc. Finally the Full-Round action, which is the Move + Standard action (can still swift).

All correct right? So is there any RAW, or even RAI reason to not let someone use a "bigger action" to do something they normally can't. Like use a Standard Action to preform something that is usually swift or move action, or use a move action on something that is usually swift. Asking this as in my current game I am running players have A LOT of actions that are swift or move (same with a number of NPCs and enemies). I just don't see the advantage in saying "You can use this ability OR move" instead of "If you want to use this ability and move you can, but you'd have to spend your standard actions on one of those". Brings about more tactical diversity.

RAI, you can use either a Full-round or a move and a standard, and a swift (or immediate) on top of that. You can also swap a standard for a move.

And yes, there's a good reason to not be able to swap swift and move actions. Swift actions do more useful things; there isn't much to do with a move action but move or use it to full-attack. Plus, high-tier classes have even more useful things to do with their swift actions and less to do with their move actions, so you're effectively increasing their power.

I rule it to be Standard > Swift > Move, where you can go down the gradient but not up. That works mostly in martials' favor (which I prefer), even if it is a bit gamist. It makes a few things obsolete (Travel Devotion and that chronocharm, to be specific), but if a player really wants them I can always figure out a houserule to make them viable.

[Zaq]

It's flat out in the rules that you can use a Standard action to take a Move action, so nothing wrong there. There's technically nothing in the rules that allows you to convert Standards or Moves to Swifts, but allowing such is an exceptionally common houserule on par with monks being proficient with their unarmed strikes, Drown-healing not working, and LA or RHD only taking up one side of gestalt (i.e, so common, most people forget it's not actually a rule).

I agree with everything you've said except for the bolded part. It's not a good idea to allow a move action to activate a swift-action ability, since honestly, swift actions are usually more powerful than move actions. (Allowing a downgrade from move to swift also makes immediate actions really ugly.)

I do understand where the impulse comes from; if nothing else, 4e explicitly codifies that a move can be used as a minor (minor action = 4e swift action, basically, with a couple differences), but 3.5 allows no such thing, and I would argue that it's best to keep it that way.

[KillianHawkeye]

I agree with everything you've said except for the bolded part. It's not a good idea to allow a move action to activate a swift-action ability, since honestly, swift actions are usually more powerful than move actions. (Allowing a downgrade from move to swift also makes immediate actions really ugly.)

I do understand where the impulse comes from; if nothing else, 4e explicitly codifies that a move can be used as a minor (minor action = 4e swift action, basically, with a couple differences), but 3.5 allows no such thing, and I would argue that it's best to keep it that way.

This is correct, because the swift/immediate action in 3.5 is balanced based on the rules that say you can only do them once per round, whereas 4th Edition minor actions are balanced based on it being possible to do them once, twice, or even three times in a single round (but also they've been separated from immediate actions, which are their own action type in 4E).

[Zancloufer]

If your CON score increases, both your maximum and current HP are changed based on the new score. However, this process also reverses itself if you lose the CON bonus.

So, let's say a level 12 barbarian rages. He was at 50/100 before. When he rages, his HP would jump to 86/136. Then, he takes 10 points of damage, leaving him at 76/136. Then he stops raging, leaving him at 40/100.


Hmm. While that makes a fair bit of sense, it also implies that extra HP from bonus CON (or the like) are lost LAST. Suppose it is the easiest way to calculated HP changes though.



Detect Evil is SR:no, so is irrelevant to this question. You can't resist it.

Spell Resistance only effects spells that effect you. True Seeing does not effect you, it effects the person buffed with it (remember, target:touched. This touched target is the person the SR applies to. Note it's labelled harmless for a reason). So your SR wouldn't help you against someone with true seeing, but it could stop you from being buffed with true seeing.


Detect Evil is SR:No. Though that might be a dysfunction in it's self as it is a spell (Divination) that let's you detect evil even if you can't defeat their SR? Also same with True Seeing. Isn't magical Divination a magic effect made by a spell there fore should be shut down by SR or AMFs? I see the RAW argument, but it just seems silly that a buff that grants MAGICAL DETECTION ignores SR as the spell its self wasn't cast on the person with the magic resistance.




RAI, you can use either a Full-round or a move and a standard, and a swift (or immediate) on top of that. You can also swap a standard for a move.

And yes, there's a good reason to not be able to swap swift and move actions. Swift actions do more useful things; there isn't much to do with a move action but move or use it to full-attack. Plus, high-tier classes have even more useful things to do with their swift actions and less to do with their move actions, so you're effectively increasing their power.

I rule it to be Standard > Swift > Move, where you can go down the gradient but not up. That works mostly in martials' favor (which I prefer), even if it is a bit gamist. It makes a few things obsolete (Travel Devotion and that chronocharm, to be specific), but if a player really wants them I can always figure out a houserule to make them viable.

Well, a Standard action is always first, that's RAW and RAI. However a swift action is described as "taking a small amount of time". Also "No real uses for a move action"? Well, SRD says with a move action you can:


Move
Control a frightened mount
Direct or redirect an active spell
Draw a weapon
Load a hand crossbow or light crossbow
Open or close a door
Mount a horse or dismount
Move a heavy object
Pick up an item
Sheathe a weapon
Stand up from prone
Ready or loose a shield
Retrieve a stored item

That's more than "just moving". Also worth noting that with quick draw you can retrieve a hidden item with a move action instead of a swift. I don't see that many uses for a switf action, much less than a move action IMHO. Unless there is a bunch of swift action uses I don't know of.

[Necroticplague]

Detect Evil is SR:No. Though that might be a dysfunction in it's self as it is a spell (Divination) that let's you detect evil even if you can't defeat their SR? Also same with True Seeing. Isn't magical Divination a magic effect made by a spell there fore should be shut down by SR or AMFs? I see the RAW argument, but it just seems silly that a buff that grants MAGICAL DETECTION ignores SR as the spell its self wasn't cast on the person with the magic resistance.
Think of it this way: If you cast Bull's Strength on a friend, and that friend hits a monster with SR, do they get an SR check to take less damage? That's the same situation. Detect Evil doesn't effect the succubus in any way. It effect the caster, allowing them to see Evil energy in the environment. True Sight doesn't effect the people you look at in any way, shape, or form, it just augments your senses.


However a swift action is described as "taking a small amount of time". Also "No real uses for a move action"? Well, SRD says with a move action you can:



That's more than "just moving". Also worth noting that with quick draw you can retrieve a hidden item with a move action instead of a swift. I don't see that many uses for a switf action, much less than a move action IMHO. Unless there is a bunch of swift action uses I don't know of.

Except for the fact that many of those actions are either
1.various forms of inventory juggling that will typically require another one to be done, and are unnecesary if you already have things you will actually use in hand. And even when they do actually see some use, their typically just at the start of an encounter. For the other rounds, you're not gonna do much interesting with them.
or
2.things you typically do during time when time isn't in short supply (i.e, open and close doors, get on and off horses, mess around with inventory).

Swift Actions can use all kinds of special abilities, switch stances, initiate some boosts, and cast swift action spells (including quickened spells and Battle Blessing spells). While you won't see many in core (because swift actions weren't around back then), they get fairly common in the latter supplements. And swifts have a much better ratio of uses: actually useful uses than move actions do.

[XionUnborn01]

So I've encountered a few things that I'm not 100% certain how to rule in my current game. Especially in the case where the RAW either is strangely absent or just plain makes no sense.


1st: Bonus HP from a Temporary Constitution increase: I have an idea here but it still doesn't make sense. The Barbarian Rage somewhat explains it, but it still falls flat. Bonus HP from a Temp CON score increase is not the same as some bonus HP, ie "it doesn't get lost first". What I don't get is what happens to the current HP as the max HP increases/decreases. The way I read it is that current HP stays the same when the CON goes up, and the current HP does, well it doesn't say. If we assume the current HP drops by the amount (or even percent) that the max HP does when the buff runs out, buffing your CON can literally cause you HP damage. I suppose the easiest way would be the the MAX HP increases/decreases and the current only drops if its above max, but still not 100% certain.


2nd: Divination vs SR. Someone tries, let's say detect alignment. There is an Evil Succubus within range, but mad hidden themselves mundanely (+18 Hide). Said Succubus has SR 18 and resists the spell. Therefore the Divination fails right? No indication of where it is, or even if there is anything out there? Would the same thing apply to something like True-sight vs invisibility?


3rd: Action swapping. Okay, not the best wording but title word limits. You have three actions in a round: A Standard Action, which is usually a Spell, Attack or major item use. A Move action, which is usually moving/jumping/swimming/prancing though can be some item or spell uses. A swift action, which is something quick, like a quicken spell/SLA, a fast slight of hand etc. Finally the Full-Round action, which is the Move + Standard action (can still swift).

All correct right? So is there any RAW, or even RAI reason to not let someone use a "bigger action" to do something they normally can't. Like use a Standard Action to preform something that is usually swift or move action, or use a move action on something that is usually swift. Asking this as in my current game I am running players have A LOT of actions that are swift or move (same with a number of NPCs and enemies). I just don't see the advantage in saying "You can use this ability OR move" instead of "If you want to use this ability and move you can, but you'd have to spend your standard actions on one of those". Brings about more tactical diversity.


So temporary HP are basically a pool of damage you can ignore. After they're gone, you are still just as healthy as you are normally. When your CON increases, it changes what your actual max HP is. So if you normally have 50 HP and your CON increases to bring your max to 60HP, that's your new bar for what's healthy. So if before your CON increase, you had taken 25 damage, you're at half of your normal 50HP which means you're pretty beat up but when you get a CON boost, your MAX HP goes to 60HP and all of a sudden, you've got 25 damage with a max of 60, so you're above half health. Not by much but it counts. So that does mean that if you get to 60 damage, that means you have 0HP with your Con boost, so you can technically take partial actions but you'll take 1 damage the danger though is that if the effect that's boosting your Con ends, all of a sudden you've got 60 damage with a max of 50HP so instead of being at 0, you're at -10 and you're dead.


As others have said, the spell doesn't allow SR so you totally detect the succubus. It's been brought up before on the boards that some people disagree with that because of situations like the one you described but that is the RAW answer.


Again like others have said, there's way more power and versatility in a swift action that in move actions generally. I think part of this is because as 3.5 went on and more splat was added, they needed more places to put new abilities and stuff so they utilized the swift action. Because of this, limiting to one swift a turn is a pretty good rule, but sacrificing a standard for a swift if reasonable probably. Though Swift > Move in probably 90% of cases.

[Florian]

Detect Evil is SR:No. Though that might be a dysfunction in it's self as it is a spell (Divination) that let's you detect evil even if you can't defeat their SR? Also same with True Seeing. Isn't magical Divination a magic effect made by a spell there fore should be shut down by SR or AMFs? I see the RAW argument, but it just seems silly that a buff that grants MAGICAL DETECTION ignores SR as the spell its self wasn't cast on the person with the magic resistance.

Your interpretation would make SR, a very personal thing, akin to some kind of blanket anti magic aura.

Think about this: The wizard casts Magic Weapon on the fighters sword, who then proceeds to hit a Succubus with it. Does SR apply? No, because the spell does not directly target the Succubus.

[Jeff the Green]

However a swift action is described as "taking a small amount of time".

I'll grant you that. However, there's no real reason this needs to be the case. No swift actions (that I'm aware of) are real things you can do, so there's nothing preventing you from saying that they actually take slightly longer/more effort than moving 30'.


Except for the fact that many of those actions are either
1.various forms of inventory juggling that will typically require another one to be done, and are unnecesary if you already have things you will actually use in hand. And even when they do actually see some use, their typically just at the start of an encounter. For the other rounds, you're not gonna do much interesting with them.
or
2.things you typically do during time when time isn't in short supply (i.e, open and close doors, get on and off horses, mess around with inventory).

Swift Actions can use all kinds of special abilities, switch stances, initiate some boosts, and cast swift action spells (including quickened spells and Battle Blessing spells). While you won't see many in core (because swift actions weren't around back then), they get fairly common in the latter supplements. And swifts have a much better ratio of uses: actually useful uses than move actions do.

Exactly. You can shorten the list to:

Move.
Interact with a mount.
Direct or redirect an active spell.
Interact with an item.

The second applies to few characters. The third applies to even fewer, since most casters don't use many directable spells. The last ideally happens very little in combat or you find a way to make it not cost a move action (draw a weapon while moving, use wand chambers, get rapid reload). None makes much of a difference in battle and none is very interesting.

[Khedrac]

Well, a Standard action is always first, that's RAW and RAI.
You probably haven't misunderstood this, but it reads as if you have; so, to clarify:

Standard and Move actions can be taken in any order - either move then standard, or standard then move (or move then move).
(And the spring attack feat allows a specific case of a standard in the middle of a move action.)

[DarkSonic1337]

Can't you technically use your standard action to ready a swift action? It will end your turn (as per the rules of readying actions), but with a trigger like "at the end of my turn, do Y" then it could still be useful right?

[Florian]

Can't you technically use your standard action to ready a swift action? It will end your turn (as per the rules of readying actions), but with a trigger like "at the end of my turn, do Y" then it could still be useful right?

Nope, can´t do this. That is more or less the specific problem of some "builds", that you run out of swift actions to activate...

[KillianHawkeye]

Can't you technically use your standard action to ready a swift action? It will end your turn (as per the rules of readying actions), but with a trigger like "at the end of my turn, do Y" then it could still be useful right?

You could do this if your house rules already allowed for trading your Standard action for a Swift, but seeing as that's not in the official rules, neither is readying a Swift action.

[DarkSonic1337]

You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.


Swift Actions

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting or the activation of magic items; many characters (especially those who don't cast spells) never have an opportunity to take a swift action.

Maybe I'm just reading the rules too loosely, but this is what made me think that you can ready a swift action just like you could ready a free action.

[Zancloufer]

I'll grant you that. However, there's no real reason this needs to be the case. No swift actions (that I'm aware of) are real things you can do, so there's nothing preventing you from saying that they actually take slightly longer/more effort than moving 30'.

Exactly. You can shorten the list to:

The second applies to few characters. The third applies to even fewer, since most casters don't use many directable spells. The last ideally happens very little in combat or you find a way to make it not cost a move action (draw a weapon while moving, use wand chambers, get rapid reload). None makes much of a difference in battle and none is very interesting.

So maybe there is a large list of things that can you can use swift actions for, but off the top of my head most of them are:
Quickened/Swift spells. Though you can still only cast one per round, and they have some hefty Level/Duration penalties
Martial Boosts: You don't have that many prepared maneuvers anyway, plus buff to mundanes = good IMO.

Also worth noting in the game I am currently running uses a source (ToR) did add a number of SLAs that can be cast with Move actions, or allow you to use move actions more than you normally could. Maybe not to a huge extent, but it's there. Also there's very little if any casters so . . .


Your interpretation would make SR, a very personal thing, akin to some kind of blanket anti magic aura.

Think about this: The wizard casts Magic Weapon on the fighters sword, who then proceeds to hit a Succubus with it. Does SR apply? No, because the spell does not directly target the Succubus.

I'll also respond to the Bull's Strength point to. Those are buff that effect ONLY THE RECIPIENT. I know the magic is making them stronger, not actually interacting directly with the person with the SR. In those cases I know SR doesn't apply. What I am saying is that many Divination spells give you some sort of Magical/Supernatural Vision. I understand by bad RAW wording that (most) Divination spells work irregardless of SR/AMFs. However in a RAI/Common sense way does it actually make sense that magical/supernatural vision granted by a spell, which was cast by a spell caster who can't overcome the AMF/SR of the target, capable of actually detecting the target. Especially if the target is hidden in a way that defeats mundane detection.

So I guess the question is that if Divination is actually magic/supernatural therefore subject to suppression by AMF/SR. Also by this "Spell doesn't target/Allow SR" logic, would a spell that grants a user a Breath Weapon, SLA or other magical ability, mean said Breath Weapon/SLA/etc ignores SR as the spell cast didn't interact directly with the target?

[Florian]

I'll also respond to the Bull's Strength point to. Those are buff that effect ONLY THE RECIPIENT. I know the magic is making them stronger, not actually interacting directly with the person with the SR. In those cases I know SR doesn't apply. What I am saying is that many Divination spells give you some sort of Magical/Supernatural Vision. I understand by bad RAW wording that (most) Divination spells work irregardless of SR/AMFs. However in a RAI/Common sense way does it actually make sense that magical/supernatural vision granted by a spell, which was cast by a spell caster who can't overcome the AMF/SR of the target, capable of actually detecting the target. Especially if the target is hidden in a way that defeats mundane detection.

So I guess the question is that if Divination is actually magic/supernatural therefore subject to suppression by AMF/SR. Also by this "Spell doesn't target/Allow SR" logic, would a spell that grants a user a Breath Weapon, SLA or other magical ability, mean said Breath Weapon/SLA/etc ignores SR as the spell cast didn't interact directly with the target?

Well, SR has to do with the target having a spell cast on it that it resists. That literally means direct targeting.

The cases you talk about is activating a magic effect on somebody and a third arty resisting the use of said magic effect, a thing that is not covered by SR.

In a nutshell, SR is all about resisting to be the target, not resisting against the spell effect as it is.

[Necroticplague]

I'll also respond to the Bull's Strength point too. Those are buff that effect ONLY THE RECIPIENT. I know the magic is making them stronger, not actually interacting directly with the person with the SR. In those cases I know SR doesn't apply. What I am saying is that many Divination spells give you some sort of Magical/Supernatural Vision. I understand by bad RAW wording that (most) Divination spells work irregardless of SR/AMFs. However in a RAI/Common sense way does it actually make sense that magical/supernatural vision granted by a spell, which was cast by a spell caster who can't overcome the AMF/SR of the target, capable of actually detecting the target. Especially if the target is hidden in a way that defeats mundane detection.


True Seeing also only effects the recepient. Nobody else is effected by your True Sight in any way, shape, or form. It's merely augmenting your eyes and mental faculties so that it perceives onto the Ethereal, and see a bunch of other stuff. It reacts as much with the illusion as that Bull's Strength does with the person getting hit.

As for Detect Evil: It doesn't have anything to do with your senses. It doesn't give you a new one, doesn't augment your old ones. It just gives you information. It's rather like a geiger counter, merely reporting on the levels of Evil energy in an area. The Succubus is in no way involved, and neither are you. Heck, Detect Evil isn't even precise enough to tell you where the succubus is in the area (and you can get false positives with Evil magic items).



So I guess the question is that if Divination is actually magic/supernatural therefore subject to suppression by AMF/SR. Also by this "Spell doesn't target/Allow SR" logic, would a spell that grants a user a Breath Weapon, SLA or other magical ability, mean said Breath Weapon/SLA/etc ignores SR as the spell cast didn't interact directly with the target?
Yes. The spellcasting is magic, and you can't cast Detect Evil or True Sight in an AMF. Detect Evil won't give you any information on the auras inside an AMF, but I'm unsure as to why this would have any relevance to SR. True Seeing stops working if you walk into an AMF, but again, not sure this is relevant.

Also, sub-note, Supernatural abilities are effected by AMFs, but ignore SR. Based on most of this post, you seem to be making 3 mistakes consistently:
1. Not knowing how the relevant divinations work. You form a mental image of how they work that's not correct, than blame the text instead of correcting your mental image.
2. Conflating SR and AMFs as being closely related concepts, when they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
3. Assuming that magical=blocked by SR, which is flat out false (see also: Supernatural abilities ignore it).

[Psyren]

Maybe I'm just reading the rules too loosely, but this is what made me think that you can ready a swift action just like you could ready a free action.

In Pathfinder, swifts can explicitly be readied:


You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action.

I would presume the same is true of 3.5, it's just that swifts didn't exist when the PHB was printed.

[Aleolus]

Well, SR has to do with the target having a spell cast on it that it resists. That literally means direct targeting.

The cases you talk about is activating a magic effect on somebody and a third arty resisting the use of said magic effect, a thing that is not covered by SR.

In a nutshell, SR is all about resisting to be the target, not resisting against the spell effect as it is.

Does that mean then that if a creature with SR is in the area of an AOE that allows SR (like Fireball), but isnt being explicitly targeted, then their SR doesn't apply?

[Psyren]

SR applies to AoE. The fireball will still explode (potentially damaging other creatures or objects in the area) but the creature with SR has a chance to ignore it.

[Jeff the Green]

In Pathfinder, swifts can explicitly be readied:



I would presume the same is true of 3.5, it's just that swifts didn't exist when the PHB was printed.

Couldn't you prepare a swift to happen exactly when you ready it? That would be the same as using your standard to do a swift, though it'd have to happen at the end of your turn.

[Psyren]

Couldn't you prepare a swift to happen exactly when you ready it? That would be the same as using your standard to do a swift, though it'd have to happen at the end of your turn.

As written, yes - you could ready for a trigger that happens right after your turn ends and effectively get an extra swift per round by giving up your standard. For example, have an ally yell "Now!" as soon as your turn ends or something and use that as your ready condition.

[Necroticplague]

Does that mean then that if a creature with SR is in the area of an AOE that allows SR (like Fireball), but isnt being explicitly targeted, then their SR doesn't apply?

No. SR has several different conditions under which it checks for. The SRD entry itself pretty clearly spells it out.


When Spell Resistance Applies

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 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. Creatures can be harmed by a spell without 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.

When in doubt about whether a spell’s effect is direct or indirect, consider the spell’s school:
Abjuration

The target creature must be harmed, changed, or restricted in some manner for spell resistance to apply. Perception changes aren’t subject to spell resistance.

Abjurations that block or negate attacks are not subject to an attacker’s spell resistance—it is the protected creature that is affected by the spell (becoming immune or resistant to the attack).
Conjuration

These spells are usually not subject to spell resistance unless the spell conjures some form of energy. Spells that summon creatures or produce effects that function like creatures are not subject to spell resistance.
Divination

These spells do not affect creatures directly and are not subject to spell resistance, even though what they reveal about a creature might be very damaging.
Enchantment

Since enchantment spells affect creatures’ minds, they are typically subject to spell resistance.
Evocation

If an evocation spell deals damage to the creature, it has a direct effect. If the spell damages something else, it has an indirect effect.
Illusion

These spells are almost never subject to spell resistance. Illusions that entail a direct attack are exceptions.
Necromancy

Most of these spells alter the target creature’s life force and are subject to spell resistance. Unusual necromancy spells that don’t affect other creatures directly are not subject to spell resistance.
Transmutation

These spells are subject to spell resistance if they transform the target creature. Transmutation spells are not subject to spell resistance if they are targeted on a point in space instead of on a creature. Some transmutations make objects harmful (or more harmful), such as magic stone. Even these spells are not generally subject to spell resistance because they affect the objects, not the creatures against which the objects are used. Spell resistance works against magic stone only if the creature with spell resistance is holding the stones when the cleric casts magic stone on them.
Also, relevant to the OP, read the section about divination in that quote. Straight from the SRD itself 'these spells do not effect creatures directly'. It's perfectly RAI as well as RAW that SR doesn't prevent most divinations.

[Zancloufer]

One note on the Swift/Move action swap. If you allow a Swift Action to be used as a move action, couldn't you use a full-round action AND move. Or maintain a spell while moving and casting another spell etc.

Main note: Divination vs SR. I admit I did forget about the Supernatural abilities ignore SR. Also the blanket mention on Divination almost always ignoring SR. So it's not a dysfunction. On the whole "Supernatural Abilities ignore SR thing" isn't the magic immunity essentially infinite SR? So that means spells and SLAs that are actually supernatural abilities can harm golems and similar monsters as their magic immunity is infinite SR not an AMF effect?

On the golem note, spells that do extra damage/effects vs objects but have a way to ignore SR (SR:No or cast as Supernatural Abilities) would they do extra damage against constructs? I would think so as constructs are (almost literally) animated objects, but still.

Also does anyone know of a way to defend against Supernatural Abilities. Especially ones that do un-typed magic type damage. Especially ones that have no attack roll and/or save? I mean I could drop personal range AMFs on a bunch of monsters, but other than that. . .

[Florian]

One note on the Swift/Move action swap. If you allow a Swift Action to be used as a move action, couldn't you use a full-round action AND move. Or maintain a spell while moving and casting another spell etc.

Main note: Divination vs SR. I admit I did forget about the Supernatural abilities ignore SR. Also the blanket mention on Divination almost always ignoring SR. So it's not a dysfunction. On the whole "Supernatural Abilities ignore SR thing" isn't the magic immunity essentially infinite SR? So that means spells and SLAs that are actually supernatural abilities can harm golems and similar monsters as their magic immunity is infinite SR not an AMF effect?

On the golem note, spells that do extra damage/effects vs objects but have a way to ignore SR (SR:No or cast as Supernatural Abilities) would they do extra damage against constructs? I would think so as constructs are (almost literally) animated objects, but still.

Also does anyone know of a way to defend against Supernatural Abilities. Especially ones that do un-typed magic type damage. Especially ones that have no attack roll and/or save? I mean I could drop personal range AMFs on a bunch of monsters, but other than that. . .

Spells that create something and the creation having the ultimate effect, are pretty good against constructs. The spell "Snowball" is a very good example for this.
A golem is not an object, so anything that does extra damage vs. objects does not apply here.

[Psyren]

A golem is not an object, so anything that does extra damage vs. objects does not apply here.

Actually, this is one of the funny quirks of 3.5 - while constructs are usually not objects, golems have this line:


The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description.

Pathfinder as far as I can tell dropped this passage.

[Necroticplague]

On the whole "Supernatural Abilities ignore SR thing" isn't the magic immunity essentially infinite SR? So that means spells and SLAs that are actually supernatural abilities can harm golems and similar monsters as their magic immunity is infinite SR not an AMF effect?

On the golem note, spells that do extra damage/effects vs objects but have a way to ignore SR (SR:No or cast as Supernatural Abilities) would they do extra damage against constructs? I would think so as constructs are (almost literally) animated objects, but still.

Also does anyone know of a way to defend against Supernatural Abilities. Especially ones that do un-typed magic type damage. Especially ones that have no attack roll and/or save? I mean I could drop personal range AMFs on a bunch of monsters, but other than that. . .

Yes on the first question. Magic Immunity is simply infinite SR.

As for the second........huh? Spells, SLAs, and Supernatural Abilities are all entirely different categories. You can't be two at one, and more than something can be a spell and an extraordinary ability both at once. However, the essence of the question is 'yes'., Supernatural abilities ignore Spell Immunity.

A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome. Sometimes spell immunity is conditional or applies to only spells of a certain kind or level. Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity.

Nope, they don't. By definition, golems are Creatures, not objects (the definition being, having Wisdom and Charisma means you're a creature, lacking either means you lack both and are an object). However, there tends to be a bit of overlap between 'more effective against objects' and 'more effective against constructs' because many things that lay out effects for one also have a note on the other.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as 'untyped magic damage'. Regardless, how you defend against it will change depending on what the ability does. If it's not a force effect, being ethereal should go a long way. But there's no blanket 'this stops all supernatural abilities' (other than AMF, and by extension, Antimagic Ray), just as there's no blanket 'this stops all spells' (including AMFs. instantaneous conjuration (creation) still works in AMFs if you cast outside it).