OotA Pally vs elemental adept

[Feuerphoenix]

Hey guys,

Following Situation: a lv7 anchient pally fights against a dragon fire sorcerer with elemental adept (fire). Does the spell resistance get ignored by it or not?

[DivisibleByZero]

Pally aura grants resistance.
Elemental Adept ignores that resistance. Targets take full damage.

[Misterwhisper]

Hey guys,

Fowllowing Situation: a lv7 anchient pally fights against a dragon fire sorcerer with elemental adept (fire). Does the spell resistance get ignored by it or not?

Yes.

Resistance to magical damage is resistance.

It does not have to specify resistance to fire.

[Foxhound438]

i could definitely see ruling it either way; EA ignores resistance to damage of the type, rather than making spells you cast ignore resistance to damage if they deal that type... Personally to me, they're spending a feat to not have to worry about resistance, so it's probably fine to just say no resist here.

[DivisibleByZero]

i could definitely see ruling it either way;

It doesn't go either way.
One grants resistance. If you didn't have resistance, now you do.
One ignores resistance. If they didn't have resistance, now they do, and this ability ignores it so they no longer have it again.

[some guy]

It doesn't go either way.
One grants resistance. If you didn't have resistance, now you do.
One ignores resistance. If they didn't have resistance, now they do, and this ability ignores it so they no longer have it again.

One grants spell resistance, the other ignores fire resistance, those two resistances are not the same. That said, I have to agree with Foxhound438; if a player has a feat, it's worth it to make that feat worth something in this situation.

[DivisibleByZero]

One grants spell resistance, the other ignores fire resistance, those two resistances are not the same. That said, I have to agree with Foxhound438; if a player has a feat, it's worth it to make that feat worth something in this situation.

We're speaking specifically about a Fire Dragon Sorc. It's safe to assume that he's asking about fire damage via spell.
OotA grants resistance, EAdept ignores said resistance.

[some guy]

We're speaking specifically about a Fire Dragon Sorc. It's safe to assume that he's asking about fire damage via spell.
OotA grants resistance, EAdept ignores said resistance.

I know, but the difference is that OotA grants Spell Damage Resistance and EAdept [Fire] ignores Fire Resistance. OotA cares about the magicness of a spell, not the fieryness of a spell. Eadept ignores only Fire Resistance, not Spell Resistance (even if the spell used is a fire damage spell).

[DivisibleByZero]

I know, but the difference is that OotA grants Spell Damage Resistance and EAdept [Fire] ignores Fire Resistance. OotA cares about the magicness of a spell, not the fieryness of a spell. Eadept ignores only Fire Resistance, not Spell Resistance (even if the spell used is a fire damage spell).

Magical fire damage is a specific type of spell damage.
Spell = General
Magical fire = Specific

It's like saying that you have resistance to nonmagical weapons, and someone claims that their basic rapier does piercing damage so your resistance doesn't apply.

[some guy]

Magical fire damage is a specific type of spell damage.
Spell = General
Magical fire = Specific

Yeah, I can agree with the general beats specific clause.

[Arcangel4774]

It's hard to say.

Under resistances and vulnerabilities it suggest that all instances of resistance to a damage type count as one. They use the example of resistance to non-magic and resistance to fire only counting as one resistance to fire.

Under elemental adept, spells you cast ignore the resistance to damage of a chosen type.

I'd rule that the elemental adept would oveecome the paladins resistance to spells. If the other way, the addition of an elemental resistance (for example absorb elements) would weaken the paladin as both resistances would count as one and absorb elements would definitely be overcome by elemental adept.