Pathfinder rules question about SR

[mehs]

My GM and I are disagreeing about a line in the book

"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."

My Dm is taking this to mean that monsters pretty much always have SR except against spells like create pit. That acid splash, acid arrow, mudball, etc all have SR if they target a creature with SR.

Im pretty sure that they were mistaken when they used web as a specific example. Thoughts?

[Crake]

My GM and I are disagreeing about a line in the book

"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."

My Dm is taking this to mean that monsters pretty much always have SR except against spells like create pit. That acid splash, acid arrow, mudball, etc all have SR if they target a creature with SR.

Im pretty sure that they were mistaken when they used web as a specific example. Thoughts?

Web was certainly a mistake to use in that example. It's pretty simple really, if a spell is affected by SR, it says SR: yes, if it's not, it says SR: no. That's really the end of it.

I actually just checked, and this is actually a 3.0 holdover, back in 3.0 web was SR: yes. The text there wasn't properly updated in 3.5, and then was carried over to pathfinder, again without being properly updated. Interestingly, many other effect spells that are now SR: no were SR: yes back then, such as acid arrow. It was mostly the conjuration effects that were changed to SR: no.

[mehs]

He is not accepting that it was an errata mistake on the grounds of that it is still not fixed in the errata. What do I do at this point?

[Elysiume]

He is not accepting that it was an errata mistake on the grounds of that it is still not fixed in the errata. What do I do at this point?What does he think Spell resistance no means in a spell block?

[Crake]

He is not accepting that it was an errata mistake on the grounds of that it is still not fixed in the errata. What do I do at this point?

Just because it wasn't fixed in the errata doesn't mean that it can't be wrong. The evidence is pretty clear. Web used to be SR: yes when that example was written. It has since changed to become SR: no, so the example no longer applies. If he continues to argue, point him to the text explaining what SR: no means:


The Spell Resistance entry and the descriptive text of a spell description tell you whether spell resistance protects creatures from the spell. In many cases, spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place.

It doesn't really get any more clear cut than that.

[Elkad]

I'm really fond of the old way, where if a magic resistant creature leans on a Wall of Force, he just might fall through.

And all a Wizard could do vs a Golem was make the Fighter's job a little easier by slowing it down.


Sadly, fixing that is a giant undertaking. Be far easier to just play 1e.