Spell Resistance (Su): is this an error?

[Jowgen]

Both the SRD and Rules Compendium are pretty clear: Spell Resistance is an (Ex) ability.

Yet, a cursory glance reveals a bunch of isolated instances where descriptions have Spell Resistance as an (Su) ability, both pre and post 3.5.

So what gives?

Anybody got any insight on what the reasoning might be?

Can (Su) SR exist, or do the RC and SRD in fact function as errata for any such instances?

[Palanan]

Can you give examples of these instances?

And is there any pattern to the exceptions?

[Kaiwen]

On one level, specific trumps general, so all those entries with SR (Su) do indeed have supernatural spell resistance.

On another level, WotC's track record at editing 3e/3.5 books is the opposite of fantastic, and the supernatural SR is likely intended to be extraordinary and were just written by forgetful/insufficiently pedantic authors.

What your DM does likely just comes down to whether they prefer RAW/quirkiness or RAI/consistency.

[Jowgen]

Can you give examples of these instances?

And is there any pattern to the exceptions?

It seems to be PrCs for the most part.

Initate of Draconic Mysteries, from Draconomicon. Glorious Servitor from Lost Empires of Faerun. Incantifier from Dragon 339. Defiant, Ur-Priest Healer and Skylord (PlH, MH, & BoED) each have it, although there are some variations from the norm with those.

Monster Wise, there's 2 in MM2 (unsurprising) for Monster of Legend and Death Knight. Stormreach has an advanced Behir that gets Su reflective spell resistance, though at that point it's quite different.

And I am pretty sure that covers it.

Only 3 PrCs that definitely get bog-standard SR with no alterations to the norm but its SU, and 2 monsters from a 3e book.

Considering the only book with 2 examples is MM2, could it be that the SR=Ex thing is a 3.5 rule that they just happened to miss with a couple of PrCs?

[Psyren]

Can (Su) SR exist, or do the RC and SRD in fact function as errata for any such instances?

As stated, specific trumps general. If an entry has Su SR, then that's what it is. (Given that you can even get SR from a spell this isn't that surprising.)

[Zanos]

As stated, specific trumps general. If an entry has Su SR, then that's what it is. (Given that you can even get SR from a spell this isn't that surprising.)
The SR granted from that spell would be Ex, ironically.

[Ashtagon]

The more interesting question is, exactly what are the corner-cases where this makes a practical difference?

[Kelb_Panthera]

The more interesting question is, exactly what are the corner-cases where this makes a practical difference?

Tome of Magic has a couple spells that temporarily and permanently remove a supernatural ability that can target the Su version of SR.

That's all I can think of, really.

[Zanos]

Some effects that change forms grant abilities depending on whether they're (Su) or (Ex).

There's various ways to remove abilities of specific ability types. I believe there's an association benefit that lets you suppress an (Ex) ability, and ability rip only targets (Su) abilities.

If a monster has (Su)Spell Resistance it would be supressed in an antimagic field. There's a couple ways to cast into an AMF, and those spells would then not have to roll against the creatures suppressed SR.

So not a whole lot of difference.

[Psyren]

The SR granted from that spell would be Ex, ironically.

Perhaps nominally - but in practical terms it would still be dispellable, suppressed in an AMF, detectable by detect magic etc.



If a monster has (Su)Spell Resistance it would be supressed in an antimagic field. There's a couple ways to cast into an AMF, and those spells would then not have to roll against the creatures suppressed SR.


Most of those spells (instantaneous conjurations) ignore SR anyway, like orbs. I always saw that as the whole point - they ignore SR and AMF alike because you're conjuring something "real" and then tossing it.

[Zanos]

Most of those spells (instantaneous conjurations) ignore SR anyway, like orbs. I always saw that as the whole point - they ignore SR and AMF alike because you're conjuring something "real" and then tossing it.
No, I mean things like invoke magic and initiate of Mystra.

[Jack_Simth]

The more interesting question is, exactly what are the corner-cases where this makes a practical difference?
An Initiate of Mystra that's using an Antimagic Field would do it.