Results 1 to 30 of 35
Thread: (Harmless) Spells
-
2009-06-02, 02:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
(Harmless) Spells
I was reading over Spell Resistance and I discovered a section that stated that you could lower SR as a Standard Action. Would it be necessary to lower Spell Resistance against a Harmless Spell? If this is true, than does that mean that every time a team mate casts Cure on the party I have to roll to see if I resist the effect? If Spell Resistance counts all the time, than what the heck is the point of the Harmless descriptor?
Best of luck
-Eddie
-
2009-06-02, 02:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- I wish I knew...
- Gender
Re: (Harmless) Spells
The target creature must be harmed, changed, or restricted in some manner for spell resistance to apply.SpoilerQuite possibly, the best rebuttal I have ever witnessed.
Joker Bard - the DM's solution to the Batman Wizard.
Takahashi no Onisan - The scariest Samurai alive
Incarnum and YOU: a reference guide
Soulmelds, by class and slot: Another Incarnum reference
Multiclassing for Newbies: A reference guide for the rest of us
My homebrew world in progress: Falcora
-
2009-06-02, 02:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
-
2009-06-02, 02:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- I wish I knew...
- Gender
Re: (Harmless) Spells
Sorry, but you are incorrect.
The SRD says:
Abjuration
The target creature must be harmed, changed, or restricted in some manner for spell resistance to apply.SpoilerQuite possibly, the best rebuttal I have ever witnessed.
Joker Bard - the DM's solution to the Batman Wizard.
Takahashi no Onisan - The scariest Samurai alive
Incarnum and YOU: a reference guide
Soulmelds, by class and slot: Another Incarnum reference
Multiclassing for Newbies: A reference guide for the rest of us
My homebrew world in progress: Falcora
-
2009-06-02, 02:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: (Harmless) Spells
Actually, the SRD states two completely contradictory things about failing saving throws on purpose and about voluntarily accepting SR spells. So either side can quote the SRD.
Basically, you have to choose. Were I you, or your DM, I'd argue that allowing harmless spells is fine without spending a standard action, as per: "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."
"The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws."
Harmless: "The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires."
So in fact, if you have spell resistance, you may attempt a spell resistance if you desire.
Whatever that means.
-
2009-06-02, 03:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
Re: (Harmless) Spells
The text you are quoting is from section designed to give an idea on whether or not spell resistence should apply to an abjuration spell in a general sense. Above it notes that each spell specifically states whether spell resistence applies. The text I quoted explains how someone with spell resistence must act if they wish to be effected by a spell cast on them that is effect by SR. It's quite clear really.
+++Divide by Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe and Reboot+++
-
2009-06-02, 03:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
Re: (Harmless) Spells
The part of the SRD you quoted was a general guideline for whether a newly created abjuration spell would check for SR. Curing is neither abjuration, nor a newly created rules mechanic. Conjuration has some wacky interactions with SR, but the cure line of spells is clearly resistable.
RAW, you have to drop your resistance as a standard action. Probably has something to do with how saves are made by the character, while SR is checked by the caster. It's not a bad houserule to allow a character to freely and selectively let certain spells pass, but you have to really torture logic to argue that's what the books say.
-
2009-06-02, 04:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: (Harmless) Spells
Did no one at all read my description of how the harmless tag works with spell resistance?
-
2009-06-02, 05:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- The Land of Angles
-
2009-06-02, 05:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: (Harmless) Spells
Why would a spell where spell resistance always applied say "Spell Resistance: Yes (Harmless)"?
If it says No, no spell resistance, if it says yes, spell resistance. Since any creature with spell resistance can at any time choose to take a standard action to lower it's Spell resistance for all spells, the only logical conclusion is that the (harmless) tag exists to delineate choices you can make. IE, if you are an undead with SR, you might choose to take it. If you are a normy, you probably don't.
-
2009-06-02, 05:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- The Land of Angles
Re: (Harmless) Spells
I'm not sure you quite understand the side of the fence I'm sitting on.
If it says "Spell Resistance: Yes (Harmless)", spell resistance always applies. But you can lower it - just like you can when it's just "Spell Resistance: Yes".
The (Harmless) is a clue to the player/DM that, yes, you want to lower your SR here.
-
2009-06-02, 05:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
-
2009-06-02, 05:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: (Harmless) Spells
All (harmless) means is that it's generally a good idea to lower SR against the spell. It doesn't actually change the fact that you must take a standard action to voluntarily lower your SR (SR is actually a double-edged sword - you can't have your cake and eat it).
If you read the description of the descriptor, it's relatively clear:
The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.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 such a case, you do not need to make the caster level check described above.
Or discovering that you heal from acid damage for some reason and casting Acid Immunity on you to prevent you healing by jumping in an acid vat.
How this interacts with the guidelines on when it might be advisable to disallow SR for a spell that normally permits it is irrelevant.
Here is the main use of the guidelines you quoted:
Originally Posted by SRD
These guidelines do not get around the rule that states very clearly that the harmless descriptor means nothing apart from as a reminder that the spell is normally beneficial. What they do tell you is that golems aren't immune to cave-ins caused by casting a lightning bolt at the ceiling.
Unless you're telling me that there is some doubt about whether the spell effect is direct or indirect in this instance.Last edited by lesser_minion; 2009-06-02 at 06:07 AM.
-
2009-06-02, 10:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: (Harmless) Spells
The contradiction is with the statement:
"Harmless: The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a spell resistance if it desires."
If it desires would indicate that if it does not desire it does not have to. This does not require an action.
Unless you think it also takes a standard action to not save against cure light wounds.Last edited by Dark_Scary; 2009-06-02 at 10:26 AM.
-
2009-06-02, 10:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: (Harmless) Spells
You're making that up. The mechanic of how a character implements "if it desires" is very well explained in the rules.
A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless.
-
2009-06-02, 10:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- atlanta... sometimes
- Gender
-
2009-06-02, 11:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
Re: (Harmless) Spells
For what it's worth, I've always played that SR attempts to block all spells and psionics (I use transparancy), regardless of whether it's helpful or not. That seems to be the intent of the rules, IMO. There even a feat in Drow of the Underdark called Reactive Resistance that lets you lower your Spell Resistance as an Immediate Action (and it returns to normal at the start of your next turn automatically). The presumed point is that if you want to lower your SR to get healed in the middle of combat, you don't have to spend a Standard Action to do so. If the Harmless modifier allowed you to bypass SR at your option, there would be no reason to include the ability to lower SR in the rules.
-
2009-06-02, 11:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: (Harmless) Spells
When I DM I just rule that it's the character's choice; to allow a harmless spell through or not.
The idea of needing to actively lower your spell resistance to allow a heal... just seems silly honestly; at least if it's something innate to your species. I can kinda understand it more if it's an outside effect, like a spell; then it's a power you may not have total control over.
However if you're a Drow (for instance), and you've had Spell Resistance from the get-go... it seems to me that it'd be fairly reflexive.
That said, I tend not to worry about RAW when things like this come up. The rules are helpful, but if they become illogical or convoluted (or even just get to the point where they're more annoying to the player and DM than they are helpful) - then the rules need to go.
Obviously your mileage may vary in this regard; but I've personally never come across a situation where someone having to lower their spell resistance for a beneficial spell would enhance the game in any way.
(I can think of a few dramatic circumstances specifically constructed based on this; but those are pretty narrow, and ultimately can be fudged if the plot requires it.)
That's just me of course.Computer is back! Yay!
Feel free to check out my Deviantart page - it's not great, but I'm trying to change that.
Current avatar by me <>_<> Needs work.
Previous Avatars:
-
2009-06-02, 01:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
Re: (Harmless) Spells
Err...yes there would be. There needs to be a way to circumvent SR the same way there needs to be a way to circumvent having to roll saves.
Anyways, has anyone bothered to read the cure light wounds spell itself?
"Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage."
The oddity here is the usage of the word "can". Can indicates a possibility, not a certainty. It implies a choice. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a will save, but it does not have to do either one.
(The rule should probably read "An undead creature will apply (or applies) spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage")
The interpretation of that line in the cure spell muddles the waters even more since the specific description of the spell trumps the general rule (whatever that is).
Really, you should just have your DM houserule it.Last edited by Theodoriph; 2009-06-02 at 01:41 PM.
-
2009-06-02, 01:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
Re: (Harmless) Spells
No, he didn't insert it really. The SRD does say that "The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws.", which allows you to substitute the concept of spell resistance for the concept of a saving throw in those descriptions.
I think that's the idea he's trying to communicate anyway.
-
2009-06-02, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: (Harmless) Spells
No, the SRD told me to put it there. It says very explicitly, "The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws."
This makes absolutely no sense of any kind and why do people keep saying this crazy talk?
There are two possibilities:
1) Harmless spells allow the target to not use their SR against the spell.
2) Harmless spells are exactly like SR: Yes spells without the harmless tag in every conceivable way.
One of these represents including an ability for absolutely no reason. The other one does not.
Yet three people have said that it makes no sense to include "SR: Yes (Harmless)" if you can choose to apply SR.
They are totally wrong.
It only makes sense to include the harmless tag in the game if you can choose to take it at your option.
-
2009-06-02, 01:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: (Harmless) Spells
The way I see it, spells that are defined as harmless, yet allow spell resistance, or some form of negation, are often possibly NOT harmless, depending on the creature. This is to prevent too easy 'Revive Kills Zombies' type scenarios. For example, using Heal on undead, or Remove Blindness on some clerics of Gruumsh who pluck one eye out to gain power.
Some PCs can get spell resistance, and that is why there is rules for lowering it voluntarily.
-
2009-06-02, 02:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
Re: (Harmless) Spells
Spell Resistance must be voluntarily lowered before you can be affected by even a friendly spell. Why else would the option to lower it even be present? If it let buffs through unconditionally and only blocked debuffs, there would be no reason to ever suppress it.
The abjuration bit refers to the fact that some abjurations directly interfere with the subject in some way, and so can be blocked by its spell resistance. For example, Forbiddance and Dismissal are subject to this.
-
2009-06-02, 02:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
Re: (Harmless) Spells
I once read that the only reason why there are no massive computer games that follow strict DnD rules is that "most modern computers would explode from the rule contradictions." This statement seems to make sense now.
It's the reason why (Harmless) is there that is seriously throwing me off. Take for example Polymorph: the spell offers no SR but it states that the creature must be willing to accept the transformation. If it was just going to come down to that someone could accept the change to their body, than what is the point of the (Harmless) tag?
-
2009-06-02, 02:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
Re: (Harmless) Spells
I'm not sure I understand your question; Polymorph doesn't have the (Harmless) tag. It offers no save or resistance because it can only be used on willing targets.
-
2009-06-02, 03:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
Re: (Harmless) Spells
The following errors occurred with your search:
1. This forum requires that you wait 300 seconds between searches. Please try again in 306 seconds.
-
2009-06-02, 05:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
Re: (Harmless) Spells
Well, the question is that "Does Polymorph only work on willing targets because of no SR" or "Does Polymorph offer no SR because it only works on living target?" My wording is terrible, but I basically mean that why would they bother putting in the (Harmless) tag if they were going to allow some spells to completely avoid friendly SR by allowing them to accept the spell. So I am able to accept someone casting a Polymorph on me but if they cast a Heal on me I can't accept it automatically?
I'm not trying to make any arguments, I was just wondering how y'all felt about it. I've read through it and I just have no idea.
Best of luck
-Eddie
-
2009-06-02, 06:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: (Harmless) Spells
You missed the part where it takes a standard action to lower your SR for all spells, and so in fact, under that crazy interpretation:
"SR: Yes" is in every conceivable way exactly and completely like "SR: Yes (harmless)" and there is still not a single reason in the entirety of the universe for anything to ever have the harmless tag.
-
2009-06-02, 06:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
-
2009-06-02, 06:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
Re: (Harmless) Spells
Spells with (Harmless) just denote they can be cast on (and resisted by) UNwilling targets. For example, If I'm an evil wizard holding a princess hostage, I can gag her, tie her up and cast Invisibility on her to prevent the heroes from finding her. I'm not hurting her in any way, but she still might not want me doing that, hence she gets a will save to stay visible. Polymorph, on the other hand, cannot be used on unwilling targets period; therefore no save or resistance is necessary.
So, to answer your question, the lack of a save is because it specifies willing targets only.