PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Do Lower Spell Resistance and Spell Vulnerability stack?



Myou
2010-03-29, 03:59 PM
The two spells have identical effects (1 round casting time, Close range, One Creature, 1 minute/level, Fort negates, reduces target SR by 1 per caster level (max 15). Target takes a penalty on the save equal to your caster level.), but one is level 4, one is level 3, and they're from different books. Can they stack or not?

nargbop
2010-03-29, 05:45 PM
Up to your DM. Whichever spell you cast second is much less effective than the first. Example : a dragon with SR 25 versus a CL 15 caster. Assume it works the first time, and the dragon has SR 10, which means it basically has no SR anymore against you. Cast it again, and you gain nothing.
I don't recall if rolls vs. SR have the rule of 1 being an automatic failure.

On the other hand, if you are playing versus epic creatures with SR significantly higher than your CL, then the spells become very relevant. Again, ask your DM.

Zaq
2010-03-29, 06:36 PM
What books are they from? If one is from the Spell Compendium, it might be an updated version of the other, which means that it's the only one that's technically valid any more. Check the front of the spell compendium to see if it's on the list of spells that were changed.

Failing that, the exact wording might be necessary. D&D is weird about how penalties interact with each other... ability score penalties explicitly don't stack, but I don't know if other penalties are considered "untyped negative bonuses," or if they never stack at all, or what. Is the wording identical?

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-29, 08:48 PM
If the SC doesn't list both spells in the "Renamed Spells" section, they stack. If the SC does list them, use one and combo it with Assay Spell Resistance (+10 bonus to overcome SR).


Buy wands of the 4th level version anyway though. They take a -7 to the save, and it's a -7 penalty to their SR.

Myou
2010-03-30, 01:48 AM
Up to your DM. Whichever spell you cast second is much less effective than the first. Example : a dragon with SR 25 versus a CL 15 caster. Assume it works the first time, and the dragon has SR 10, which means it basically has no SR anymore against you. Cast it again, and you gain nothing.
I don't recall if rolls vs. SR have the rule of 1 being an automatic failure.

On the other hand, if you are playing versus epic creatures with SR significantly higher than your CL, then the spells become very relevant. Again, ask your DM.

Yeah, it's for higher level creatures that I want to be able to use both.


What books are they from? If one is from the Spell Compendium, it might be an updated version of the other, which means that it's the only one that's technically valid any more. Check the front of the spell compendium to see if it's on the list of spells that were changed.

Failing that, the exact wording might be necessary. D&D is weird about how penalties interact with each other... ability score penalties explicitly don't stack, but I don't know if other penalties are considered "untyped negative bonuses," or if they never stack at all, or what. Is the wording identical?

I didn't think of that, but looking now it seems that that is not the case - so I guess both spells are valid!

The wording is identical, but they both say not that they impose any kind of penalty, just that each "reduces the subjectís spell resistance". Sounds stackable, no?


If the SC doesn't list both spells in the "Renamed Spells" section, they stack. If the SC does list them, use one and combo it with Assay Spell Resistance (+10 bonus to overcome SR).


Buy wands of the 4th level version anyway though. They take a -7 to the save, and it's a -7 penalty to their SR.

So, we can agree that they stack?
Also, did the rules compedium makes wands require the same action as the spell they're based on?