Spell Resistance Rule [3.5] Mis-Written: A Modest Proposal

Here is what I propose. (I have already made this proposal in this thread, and two Playgrounders whom I respect and admire have already heartily rejected it. Yet hope springs eternal!)

1. If a spell is explicitly identified as “(harmless)” and is in fact harmless to you, it should not trigger spell resistance, which means that you should not have to take any action to lower your spell resistance against a “(harmless)” spell that is in fact harmless to you.

2. This is justified by the rules of the Player's Handbook v. 3.5, except for one that I believe must simply have been mis-written, because it conflicts with another rule that (to me) makes more sense, in context.

Here is how I defend my proposal. The following sentences, each of which expresses a rule, appear on page 177 of the Player’s Handbook v. 3.5 (2008), and also in this section and this section of the SRD. I will label them A, B, and C for the purpose of further discussion.

Rule A.

Quote:

---

(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

---

Rule B.

Quote:

---

The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws.

---

Rule C.

Quote:

---

A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless.

---

The third rule, C, conflicts with rule B when it is interpreted according to rule A. Therefore, I believe rule C was mis-written. It should read like this:

A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell not noted as harmless.

That's it. That's my proposal.

***

Preliminary Remarks (How I Defend This Proposal)

I. Concerning Rule A

I used to wonder why the rule writers ever added the word “(harmless)” to the "Saving Throw" line of any spell's statistics block. Can't we figure out for ourselves whether a spell is harmless or not?

Then it dawned on me: This designation is there not because a spell is necessarily actually harmless; indeed, in many cases, a "(harmless)" spell may actually be harmful for some creatures or in some situations. For example, consider how Cure Light Wounds spell, a “(harmless)” spell, affects Undead. A spell must not only be designated as “(harmless),” it must also be actually harmless to the affected creature in order for rule A to take effect. And what is rule A, really?

It’s only implied here, but it’s important: Rule A implies that unlike most spells that allow saving throws and affect creatures, spells that are both actually harmless and explicitly identified as “(harmless)” trigger no saving throw from any affected creature. You can make a saving throw against a spell of this kind if you “desire,” but this is not the default. The default, for a spell of this kind, is that the spell, simply because it is both actually harmless and explicitly identified as “(harmless),” triggers no saving throw.

This is why (for example) you never make a saving throw against the Cure Light Wounds spell when you're dying and unconscious and a comrade uses it to save your life, even though this spell explicitly allows a Will save. Indeed, if this spell were not actually harmless to you (because you're not Undead) and were not also explicitly identified as "(harmless)" in its "Saving Throw" line, your saving throw would be mandatory in this situation, because, being unconscious, you can't willingly forfeit your saving throw.

II. Concerning Rules B and C

If, as rule B says, "[t]he terms 'object' and 'harmless' mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws," then it follows that spells that are both actually harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" shouldn't trigger spell resistance, either.

This means that if you have spell resistance, you shouldn’t have to take a standard action to lower your spell resistance in order to be affected by a spell that is both actually harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)." This kind of spell simply doesn’t trigger spell resistance, just as it does not trigger saving throws. Therefore, you don’t have to suppress your spell resistance against a spell of this kind, just as you don’t have to suppress your saving throw in order to avoid making one against a spell of this kind. In either case, this automatic response simply should not be triggered.

If my interpretation of rule B is correct, then rule C cannot be correct as written. It should be changed as I have proposed above.

Further Remarks

My "modest proposal" doesn’t change everything. If a spell is harmless to you, but it is not explicitly identified as “(harmless)” in the “Saving Throw” line of the spell’s statistics block, then the spell still triggers your spell resistance. In order to avoid this, you still have to take a standard action to lower your spell resistance, which remains inactive until your next turn begins. Spells such as Calm Emotions, Enlarge Person, Plane Shift, Polymorph Any Object, Reduce Person, Resilient Sphere, Scrying, Seeming, Shadow Walk, and Veil still provoke your spell resistance, as usual, even if you would prefer that they wouldn’t, because none of these spells is explicitly identified as “(harmless).”

Even with respect to spells that are both actually harmless and explicitly identified as harmless – such as the Invisibility spell, for example, if you just don’t feel like turning invisible right now – you should still be able to apply your spell resistance if you “desire,” just as you should still be able to make a saving throw if you "desire." I would consider this to be an option that you can take without taking any action at all, provided that you are conscious. After all, choosing to make a saving throw against a spell that is both actually harmless and explicitly designated as harmless is probably also an option that you can take without taking any action at all, provided that you are conscious. Rule A doesn’t say for sure, but I think this is a reasonable assumption, since making a saving throw normally does not represent any action at all. “Desire” presupposes consciousness, I think, but it does not require any action.

So if you're unconscious, and the spellcaster ally of the brutes who knocked you out casts the Invisibility spell on you, you're out of luck, even with spell resistance, but if you're conscious and you don't want to become invisible right now, you always both apply your spell resistance and (if necessary) make a Will save, and neither requires any action.

So if you're the party's rogue, and the party's spellcaster wants to turn you invisible for a scouting mission, but you really don't feel co-operative right now, for role-playing reasons, you can resist being turned invisible as long as you're conscious. You can apply spell resistance if you have it and make a Will save if you must, and neither option requires any action at all.

Final Remarks

No, this is not a joke. Yes, I seriously believe the rule writers made a mistake here that they failed to notice for the better part of a decade. Unless, that is, somebody can convince me that rule C makes better sense, in context, as originally written than it does in the altered form that I have proposed here.

Okay, that’s it. I offer this proposal for your entertainment, your mental exercise, and your target practice. Fire away!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Urrel

Here is what I propose. (I have already made this proposal in this thread, and two Playgrounders whom I respect and admire have already heartily rejected it. Yet hope springs eternal!)

1. If a spell is explicitly identified as “(harmless)” and is in fact harmless to you, it should not trigger spell resistance, which means that you should not have to take any action to lower your spell resistance against a “(harmless)” spell that is in fact harmless to you.

2. This is justified by the rules of the Player's Handbook v. 3.5, except for one that I believe must simply have been mis-written, because it conflicts with another rule that (to me) makes more sense, in context.

Here is how I defend my proposal. The following sentences, each of which expresses a rule, appear on page 177 of the Player’s Handbook v. 3.5 (2008), and also in this section and this section of the SRD. I will label them A, B, and C for the purpose of further discussion.

Rule A.



Rule B.



Rule C.



The third rule, C, conflicts with rule B when it is interpreted according to rule A. Therefore, I believe rule C was mis-written. It should read like this:

A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell not noted as harmless.

That's it. That's my proposal.

***

Preliminary Remarks (How I Defend This Proposal)

I. Concerning Rule A

I used to wonder why the rule writers ever added the word “(harmless)” to the "Saving Throw" line of any spell's statistics block. Can't we figure out for ourselves whether a spell is harmless or not?

Then it dawned on me: This designation is there not because a spell is necessarily actually harmless; indeed, in many cases, a "(harmless)" spell may actually be harmful for some creatures or in some situations. For example, consider how Cure Light Wounds spell, a “(harmless)” spell, affects Undead. A spell must not only be designated as “(harmless),” it must also be actually harmless to the affected creature in order for rule A to take effect. And what is rule A, really?

It’s only implied here, but it’s important: Rule A implies that unlike most spells that allow saving throws and affect creatures, spells that are both actually harmless and explicitly identified as “(harmless)” trigger no saving throw from any affected creature. You can make a saving throw against a spell of this kind if you “desire,” but this is not the default. The default, for a spell of this kind, is that the spell, simply because it is both actually harmless and explicitly identified as “(harmless),” triggers no saving throw.

This is why (for example) you never make a saving throw against the Cure Light Wounds spell when you're dying and unconscious and a comrade uses it to save your life, even though this spell explicitly allows a Will save. Indeed, if this spell were not actually harmless to you (because you're not Undead) and were not also explicitly identified as "(harmless)" in its "Saving Throw" line, your saving throw would be mandatory in this situation, because, being unconscious, you can't willingly forfeit your saving throw.

II. Concerning Rules B and C

If, as rule B says, "[t]he terms 'object' and 'harmless' mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws," then it follows that spells that are both actually harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" shouldn't trigger spell resistance, either.

This means that if you have spell resistance, you shouldn’t have to take a standard action to lower your spell resistance in order to be affected by a spell that is both actually harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)." This kind of spell simply doesn’t trigger spell resistance, just as it does not trigger saving throws. Therefore, you don’t have to suppress your spell resistance against a spell of this kind, just as you don’t have to suppress your saving throw in order to avoid making one against a spell of this kind. In either case, this automatic response simply should not be triggered.

If my interpretation of rule B is correct, then rule C cannot be correct as written. It should be changed as I have proposed above.

Further Remarks

My "modest proposal" doesn’t change everything. If a spell is harmless to you, but it is not explicitly identified as “(harmless)” in the “Saving Throw” line of the spell’s statistics block, then the spell still triggers your spell resistance. In order to avoid this, you still have to take a standard action to lower your spell resistance, which remains inactive until your next turn begins. Spells such as Calm Emotions, Enlarge Person, Plane Shift, Polymorph Any Object, Reduce Person, Resilient Sphere, Scrying, Seeming, Shadow Walk, and Veil still provoke your spell resistance, as usual, even if you would prefer that they wouldn’t, because none of these spells is explicitly identified as “(harmless).”

Even with respect to spells that are explicitly identified as harmless – such as the Invisibility spell, for example, if you really don’t want to turn invisible right now – you should still be able to apply your spell resistance if you “desire,” just as you should still be able to make a saving throw if you "desire." I would consider this to be an option that you can take without taking any action at all, provided that you are conscious. After all, choosing to make a saving throw against a spell that is explicitly designated as harmless is probably also an option that you can take without taking any action at all, provided that you are conscious. Rule A doesn’t say for sure, but I think this is a reasonable assumption, since making a saving throw normally does not represent any action at all. “Desire” presupposes consciousness, I think, but it does not require any action.

So if you're unconscious, and the spellcaster ally of the brutes who knocked you out casts the Invisibility spell on you, you're out of luck, even with spell resistance, but if you're conscious and you don't want to become invisible right now, you always both apply your spell resistance and (if necessary) make a Will save, and neither requires any action.

Final Remarks

No, this is not a joke. Yes, I seriously believe the rule writers made a mistake here that they failed to notice for the better part of a decade. Unless, that is, somebody can convince me that rule C makes better sense, in context, as originally written than it does in the altered form that I have proposed here.

Okay, that’s it. I offer this proposal for your entertainment, your mental exercise, and your target practice. Fire away!

---

First of all I can say, that this has never come up in any game I have ever played. Meaning that Beneficial spell auto work, when cast by friendly party members. This, as I see, is not part of the rules, but that just the way we, without thinking about it, have been playing with it.

Now specifically to your post, I think your rule interpretation of A and B is correct. There are hundreds of mistakes, contradictions and exception to the rules throughout the books, that this might very well be the correct way of handling the rule.

As I see it, I think you are correct and that it would make sence that (harmless) spell do not trigger saving throws nor spellresistace, but that a willing target could contiously enact both if he/she wanted.

I don't think there is necessarily a misspelling. "Volunteering to let the spell affect you" and "using a standard action" are not mutually exclusive, so there is no conflict between B and C.

Regardless, your suggestion would still be a perfectly fine and understandable houserule. A clever DM also makes it reward NPCs in encounters just as much as the players.

Thank you for your responses. I'll reply to them in a moment.

I would like to make a correction in my first posting, because one of the examples I gave wasn't a good one.

My interpretation of what I call Rule A is: If a spell is both actually and explicitly identified as "(harmless)," then it doesn't trigger a saving throw from you. Therefore, the example that I used in the last paragraph of the "Further Remarks" section), in which I said it was necessary for you to "desire" to apply spell resistance and make a saving throw against the Invisibility spell, in a situation in which this spell was clearly harmful, was a bad example. I will strike it through and replace it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melcar

First of all I can say, that this has never come up in any game I have ever played. Meaning that Beneficial spell auto work, when cast by friendly party members. This, as I see, is not part of the rules, but that just the way we, without thinking about it, have been playing with it.

Now specifically to your post, I think your rule interpretation of A and B is correct. There are hundreds of mistakes, contradictions and exception to the rules throughout the books, that this might very well be the correct way of handling the rule.

As I see it, I think you are correct and that it would make sence that (harmless) spell do not trigger saving throws nor spellresistace, but that a willing target could contiously enact both if he/she wanted.

---

Thank you for this. When you say that in your games, you have always been allowing all beneficial spells automatically to work, I say that you've been effectively following Rule A all along. I believe most of us have been playing like this, but we haven't deduced from Rule A that there might have been something wrong with Rule C all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scipio_77

I don't think there is necessarily a misspelling. "Volunteering to let the spell affect you" and "using a standard action" are not mutually exclusive, so there is no conflict between B and C.

Regardless, your suggestion would still be a perfectly fine and understandable houserule. A clever DM also makes it reward NPCs in encounters just as much as the players.

---

My point is that, following Rule A, nothing voluntary has to happen in order for you to avoid making a saving throw against a spell that is both actually harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)." You don't have to take any action in order to avoid making a saving throw against a spell of this kind. You don't even have to be conscious. For example, when you're unconscious, a comrade can save your life by casting the Cure Light Wounds spell, knowing that there's no need for you to make a conscious choice to forfeit your Will save voluntarily.

My argument is that following Rule B, every spell that is both actually and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" should have the same effect on spell resistance as it has on saving throws. This means that you shouldn't have to do anything voluntarily in order to avoid applying your spell resistance against a spell of this kind. The spell should automatically work.

Your point about PCs and NPCs is well taken. My proposed change in the rules makes spell resistance more attractive to PCs, but also more advantageous to NPCs. I believe this is as it should be.

There is nothing extraordinary about the capacity to make saving throws, but spell resistance is supposed to be an extraordinary special quality. The benefits of spell resistance should far outweigh its drawbacks. It shouldn't happen too often that you have to take a standard action to suppress your spell resistance, and the inability to do so shouldn't be life-threatening except in very rare situations. For example, following my rule change, it's still a problem for you if you desperately need to return to your home plane, but you're unconscious and you can't lower your spell resistance so that your ally can use the Plane Shift spell to take you there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Urrel

There is nothing extraordinary about the capacity to make saving throws, but spell resistance is supposed to be an extraordinary special quality. The benefits of spell resistance should far outweigh its drawbacks.

---

This doesn't really follow. Pretty sure I can find you a whole mess of extraordinary special qualities that are just pure drawback. Offhand, I'll just go with orcish light sensitivity as an example.

Beyond that, I don't see any reason to think that this was an error. Harmless isn't a thing that grants the ability to not make saving throws. That's a thing a creature can always do. (Harmless) merely tells the targeted creature that the spell is totally cool, and that they should maybe not resist. By the same token, (harmless) doesn't grant creatures with SR the ability to not have SR on. (Harmless) merely tells the creature that they shouldn't resist, and the creature has to go through the normal standard action process they always do to not resist. In other words, (harmless) does the exact same thing for creatures with saves as it does for creatures with SR. Thus, even were rule C not explicitly stated, one would still need to manually lower SR in response to a (harmless) spell.

A real world alarm on a house protects the house from intruders. However, by it's nature, it also wards against people that may be wanted in the house, unless some alternate way to ignore or bypass the defense without deactivating it is used. Yet, without it, you use just your natural defenses, like walls and locks, which may not be enough to defend the house. And yet still, the house is still vulnerable to things that ignore those defenses entirely, like random cars or trees falling onto it.

Spell Resistance is exacty the same. It is a special defense used to protect you from spells. However, it will protect you from all spells, unless some alternate way for the caster to get past the spell resistance is used. Yet, without it, you just use your saving throws or armor class, which may not be enough against certain spells. And yet still, you are vulnerable to things that ignore spell resistance and that get past your saving throws. It's a trade off.

I believe that Spell Resistance was written exactly as it was intended to be, and entirely makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggynack

This doesn't really follow. Pretty sure I can find you a whole mess of extraordinary special qualities that are just pure drawback. Offhand, I'll just go with orcish light sensitivity as an example.

---

This is unquestionably true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggynack

Beyond that, I don't see any reason to think that this was an error. Harmless isn't a thing that grants the ability to not make saving throws. That's a thing a creature can always do. (Harmless) merely tells the targeted creature that the spell is totally cool, and that they should maybe not resist.

---

I don't interpret the rules for "(harmless)" spells in this manner, because I don't believe the creature affected by a spell of this kind has to make any conscious decision not to make a saving throw. Therefore, there is also no need for the affected creature to be "told" anything at all. Even an unconscious creature (such as the dying comrade mentioned above who makes no Will save against the Cure Light Wounds spell) automatically makes no saving throw against a harmless spell that is also explicitly identified as "(harmless)." No action, no decision, and therefore also no awareness is necessary.

(Indeed, the only awareness a creature has even of a hostile spell comes only when the spell takes effect (which may make it painfully obvious), or, alternatively, when the creature makes a successful saving throw against it, in which the creature feels that "hostile force or tingle" that the rules mention.)

A creature has to make a conscious decision not to make a saving throw only if the spell in question is not explicitly identified as "(harmless)." For example, if you know that your comrade is going to cast the Polymorph Any Object spell upon you for your own benefit, you can voluntarily forfeit your Fortitude save against this spell. This is a conscious decision and presupposes that you are aware of what is happening to you and that you consent to it. I don't believe voluntarily forfeiting your saving throw requires a separate action in cases like these, but I agree that voluntarily lowering your spell resistance does require a standard action, as stated in the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INoKnowNames

A real world alarm on a house protects the house from intruders. However, by it's nature, it also wards against people that may be wanted in the house, unless some alternate way to ignore or bypass the defense without deactivating it is used. Yet, without it, you use just your natural defenses, like walls and locks, which may not be enough to defend the house. And yet still, the house is still vulnerable to things that ignore those defenses entirely, like random cars or trees falling onto it.

Spell Resistance is exacty the same. It is a special defense used to protect you from spells. However, it will protect you from all spells, unless some alternate way for the caster to get past the spell resistance is used. Yet, without it, you just use your saving throws or armor class, which may not be enough against certain spells. And yet still, you are vulnerable to things that ignore spell resistance and that get past your saving throws. It's a trade off.

I believe that Spell Resistance was written exactly as it was intended to be, and entirely makes sense.

---

The analogy to house alarms is nice, on the one hand, because it illustrates the point that a creature affected by a "(harmless)" spell doesn't have to be aware of its harmlessness in order to respond to it appropriately. Whatever the alarm does is automatic, whether it ignores something or responds to it.

However, I don't believe spell resistance should be like an annoying car alarm that goes off even when it's not needed. Spell resistance does not protect you from all spells, and I believe it shouldn't be triggered by all spells, either. Every spell that is both actually harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" should avoid "setting off the alarm," just as it avoids provoking a saving throw.

I agree that spell resistance isn't a perfect "alarm system." For example, since the Enlarge Person spell is not explicitly identified as "(harmless)" in its "Saving Throw" line, I agree that you still have to take a standard action to lower your spell resistance in order to be affected by the Enlarge Person spell. Your spell resistance does not respond to your own preference to be affected by a spell of this kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Urrel

I have already made this proposal in this thread

---

TL;DR
Spell resistance is terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Urrel

I don't interpret the rules for "(harmless)" spells in this manner, because I don't believe the creature affected by a spell of this kind has to make any conscious decision not to make a saving throw. Therefore, there is also no need for the affected creature to be "told" anything at all. Even an unconscious creature (such as the dying comrade mentioned above who makes no Will save against the Cure Light Wounds spell) automatically makes no saving throw against a harmless spell that is also explicitly identified as "(harmless)." No action, no decision, and therefore also no awareness is necessary.

---

There's nothing about the (harmless) descriptor that overrides the general nature of saving throws. Your example of cure light wounds is irrelevant, as the spell only applies a save when it targets an undead, as denoted by the "see text" thereabouts. The overall point stands regardless though. Dropping saves requires no actions. Dropping SR requires an action. Nothing about (harmless) changes any element of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggynack

There's nothing about the (harmless) descriptor that overrides the general nature of saving throws. Your example of cure light wounds is irrelevant, as the spell only applies a save when it targets an undead, as denoted by the "see text" thereabouts. The overall point stands regardless though. Dropping saves requires no actions. Dropping SR requires an action. Nothing about (harmless) changes any element of that.

---

You would be indisputably in the right if the "Saving Throw" line of the Cure Light Wounds spell looked like this:

Saving Throw: None or Will half; see text

This would correspond much more closely to your interpretation of things. The word "None" would indicate that normally, the target of the Cure Light Wounds spell makes no save. The phrase "or Will half" would indicate that some creatures, as an exception to the general rule, may make Will saves to reduce the spell's effect by half. The phrase "see text" would refer us to the spell's description for details. And there's nothing about that description that you would have to change, either, in order for you to be indisputably in the right.

Of course, that's not what the "Saving Throw" line of the Cure Light Wounds spell looks like. It looks like this:

Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text.

Here's how I interpret this line. The word "Will half" means that generally, the creature targeted by the Cure Light Wounds spell makes a Will save, by default, with no action, decision, or volition required. However, the parenthetical word "(harmless)" means that a creature for which the spell is actually harmless makes no Will save, again by default, with no action, decision, or volition required. The spell's descriptive text makes it clear for which creatures the spell is actually harmless, and for which creatures it is actually harmful, so that the Will save becomes necessary. Beyond this, it explains what the word "half" normally means.

The presence of the parenthetical word "(harmless)" in the "Saving Throw" line of the Cure Light Wounds spell makes this spell very relevant indeed for my purpose, which is, in the first place (in what I call Rule A), to explain why this word is ever added to a spell's "Saving Throw" line in the first place.

One more thing. The reason that I chose the Cure Light Wounds spell as an example (despite its complications) is that it is a spell that often targets an unconscious creature, and because we all agree that this creature, despite being unable to make any kind of decision, nonetheless makes no saving throw against the spell. I agree with you that forfeiting a saving throw requires no action, but I disagree that a creature can choose this option without being conscious. The rules allow saving throws to be given up voluntarily. I believe anything voluntary requires consciousness.

As we all agree, making a saving throw doesn't have to be voluntary. You respond automatically to most spells that allow saving throws by making saving throws against them, and you do so by default, that is, even if you're unconscious. On the other hand, as we have seen, you respond to spells that are both actually harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" by automatically not making saving throws against them, even if you're unconscious. How is this possible? I account for this by explaining that it isn't the creature that makes the difference here; it's the spell that does it. A spell that is both actually harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" simply triggers no saving throw. Maybe a spell of this kind emanates nonthreatening vibes…?

But if this is the case, then those same vibes, I argue, should not trigger a creature's spell resistance, either.

The thread title led me to believe this would be about eating drow to gain spell resistance or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Urrel

snip

---

You are mistaken. See text means that you find what the save applies to in the text, and the text says that the save applies particularly to damage against undead. Actually, the SR line says see text also, and the SR is particularly stated to work with regards to undead also, so living folks with SR don't have to worry about that either. There's no real interpretation required.

On the point of unconscious folk, it doesn't look like there's anything that would allow folks to turn off saves, so they don't. Even if there is, and that's just the default, that's still a default that necessarily must be accessed manually if you have SR. It seems like will and fortitude saves would be passed or failed against normally, and reflex saves do the same, with a lower chance of successful passing.

I personally prefer SR to work on spells as-written. It makes healing in combat a pain in the ass, but if my DM decides to throw any evil outsiders at me I'm sure gonna call him on the use of their SLAs.

For example, take most of the Devils and Demons. The majority have Greater Teleport as a SLA. If that creature wants to use it though, it needs two rounds (first to lower SR, then to use the SLA). This defends against both the monsters spamming the ability to close in on the weaker party members, as well as allowing an opening through their SR to give the spellcasters a last shot at the enemy before it tries to escape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDL

I personally prefer SR to work on spells as-written.

---

I'm not really sure what this means, given that the things you say subsequent don't match RAW at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDL

I personally prefer SR to work on spells as-written. It makes healing in combat a pain in the ass, but if my DM decides to throw any evil outsiders at me I'm sure gonna call him on the use of their SLAs.

For example, take most of the Devils and Demons. The majority have Greater Teleport as a SLA. If that creature wants to use it though, it needs two rounds (first to lower SR, then to use the SLA). This defends against both the monsters spamming the ability to close in on the weaker party members, as well as allowing an opening through their SR to give the spellcasters a last shot at the enemy before it tries to escape.

---

Your spell resistance explicitly does not interfere with spells that you cast on yourself. So no, Devils and Demons do not need to lower their SR to use Greater Teleport without a roll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Douglas

Your spell resistance explicitly does not interfere with spells that you cast on yourself. So no, Devils and Demons do not need to lower their SR to use Greater Teleport without a roll.

---

Also because teleport is SR: no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggynack

You are mistaken. See text means that you find what the save applies to in the text, and the text says that the save applies particularly to damage against undead. Actually, the SR line says see text also, and the SR is particularly stated to work with regards to undead also, so living folks with SR don't have to worry about that either. There's no real interpretation required.

On the point of unconscious folk, it doesn't look like there's anything that would allow folks to turn off saves, so they don't. Even if there is, and that's just the default, that's still a default that necessarily must be accessed manually if you have SR. It seems like will and fortitude saves would be passed or failed against normally, and reflex saves do the same, with a lower chance of successful passing.

---

What you are suggesting is that the descriptive text of the Cure Light Wounds spell creates an option that the "Saving Throw" line does not mention. You may be right about that, but I doubt it.

After all, there are many, many other spells with the "(harmless)" label, and every one of them demonstrates that this label means just what I say it does, namely what I call "rule A": Contrary to the general rule, every spell that is both actually harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" triggers no saving throw, though a conscious creature may choose to make a saving throw if it wishes. The general rule, in contrast, is that every non-"harmless" spell that allows saving throws triggers them, though a conscious creature may choose to forfeit its saving throw if it wishes.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean in your second paragraph. As I see it, for an unconscious creature, everything that happens, happens by default, because there is never any possibility of making a decision or taking any action. But this supports my argument, which is this:

A. If every "(harmless)" spell switches off an unconscious creature's saving throw, and

B if spells of this kind "mean the same thing" for both saving throws and spell resistance, then it follows that

C. every "(harmless)" spell should switch off an unconscious creature's spell resistance as well.

I will admit that my perspective is heterodox. I will also admit that orthodoxy, in the best and most positive sense of the word, is generally preferable to heterodoxy when it comes to interpreting rules. The best mode of interpretation is always positive orthodoxy: it is to try to take every written rule at face value and to try to reconcile it with all other rules, so that no rule has to be left out, but all rules make sense together. Unfortunately for me, the rule that I call "rule C" cannot and will not make as much sense to me as the re-written rule that I have proposed, namely rule "opposite-of-C." And so I have become heterodox with respect to this particular rule. Surely, not everyone will want to follow me into heterodoxy, and I'm okay with that.

I think you are forgetting something important. When someone casts a spell, you do NOT know what that spell is about to do. If you use your skill rolls you might be able to identify the spell being cast and be sure it is safe to accept.

This has a major implication. The harmless descriptor is not something a character has any idea of unless they can identify the spell being cast with a skill check. I could say I am healing you, roll a bluff check, and cast Harm instead. Unless you identify my spell, you are left with the option of trusting my word and accepting the spell or trying to make a saving throw.

This applies to the debate here for the following reason: You do not know what a spell does unless you succeed on a skill check. Therefore you do not know a spell is harmless unless you succeed on a skill check. Therefore a harmless spell cannot automatically bypass natural defenses Unless you suppress them because your natural defenses have NO way of knowing the spell is harmless.

Ruling otherwise is a perfectly acceptable house rule. I've played both ways and both are fun and interesting. With regard to rule intent though, I think it is clear that SR is supposed to apply and my argument is the reason why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronikoce

I think you are forgetting something important. When someone casts a spell, you do NOT know what that spell is about to do. If you use your skill rolls you might be able to identify the spell being cast and be sure it is safe to accept.

---

This is correct, but I don't believe the rest of what you say is explicitly stated in the rules, or necessarily implied by them. Saving throws against hostile spells generally do not require any awareness of them, let alone positive identification. You are allowed, for example, to make a Will save against a Charm Person spell that is cast by an enchanter who uses both the Silent Spell feat and the Still Spell feat, so that you don't even notice that a spell is being cast.

I use the Charm Person spell as an example, because if your Will save against this spell fails and you are charmed, I don't believe you are even aware that you are charmed (or even if you are aware, you can't do anything about it until the charm effect is lifted). The rules explicitly require you to become aware of a secretly cast Charm Person spell only if your Will save against it succeeds, in which case you feel a "hostile force or tingle." Notice that in this case your awareness of a hostile spell only comes after your saving throw, not before. So awareness is not a pre-condition for making a saving throw; indeed, sometimes, making a saving throw is a pre-condition for awareness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronikoce

This has a major implication. The harmless descriptor is not something a character has any idea of unless they can identify the spell being cast with a skill check. I could say I am healing you, roll a bluff check, and cast Harm instead. Unless you identify my spell, you are left with the option of trusting my word and accepting the spell or trying to make a saving throw.

This applies to the debate here for the following reason: You do not know what a spell does unless you succeed on a skill check. Therefore you do not know a spell is harmless unless you succeed on a skill check. Therefore a harmless spell cannot automatically bypass natural defenses Unless you suppress them because your natural defenses have NO way of knowing the spell is harmless.

---

I believe saving throws are instinctual effects that happen involuntarily or reflexively, and in either case without any conscious thought. They are always automatic, and they always discriminate between spells that are harmless and those that are harmful. If I am the dungeon master and somebody tries to deny someone a saving throw by bluffing that a Harm spell is actually a Heal spell, I don't allow it to work. A Harm spell doesn't feel like a Heal spell; it feels harmful. One's instinct cannot be fooled about this, even if one has been misled beforehand to expect a helpful spell.

(You might fool a creature with spell resistance using a bait-and-switch bluff, because once a creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance, it stays down until the creature's next turn begins. But I would still allow this creature to make its saving throw against the spell, as usual. My proposed rule change would limit your options for bait-and-switch maneuvers, because it would give a creature with spell resistance no need to lower this defense with respect to "(harmless)" spells like the Heal spell. You would have to use some non-"(harmless)" spell, such as the Enlarge Person spell, as the "bait" to trick a creature into lowering its spell resistance.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chronikoce

Ruling otherwise is a perfectly acceptable house rule. I've played both ways and both are fun and interesting. With regard to rule intent though, I think it is clear that SR is supposed to apply and my argument is the reason why.

---

I'm not sure about any of this, except of course that I believe my proposal is indeed an acceptable house rule!

Under harmless it states "a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires". This would imply that a saving throw roll is a choice. If you are conscious then you are capable of choosing to resist an spell cast your way. You do not know a spell is harmful until after rather spells effects take place.

Furthermore note the following: "a creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack". You do NOT notice that a spell is harmful until AFTER you make your saving throw. This indicates you do not have prior knowledge that the spell was hostile.

If you knew the spelling was hostile you could choose to save vs it. However, the rules assume you always choose to save vs spells because any spell cast against your person is an unknown and possibly hostile force which your body naturally rejects. If you choose to allow the spell to effect you then you forgoe your saving throw.

"a creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result". You are willingly accepting the result of the spell which means the spell is cast, you choose not to save, the spell takes effect. You do not know what the spell does until it takes effect. At that point you have already forgone the save and must accept the effect.

Honestly, based on the responses you have provided so far I don't think further discussion has serious merit. You clearly have already decided that your version is superior to the rules as written. If your group prefers that version then by all means play that way.

I prefer to follow the rule as it has been written but I also DM for games that are quite serious and dangerous. My game world is quite unforgiving and my players love the challenge (although the other DM says I make everyone wildely suspicious on off weeks when we take a break and play his campaign world where everyone is honest and friendly and not at all scheming behind our backs at every turn).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenish

The thread title led me to believe this would be about eating drow to gain spell resistance or something.

---

If only D&D allowed you to treat magical creatures as consumable items, what a game it would be. Dragons flying around with bandoleers of adventurers they snack upon for a boost of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Urrel

What you are suggesting is that the descriptive text of the Cure Light Wounds spell creates an option that the "Saving Throw" line does not mention. You may be right about that, but I doubt it.

---

Why would you doubt that? It says see text. That's not descriptive text. It's fundamentally the text of the spell. Sometimes, saving throws apply to particular aspects of a spell and not others. In those cases, they often use the see text label, telling you that the specific mechanics of the saving throw are in the body of the spell. For another example, consider the classic spell call avalanche from frostburn. The saving throw line says, "reflex half; see text", similar to cure light wounds. In this case, the effect of the spell is damage plus burying, and while a lack of see text could imply a ridiculous half burying, the truth of the matter is that the reflex save negates that effect. When the spell tells you to see the text, that's what you do.

Quote:

---

After all, there are many, many other spells with the "(harmless)" label, and every one of them demonstrates that this label means just what I say it does, namely what I call "rule A": Contrary to the general rule, every spell that is both actually harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" triggers no saving throw, though a conscious creature may choose to make a saving throw if it wishes. The general rule, in contrast, is that every non-"harmless" spell that allows saving throws triggers them, though a conscious creature may choose to forfeit its saving throw if it wishes.

---

How do they demonstrate that?

Quote:

---

A. If every "(harmless)" spell switches off an unconscious creature's saving throw, and

---

This has not been proved to any sufficient extent. More to the point, it's completely unclear that, even if it happens, this is the mechanism being used. Specifically some magical off switch on the part of the spell in question. It could just be the spell telling the creature's body to default to this or that mode.

Quote:

---

B if spells of this kind "mean the same thing" for both saving throws and spell resistance,*then it follows that

---

Sure.

Quote:

---

C. every "(harmless)" spell should switch off an unconscious creature's spell resistance as well.

---

Nope. Spell resistance requires an active standard action to turn off from any state. There's nothing in harmless about the descriptor switching off anything,and even if it did, it would still take that active standard action on the part of the creature in question.

Quote:

---

I will admit that my perspective is heterodox. I will also admit that orthodoxy, in the best and most positive sense of the word, is generally preferable to heterodoxy when it comes to interpreting rules. The best mode of interpretation is always positive orthodoxy: it is to try to take every written rule at face value and to try to reconcile it with all other rules, so that no rule has to be left out, but all rules make sense together. Unfortunately for me, the rule that I call "rule C" cannot and will not make as much sense to me as the re-written rule that I have proposed, namely rule "opposite-of-C." And so I have become heterodox with respect to this particular rule. Surely, not everyone will want to follow me into heterodoxy, and I'm okay with that.

---

The issue with your path is that it makes no sense in the context of a game following the prevailing rule of "specific overrides general". I contend that rule C does not contradict any other rule, but even if it did, that would just be that line's fundamental purpose. It's very possible that the alternate rule is better for the game, but that doesn't make the original rule a mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggynack

Why would you doubt that? It says see text. That's not descriptive text. It's fundamentally the text of the spell.

---

I don't doubt the phrase "See text" at all, and I didn't mean to disparage or dismiss the main text of the Cure Light Wounds spell by calling it "descriptive." I hope I take this text as seriously as you do. However, I doubt that anything in the main text itself makes clear that no creature gets a saving throw against the Cure Light Wounds spell except for Undead. Indeed, the phrase "Will half" in the spell's Saving Throw line seems to indicate that every creature gets a Will save against it. Only the parenthetical word "(harmless)" in the Saving Throw line explicitly rules out this interpretation. (And it does so before the reader's eyes even reach the clause "see text.")

As I said, there are many spells with the word "(harmless)" in the Saving Throw line and (significantly, I believe) also in the Spell Resistance line. My proposal is based upon the notion that there is a reason for this. This, I believe, is that saving throws are not voluntary options that creatures can take even while they're unconscious, but in fact involuntary events that happen by default, unless a creature consciously chooses otherwise.

You and Chronikoce seem to believe, to the contrary, that saving throws are always voluntary options, even for unconscious creatures, simply because they don't count as actions. That's okay, but that's not what I choose to believe about nonactions and unconsciousness. I believe that while you are unconscious, you either make saving throws by default or don't make them by default, but you cannot change the default. You can change the default only while you are conscious.

• In other words, if a spell is both actually and explicitly identified as "(harmless)," then the default is that you make no saving throw. You can choose to make a saving throw anyway only if you're conscious, because this choice is voluntary and that requires consciousness.
• On the other hand, if a spell is of the normal non-harmless kind, the default is that you make a saving throw. You can choose to forfeit your saving throw only if you're conscious, because this choice is voluntary and that (in my opinion) requires consciousness.

This is how I choose to read all spells with the "(harmless)" indicator, and there are many of them. The Protection from Energy is another example. Here, there is nothing in the spell's main text that indicates that the spell's target makes no saving throw by default. Only the parenthetical word "(harmless)" in the spell's Saving Throw indicates this. Again, others may choose to say that even an unconscious creature who receives the Protection from Energy spell can unconsciously choose not to make a Fortitude save against it, but that's not how I choose to interpret the rules. I choose to say that the parenthetical word "(harmless)" in the spell's Saving Throw line is what makes the difference here. Since the Protection from Energy spell is of this "(harmless)" kind, it does not, by default, trigger any saving throw from the affected creature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggynack

This has not been proved to any sufficient extent.

---

I agree that I haven't proved anything, but I think I have provided some good circumstantial evidence for my point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggynack

More to the point, it's completely unclear that, even if it happens, this is the mechanism being used. Specifically some magical off switch on the part of the spell in question. It could just be the spell telling the creature's body to default to this or that mode.

---

This is how I imagine a spell works when it is harmless and explicitly identified as "(harmless)": the spell itself switches off a creature's saving throw. You may find this implausible, but I find it implausible that the creature chooses to switch off its saving throw even when it's unconscious. This is a clash of competing implausibilities!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eggynack

The issue with your path is that it makes no sense in the context of a game following the prevailing rule of "specific overrides general". I contend that rule C does not contradict any other rule, but even if it did, that would just be that line's fundamental purpose. It's very possible that the alternate rule is better for the game, but that doesn't make the original rule a mistake.

---

It's not clear to me what is specific here and what is general. Spells that are both actually and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" are a specific category of spells that allow saving throws. According to what I call rule A, spells of this kind make an exception to the general rule of saving throws, which is that if a spell allows a saving throw, then every creature affected by that spell makes one by default (and by necessity if the creature is unconscious and cannot forfeit its saving throw voluntarily). If rule C is changed according to my proposal, it becomes a general rule that explicitly refers back to, and therefore effectively contains, a specific rule, namely rule A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Urrel

I don't doubt the phrase "See text" at all, and I didn't mean to disparage or dismiss the main text of the Cure Light Wounds spell by calling it "descriptive." I hope I take this text as seriously as you do. However, I doubt that anything in the main text itself makes clear that no creature gets a saving throw against the Cure Light Wounds spell except for Undead. Indeed, the phrase "Will half" in the spell's Saving Throw line seems to indicate that every creature gets a Will save against it. Only the parenthetical word "(harmless)" in the Saving Throw line explicitly rules out this interpretation. (And it does so before the reader's eyes even reach the clause "see text.")

---

It would indicate that all creatures have the save, but the the text says otherwise says otherwise, whether harmless is there or not. I don't think there's any meaningful argument against the idea that only undead get the save, even if the harmless weren't there.

Quote:

---

As I said, there are many spells with the word "(harmless)" in the Saving Throw line and (significantly, I believe) also in the Spell Resistance line. My proposal is based upon the notion that there is a reason for this. This, I believe, is that saving throws are not voluntary options that creatures can take even while they're unconscious, but in fact involuntary events that happen by default, unless a creature consciously chooses otherwise.

---

There is a reason those words are there, but it's not the reason you state. The spell necessarily tells the creature in question that the spell in question is harmless, such that they can choose to allow it to pass through saves, and that's pretty much it in its entirety.

Quote:

---

You and Chronikoce seem to believe, to the contrary, that saving throws are always voluntary options, even for unconscious creatures, simply because they don't count as actions. That's okay, but that's not what I choose to believe about nonactions and unconsciousness. I believe that while you are unconscious, you either make saving throws by default or don't make them by default, but you cannot change the default. You can change the default only while you are conscious.

---

The issue is that the helpless text is fundamentally incapable of changing the default of SR. SR can't just be flicked back and forth like a switch. It requires a concerted effort on the part of the creature.

Quote:

---

This is how I choose to read all spells with the "(harmless)" indicator, and there are many of them. The Protection from Energy is another example. Here, there is nothing in the spell's main text that indicates that the spell's target makes no saving throw by default. Only the parenthetical word "(harmless)" in the spell's Saving Throw indicates this. Again, others may choose to say that even an unconscious creature who receives the Protection from Energy spell can unconsciously choose not to make a Fortitude save against it, but that's not how I choose to interpret the rules. I choose to say that the parenthetical word "(harmless)" in the spell's Saving Throw line is what makes the difference here. Since the Protection from Energy spell is of this "(harmless)" kind, it does not, by default, trigger any saving throw from the affected creature.

---

It's very much possible that the unconscious creature just saves against the protection from energy. Or perhaps they don't, because the spell tells the creature's unconscious mind to not save. It doesn't really matter as applies to SR. The spell can tell the target to lower SR all it wants, but there still need be that additional effort.

Quote:

---

I agree that I haven't proved anything, but I think I have provided some good circumstantial evidence for my point of view.

---

Not really. Best case scenario, there's a specific that overrides a general. Worst case scenario, the specific and general are perfectly aligned. There's no real support for an error. Errors tend to require a higher form of evidence than anything that you've provided. Think along the lines of monks lacking proficiency with unarmed strikes, or those weapons with a misprinted subscript for an absurd damage total (I think the scorpion kama is the usual example).

Quote:

---

It's not clear to me what is specific here and what is general. Spells that are both actually and explicitly identified as "(harmless)" are a specific category of spells that allow saving throws. According to what I call rule A, spells of this kind make an exception to the general rule of saving throws, which is that if a spell allows a saving throw, then every creature affected by that spell makes one by default (and by necessity if the creature is unconscious and cannot forfeit its saving throw voluntarily). If rule C is changed according to my proposal, it becomes a general rule that explicitly refers back to, and therefore effectively contains, a specific rule, namely rule A.

---

It is very clear what is specific and what is general. The rules state that SR and saves work the same way with regards to helpless. The rules then say that SR works a certain way, possibly the same and possibly different, with regards to a particular function of helpless. The latter is specific to the former's general.

Agreed, good sir.

The writers didn't all double check each other. They made bigger mistakes that this.

I agree with others that this is not what the rules say. Implementing such a rule would be a houserule.

However, I believe it would be a good houserule. I don't think that Spell Resistance is supposed to be a pain in the behind to the creature with it. And an improvement to spell resistance amounts to an indirect nerf to spellcasters, so there shouldn't be any major balance issues.

The rule has a slight indirect improvement to balance, and removes an unneeded headache from the game. Houserule away.