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

[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.

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

Rule B.

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

Rule C.

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!