Spell Resistance and spells you want cast on you

[maggot]

We have always played SR like saves: if you want a spell, the caster doesn't roll resistance. This is the way every group I've played in has played (including convensions and tournaments).

Now, I'm reading the SRD, and I find this

If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature’s spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature.

Akay so far, if someone chooses to resist the spell, you have to roll for spell resistance. The way we've always played.

But what about:

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.

Huh? I have to use a standard action to get a spell that is marked as "harmless?" How is that like a saving throw?

So, Cure X Wounds is also SR:harmless, so I have to spend a standard action to get cured??? I don't think I've ever seen anyone play it that way.

But it gets weirder, Bull's Strength is marked as SR: harmless, so I have to spend a standard action to get BS'd; but Cat's Grace is just SR, so I guess I don't have to lower resistance for that one.

What is going on here?

 

[hong]

Yes, unless you consciously lower your SR, it has the chance of screwing up your friend's spells.


Hong "NEXT!" Ooi

 

[Nightfall]

Agree with Hong. That's how it goes with SR.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I run a group with three drow. The cleric is always having to make SR checks to heal and buff them during combat. That's the disadvantage of having SR.

 

[Deadguy]

Yup! having Spell Resistance is a two-way street. You never need do anything to get a chance at out and out resisting offensive spells. But you must accept that it takes an effort to guarantee you get a friendly spell. After all, you don't have to, but your friendly spellcaster might well be less friendly if you 'waste' their spells. I guess what this means is that groups with SR-possessing characters in them have to learn to plan a little differently.

As for the bull's strength / cat's grace dichotomy, we can safely say that that's a typo. All the attribute-boosting spells ought to be "SR: yes (harmless)".

 

[Ferox4]

Hmmmm. that's a new one to me. We definitely don't play that way. I think I'll just pretend i never saw this thread............

 

[maggot]

If SR is always active, why do the rules say "If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance" instead of something like "If your spell is cast on a creature with spell resistance?" Why bring up resisting by the creature unless it was somehow a factor?

 

[James McMurray]

If it wasn't always active, why would you have to specifically lower it for harmless spells, but you could choose to be affected by harmful spells just by "not resisting"?

 

[AuraSeer]

If SR is always active, why do the rules say "If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance" instead of something like "If your spell is cast on a creature with spell resistance?" Why bring up resisting by the creature unless it was somehow a factor?

It is a factor. The target can lower his SR as a standard action. If you cast on him while the SR is down, then the spell is not "being resisted."

 

[maggot]

It is a factor. The target can lower his SR as a standard action. If you cast on him while the SR is down, then the spell is not "being resisted."

If that is the intent, that has to be one of the least clear sections of the manual I've ever read.

(And I'm not saying it isn't that way, only that outside this board, I've never seen it played that way.)