Spekk Resistance

[Miracle]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Since lowering SR is a standard action, things might get complicated if a
creture needs healing in the middle of combat.
Things get even worse if a creature in question falls into negatives, and
thus is not able to reduce it's SR.
So I was wondering about effect that SR has on potions? If someone spills
CLW potion to an unconscious creature, would SR apply?

 

[aponly]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

See the magic overview section in the DMG (this is from SRD):

"Target or Targets: ....
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as
a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if
you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures
are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious
but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering,
grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically
willing."

Therefore, your unconscious creature would have no CR and the potion
would work.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aponly wrote:
> See the magic overview section in the DMG (this is from SRD):
>
(Stuff on willing targets cut)
>
> Therefore, your unconscious creature would have no [SR] and the potion
> would work.

But being willing is not enough. The following is from the gloassary
entry on Sepell Resistance at Wizards.com.

"A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a
standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a
creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature's
next turn. At the beginning of the creature's next turn, the creature's
spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature
intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not
provoke an attack of opportunity)."

So unless it is consciously kept down, SR persists whilst unconscious.

Mark

 

[aponly]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I was using this reference:

When Spell Resistance Applies
Each spell includes an entry that indicates whether spell resistance
applies to the spell. In general, whether spell resistance applies
depends on what the spell does:

Targeted Spells: Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at
the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at
several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature's spell
resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted
at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are
subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.

I use this in combination with the statement I used above. If a spell
is beneficial to a creature with spell resistance, then as a DM, I
would allow the successful use of it without an SR roll. The original
question is with the use of a CLW potion, this I would allow. If the
creature was conscious, it would want the potion to take effect.

Of course, as a DM, then it's always your option to change the rules.


JON

 

[aponly]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

When I said above, I was referring to my previous post. The original
note was in reference to giving a CLW potion to an unconscious creature
with SR. Potions are considered spell-like and are affected by SR.

The rules say:

"When Spell Resistance Applies
Each spell includes an entry that indicates whether spell resistance
applies to the spell. In general, whether spell resistance applies
depends on what the spell does:

Targeted Spells: Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at
the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at
several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature's spell
resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted
at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are
subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.
"

To continue, CLW is a targeted spell, so:

"Target or Targets: ....
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as

a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if
you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures
are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious
but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering,
grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically
willing."

Therefore, my conclusion is that with this example; an unconscious
creature is willing, is targeted, and its spell resistance does not
apply. CLW is also flagged as harmless or beneficial, so I think it
supports my opinion. Of course, this is only my opinion and other DMs
can do as they wish.

 

[aponly]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>That's obvious, but it doesn't help folks whose newsreaders don't /show/
the previous post. Not everyone uses Google Groups. When you refer to
text elsewhere in the thread, it's good netiquette to quote it.
Likewise, it's poor netiquette to post a followup with no quoted
context
at all, like you've done here.

Well, I'm kind of limited in my usenet use because I'm posting with
very limited computer access from southern Iraq. Google is the easiest
way to access since no programs can be installed and Google is not
blocked. There were no quotes required as I had restated the original
question. "The original note was in reference to giving a CLW potion
to an unconscious creature with SR. "

>I know what the rules say, and you've gotten them wrong. In particular:

You didn't say what rules I had gotten wrong? I used quotes around
actual excerpts from the SRD.

>Obviously, spell resistance applies. It doesn't matter whether the
creature is willing; unless the effect is self-targeted, SR still
applies unless the creature has /deliberately/ lowered it. How did you
come to exactly the opposite conclusion?

So how can a creature that is unconscious deliberately lower his spell
resistance? Normally, when a creature is unconscious it can't take a
standard action to lower it's spell resistance. The rules say that
unconscious creatures are always willing. Willing does not just refer
to self-targeted as you suggest. From the SRD:

"Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a
character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is
bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not
automatically willing."

I'm trying to use some logic in my decision. If what you are saying is
true and if you are trying to help an unconscious creature that has
high spell resistance (that you cannot overcome), then that creature is
SOL because you can't heal him and he can't consciously make a decision
to lower his spell resistance. You might as well kill it for the
experience. The rules don't specifically state what happens to SR when
you are unconscious.

>Your example is irrelevant. Try reading the relevant rules instead.

I'm trying to give what I see as the relevant rules and the logic
behind my decisions. Where is the problem with my logic? Did you even
read all of my post? Guess what, the rules are not perfect and you
still have to make occasional decisions and jump to conclusions.
Besides it's just a game and the reason for playing is for
entertainment.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> aponly wrote:
> > Well, I'm kind of limited in my usenet use because I'm posting with
> > very limited computer access from southern Iraq. Google is the
> > easiest way to access since no programs can be installed and Google is
> > not blocked.
>
> That's fine. Just keep in mind that not everyone sees the whole thread
> like you do at Google. <snipped>

The best way to respond to a post in Google Groups is _not_ to hit the
blue "Reply" link under the post.

Instead, select "Options," which is _above_ the post and to the right
of the poster's name. You'll get a window which automatically quotes
the poster's text and adds an appropriate number of ">" symbols to show
how many levels of responses there are. Note that aponly's message has
two ">" symbols, while Brad's message has only one.

Your reply (like mine) should be inserted underneath the stuff you are
quoting so that others, who can't see the entire thread (they'll just
see this post), can quickly scan the previous posts and figure out the
topic of discussion. Also note that I cut out parts that I thought
were extraneous to my reply.

Other than that, Hello and welcome! So far you've been lucky on your
usenet encounter table rolls and haven't encountered anything mean ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aponly <jrpettit@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was using this reference:
>
> ... Targeted Spells: Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted
> at the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at
> several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature's spell
> resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted
> at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are
> subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance
> separately.
>
> I use this in combination with the statement I used above.

Eh? That doesn't change anything. (And it would help if you would quote
the statement "used above," since it isn't actually "above" in some
newsreaders.) It just says that the SR doesn't affect /other/ creatures.

> If a spell is beneficial to a creature with spell resistance, then as
> a DM, I would allow the successful use of it without an SR roll.

That's not the rule. The actual rule says that dropping SR is a standard
action that only lasts for one round.

> The original question is with the use of a CLW potion, this I would
> allow.

Does SR apply to potions in the first place? I can't remember. Normally,
it doesn't come up, since you always ignore SR for self-targeted effects
(IIRC).

> Of course, as a DM, then it's always your option to change the rules.

Not in all game groups, it isn't.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aponly wrote:
> When I said above, I was referring to my previous post.

That's obvious, but it doesn't help folks whose newsreaders don't /show/
the previous post. Not everyone uses Google Groups. When you refer to
text elsewhere in the thread, it's good netiquette to quote it.
Likewise, it's poor netiquette to post a followup with no quoted context
at all, like you've done here.

> The rules say:

I know what the rules say, and you've gotten them wrong. In particular:

> Targeted Spells: Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at
> the creature ....

Right, and:

> To continue, CLW is a targeted spell, so:

Obviously, spell resistance applies. It doesn't matter whether the
creature is willing; unless the effect is self-targeted, SR still
applies unless the creature has /deliberately/ lowered it. How did you
come to exactly the opposite conclusion?

> Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done
> at any time ....

And which has absolutely no effect on spell resistance, which requires a
deliberate act (and a standard action) to lower.

> Therefore, my conclusion is that with this example --

Your example is irrelevant. Try reading the relevant rules instead.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[KAOS]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 24 Aug 2005 05:49:54 -0700, alordofchaos@yahoo.com dared speak in
front of ME:

>Other than that, Hello and welcome! So far you've been lucky on your
>usenet encounter table rolls and haven't encountered anything mean ;-)

I've been makign my hide checks trying to figure out what a Spekk was
and why resistance to one would matter.

--
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
the conservative adopts them.
Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"aponly" <jrpettit@gmail.com> wrote in news:1124878409.617633.259320
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

>>I know what the rules say, and you've gotten them wrong. In
particular:
>
> You didn't say what rules I had gotten wrong? I used quotes around
> actual excerpts from the SRD.
>
>>Obviously, spell resistance applies. It doesn't matter whether the
> creature is willing; unless the effect is self-targeted, SR still
> applies unless the creature has /deliberately/ lowered it. How did you
> come to exactly the opposite conclusion?
>
> So how can a creature that is unconscious deliberately lower his spell
> resistance? Normally, when a creature is unconscious it can't take a
> standard action to lower it's spell resistance. The rules say that
> unconscious creatures are always willing. Willing does not just refer
> to self-targeted as you suggest. From the SRD:
>
> "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a
> character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who
is
> bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not
> automatically willing."
>
> I'm trying to use some logic in my decision. If what you are saying
is
> true and if you are trying to help an unconscious creature that has
> high spell resistance (that you cannot overcome), then that creature
is
> SOL because you can't heal him and he can't consciously make a
decision
> to lower his spell resistance. You might as well kill it for the
> experience. The rules don't specifically state what happens to SR
when
> you are unconscious.
>
>>Your example is irrelevant. Try reading the relevant rules instead.
>
> I'm trying to give what I see as the relevant rules and the logic
> behind my decisions. Where is the problem with my logic? Did you
even
> read all of my post? Guess what, the rules are not perfect and you
> still have to make occasional decisions and jump to conclusions.
> Besides it's just a game and the reason for playing is for
> entertainment.

DMG page 298: "A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its
own spells, items, or abilities."

DMG page 229: "Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber... The
drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the
effect."

Therefore by the RAW, even unconscious drinkers of potions are never
affected by their own spell resistance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
> DMG page 298: "A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its
> own spells, items, or abilities."
>
> DMG page 229: "Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber... The
> drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the
> effect."
>
> Therefore by the RAW, even unconscious drinkers of potions are never
> affected by their own spell resistance.

Thanks for spotting that!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

aponly wrote:
> Well, I'm kind of limited in my usenet use because I'm posting with
> very limited computer access from southern Iraq. Google is the
> easiest way to access since no programs can be installed and Google is
> not blocked.

That's fine. Just keep in mind that not everyone sees the whole thread
like you do at Google.

> There were no quotes required as I had restated the original question.
> "The original note was in reference to giving a CLW potion to an
> unconscious creature with SR. "

That isn't enough context for somebody coming into the thread late or
receiving articles out of order (which is quite common).

>> I know what the rules say, and you've gotten them wrong. In particular:

> You didn't say what rules I had gotten wrong? I used quotes around
> actual excerpts from the SRD.

I pointed it out in the very article you're applying to: The rules for
willing targets and the rules for spell resistance are different. To
ignore SR, mere willingness is not enough; the target must actively drop
the SR with a standard action.

However, there is one exception: SR never applies to spells you cast on
yourself. As Joseph pointed out, drinking a potion (or, presumably,
feeding one to someone else) is equivalent to casting a spell on
yourself. Therefore, SR never applies to potions.

You came up with the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason.

>> It doesn't matter whether the creature is willing; unless the effect
>> is self-targeted, SR still applies unless the creature has
>> /deliberately/ lowered it.

> So how can a creature that is unconscious deliberately lower his spell
> resistance?

It can't. Therefore, you still have a problem if you want to cast a cure
spell on an unconscious ally. However, you can reliably feed him a
potion.

> Normally, when a creature is unconscious it can't take a standard
> action to lower it's spell resistance. The rules say that unconscious
> creatures are always willing.

That doesn't matter. Mere willingness is not sufficient to ignore SR.

> Willing does not just refer to self-targeted as you suggest.

I suggested no such thing! You're mixing up two different concepts: A
willing target automatically forgoes his saving throw, not his spell
resistance. You only ignore spell resistance when (1) casting a spell on
yourself or (2) when the target uses a standard action to lower his
resistance for one round. The names are similar, but they're two
different things. Willingness eliminates the saving throw, not the SR.

> I'm trying to use some logic in my decision.

Your conclusion is logical for /saving throws/ but not for /spell
resistance./

> If what you are saying is true and if you are trying to help an
> unconscious creature that has high spell resistance (that you cannot
> overcome), then that creature is SOL because you can't heal him ....

Not with spells. You can feed him a potion, though.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Miracle]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Obviously, spell resistance applies. It doesn't matter whether the
> creature is willing; unless the effect is self-targeted, SR still
> applies unless the creature has /deliberately/ lowered it. How did you
> come to exactly the opposite conclusion?
>
>> Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done
>> at any time ....
>
> And which has absolutely no effect on spell resistance, which
> requires a deliberate act (and a standard action) to lower.
>
>> Therefore, my conclusion is that with this example --
>
> Your example is irrelevant. Try reading the relevant rules instead.

Yep, I see no logical explanation for aponly's conclusion.
It seems like having SR might turn on you in most important moments...
Can't wait to have a Drow PC IMC ]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <slrndgo949.lu6.bradd+news@szonye.com>,
Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
>aponly wrote:
>> When I said above, I was referring to my previous post.
>
>That's obvious, but it doesn't help folks whose newsreaders don't /show/
>the previous post. Not everyone uses Google Groups. When you refer to
>text elsewhere in the thread, it's good netiquette to quote it.
>Likewise, it's poor netiquette to post a followup with no quoted context
>at all, like you've done here.

Although I'll probably keep making the same kind of reply, I think we're on
the losing side of this particular battle. Google is becoming the One Web
Service to Rule Them All.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[aponly]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

alordofchaos@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Other than that, Hello and welcome! So far you've been lucky on your
> usenet encounter table rolls and haven't encountered anything mean ;-)

Thanks for the welcome. Google may not be the best option for usenets
but is perhaps the most accessible.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Joseph wrote:
> DMG page 229: "Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber... The
> drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the
> effect."

Although, interestingly, "The person applying an oil is the effective
caster, but the object is the target." which makes me wonder whether a
character feeding an unconscious character a potion doesn't become the
caster...?

Of course, the oils in the DMG are all for applying to objects (I
think) but it suggests that doesn't have to be the case in a number of
places - e.g. later on in that section it says "Likewise, it takes a
full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature."

> Therefore by the RAW, even unconscious drinkers of potions are never
> affected by their own spell resistance.

I think in the end I'd agree with that interpretation but I'm not 100%
sure that it's right as it does seem to make potions an exception.

All this brings up another question - the monk in our game has just
reached 13th level and so she gained SR, so I wonder if you're allowed
to refuse to take a new class ability if you don't want it?

I also had the idea of looking on the WotC site at the rules of the
game bit... big mistake. As usual it looks like complete twaddle...

"Most spells that work only on willing creatures also have a spell
resistance entry of "no" because it is assumed that a willing creature
lowers its spell resistance before receiving the spell."

....Surely that's not right? "It is assumed" suggests that even when it
says SR "no" you still have to have lowered your SR!?!

 

[Miracle]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos wrote:
> I've been makign my hide checks trying to figure out what a Spekk was
> and why resistance to one would matter.

Well, k key is neighbour to l key so...

 

[Miracle]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Joseph wrote:
> DMG page 298: "A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its
> own spells, items, or abilities."
>
> DMG page 229: "Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber... The
> drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the
> effect."
>
> Therefore by the RAW, even unconscious drinkers of potions are never
> affected by their own spell resistance.

Now, THAT'S an logical explanation. Thanks!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> Joseph wrote:
>> DMG page 229: "Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber... The
>> drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the
>> effect."

IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
> Although, interestingly, "The person applying an oil is the effective
> caster, but the object is the target." which makes me wonder whether a
> character feeding an unconscious character a potion doesn't become the
> caster...? ... I think in the end I'd agree with that interpretation
> [that potions ignore SR] but I'm not 100% sure that it's right as it
> does seem to make potions an exception.

On the one hand, it makes sense that potions and oils should follow the
same rules, and that feeding somebody a potion is an exception to the
usual rule on DMG p. 229. On the other hand, that results in more
screwage for dying creatures with SR. I'm inclined to the more lenient
ruling, but I wouldn't object if a DM ruled the other way (so long as he
was consistent and fair about it).

> All this brings up another question - the monk in our game has just
> reached 13th level and so she gained SR, so I wonder if you're allowed
> to refuse to take a new class ability if you don't want it?

Not that I know of.

> I also had the idea of looking on the WotC site at the rules of the
> game bit... big mistake. As usual it looks like complete twaddle...
>
> "Most spells that work only on willing creatures also have a spell
> resistance entry of "no" because it is assumed that a willing creature
> lowers its spell resistance before receiving the spell."

Nonsense! I hope the spells weren't actually designed that way.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos wrote:
> I've been makign my hide checks trying to figure out what a Spekk was
> and why resistance to one would matter.

Now you're just being sikky ;-)