Potions & Spell Resistance

[Guest]

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

Do potions allow SR to resist their effects?

 

[Guest]

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

Miraumar wrote:
>
> Do potions allow SR to resist their effects?

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

Short of that, I see no reason why SR would not
function normally.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

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

On 23 Feb 2005 16:51:47 EST, "Miraumar" <lcurell@chartermi.net> scribed
into the ether:

>Do potions allow SR to resist their effects?

No, but then potions are typically taken voluntarily...and any creature
with SR can lower their protection by concious choice.

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>On 23 Feb 2005 16:51:47 EST, "Miraumar" <lcurell@chartermi.net> scribed
>into the ether:
>
>>Do potions allow SR to resist their effects?
>
>No, but then potions are typically taken voluntarily...and any creature
>with SR can lower their protection by concious choice.

(a) Is there a difference between Spell Resistance granted by item or spell,
and "inherent" SR, in terms of "lowerability"?
(b) If you drink a potion without knowing it's a potion (or in some other
case where your SR is "up"), do you get SR against it?

Donald

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:29:39 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>>On 23 Feb 2005 16:51:47 EST, "Miraumar" <lcurell@chartermi.net> scribed
>>into the ether:
>>
>>>Do potions allow SR to resist their effects?
>>
>>No, but then potions are typically taken voluntarily...and any creature
>>with SR can lower their protection by concious choice.
>
>(a) Is there a difference between Spell Resistance granted by item or spell,
> and "inherent" SR, in terms of "lowerability"?

The rules make no mention of a difference between innate and granted SR.
I'd be inclined to say that item granted resistance was permenant unless
the item itself were exceptional (intelligent, artifact, etc). However,
that would be really annoying if you wanted to buff up your party's fighter
with a bunch of spells before a big fight, and he had to take off his SR
granting platemail to avoid having a spell bounce.

>(b) If you drink a potion without knowing it's a potion (or in some other
> case where your SR is "up"), do you get SR against it?

Harmless spells (which most potions are) still have to bypass SR to take
effect when cast...personally I'd say that potions will skip it since
drinking one is tacit acceptance of the effect, even if you don't know what
you are drinking is in fact a potion. SR takes effect when you don't know
you are being cast on, so conversely, potions would take effect even if you
didn't know it was one.

I can't find anything in the books that would make an authoritative ruling
on the subject.

 

[Guest]

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

I've had a vision! Miraumar appeared to me and said...
> Do potions allow SR to resist their effects?

By the book, no - Bluto quoted the relevant rule.

I see no reason you couldn't rule it in the following way instead:

SR works the same on your own items, spells etc as it does on everything
else, but everything the creature knowingly uses on itself is treated as
though it had the "Harmless" descriptor. For this reason, creatures with
SR lower their resistance against such things by default.

The only difference between this and the standard rule is that, if for
some reason a creature with SR *wants* to resist a potion it's drinking,
it can.

 

[Guest]

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

> No, but then potions are typically taken voluntarily...and any creature
> with SR can lower their protection by concious choice.

Well, the reason I ask is a player who is immune to magic and cannot
voluntarily turn this immunity off and on. The text suggests he is immune
only to magic that allows SR. He is wanting to know if he can drink potions
of healing (and such).

 

[Spinner]

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

>> Do potions allow SR to resist their effects?
>
> By the book, no - Bluto quoted the relevant rule.
>
> I see no reason you couldn't rule it in the following way instead:
>
> SR works the same on your own items, spells etc as it does on everything
> else, but everything the creature knowingly uses on itself is treated as
> though it had the "Harmless" descriptor. For this reason, creatures with
> SR lower their resistance against such things by default.
>
Doesn't lowering that resistance require a standard action though? Sorry, I
don't have the cite for this, but I believe this applies to Harmless stuff
as well. That DMG quote excepting one's own spells, etc., is a new one for
me ... 'cause other than that, SR should affect every spell used whether the
SR'd person wants it or not (while SR is on). If the resistant person takes
a standard action to lower their resistance, they're open to anything and
can accept friendly spells again.

Am I wrong with any of this?

Spinner

 

[Guest]

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

Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Do potions allow SR to resist their effects?
>
>"A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items,
>or abilities." DMG, p.298.
>
>Short of that, I see no reason why SR would not function normally.

Hrm. So I guess the question becomes, is a potion "your own item", even
if someone physically forces you to drink it?

Brings up an interesting side-question; would casting a spell on one's
familiar be counted as the familiar's "own spell"? What about one's
Special Mount? Companion Animal?

Donald

 

[Guest]

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

I seem to have experienced an extremely realistic hallucination in which
Spinner said...
> >> Do potions allow SR to resist their effects?
> >
> > By the book, no - Bluto quoted the relevant rule.
> >
> > I see no reason you couldn't rule it in the following way instead:
> >
> > SR works the same on your own items, spells etc as it does on everything
> > else, but everything the creature knowingly uses on itself is treated as
> > though it had the "Harmless" descriptor. For this reason, creatures with
> > SR lower their resistance against such things by default.
> >
> Doesn't lowering that resistance require a standard action though? Sorry, I
> don't have the cite for this, but I believe this applies to Harmless stuff
> as well. That DMG quote excepting one's own spells, etc., is a new one for
> me ... 'cause other than that, SR should affect every spell used whether the
> SR'd person wants it or not (while SR is on). If the resistant person takes
> a standard action to lower their resistance, they're open to anything and
> can accept friendly spells again.
>
> Am I wrong with any of this?

Apparently not:

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

So the Harmless descriptor, in the standard rules, does absolutely
nothing, apparently. I'd been house-ruling that without realizing it.

 

[Guest]

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

Miraumar wrote:
>>No, but then potions are typically taken voluntarily...and any creature
>>with SR can lower their protection by concious choice.
>
>
> Well, the reason I ask is a player who is immune to magic and cannot
> voluntarily turn this immunity off and on. The text suggests he is immune
> only to magic that allows SR. He is wanting to know if he can drink potions
> of healing (and such).

What, is everyone playing golems now??? <g>

So the question is, what text from where?

With what you give here "immune to magic", I'd say "immune to
potions", but the actual rule may be more forgiving...

 

[Guest]

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

On 24 Feb 2005 09:06:03 EST, "Miraumar" <lcurell@chartermi.net> scribed
into the ether:

>> No, but then potions are typically taken voluntarily...and any creature
>> with SR can lower their protection by concious choice.
>
>Well, the reason I ask is a player who is immune to magic and cannot
>voluntarily turn this immunity off and on.

Immunity to magic is a whole other kettle of fish...should have mentioned
that.

>The text suggests he is immune only to magic that allows SR. He is wanting to know if he can drink potions
>of healing (and such).

I'd say no, he can't.

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch wrote:
> Miraumar scribed into the ether:

> > > No, but then potions are typically taken voluntarily...
> > > and any creature with SR can lower their protection by
> > > concious choice.
> >
> > Well, the reason I ask is a player who is immune to magic
> > and cannot voluntarily turn this immunity off and on.
>
> Immunity to magic is a whole other kettle of fish...
> should have mentioned that.

Hey, read closer. He said the *player* is immune to magic. That's
neat! I want it; how did he get that way? However, what does this
have to do with his character? 😀 *ducks*

> > The text suggests he is immune only to magic that allows
> > SR. He is wanting to know if he can drink potions of
> > healing (and such).
>
> I'd say no, he can't.

I agree. Healing spells explicitly allow SR, and therefore would
fail. Something that doesn't allow SR would be a better choice, but
there are very few things that don't. For example, you couldn't even
raise him from the dead if he dies... You could animate him as a
skeleton or zombie, or you could clone him. 😀 That said, even if he
catches a disease, he's screwed without a heroes' feast, and if he's
level-drained or ability-drained, he's got no way to heal that.

Were I he, I'd beef myself up with as many no-SR defenses as I could
afford. For a completish list of spells, sorted by SR, see Aardy's
page:
http://users.rcn.com/aardy/rpg/spsr.html

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:58:55 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(Donald Tsang) scribed into the ether:

>Senator Blutarsky <monarchy@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Do potions allow SR to resist their effects?
>>
>>"A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items,
>>or abilities." DMG, p.298.
>>
>>Short of that, I see no reason why SR would not function normally.
>
>Hrm. So I guess the question becomes, is a potion "your own item", even
>if someone physically forces you to drink it?

I'd say yes. Spell resistance is not sentient, it doesn't know when you are
being forced.

>Brings up an interesting side-question; would casting a spell on one's
>familiar be counted as the familiar's "own spell"? What about one's
>Special Mount? Companion Animal?

Absolutely. The ties between master and familiar are such that casting on
your familiar is the same as casting on yourself.

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch wrote:
> Donald Tsang scribed into the ether:
> >
> > Brings up an interesting side-question; would casting a spell
> > on one's familiar be counted as the familiar's "own spell"?
> > What about one's Special Mount? Companion Animal?
>
> Absolutely. The ties between master and familiar are such
> that casting on your familiar is the same as casting on
> yourself.

You only answered for familiars. That said, I'd say "yes" for
anything with the "Share Spells" ability, meaning familiars and
special mounts and 3.5-style animal companions, but not 3.0-style
animal companions.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:45:21 -0500, Nikolas Landauer
<dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> Miraumar scribed into the ether:
>
>> > > No, but then potions are typically taken voluntarily...
>> > > and any creature with SR can lower their protection by
>> > > concious choice.
>> >
>> > Well, the reason I ask is a player who is immune to magic
>> > and cannot voluntarily turn this immunity off and on.
>>
>> Immunity to magic is a whole other kettle of fish...
>> should have mentioned that.
>
>Hey, read closer. He said the *player* is immune to magic. That's
>neat! I want it; how did he get that way? However, what does this
>have to do with his character? 😀 *ducks*

Come to that, I'm immune to magic too. I've never been affected by a spell
in my life!

>> > The text suggests he is immune only to magic that allows
>> > SR. He is wanting to know if he can drink potions of
>> > healing (and such).
>>
>> I'd say no, he can't.
>
>I agree. Healing spells explicitly allow SR, and therefore would
>fail. Something that doesn't allow SR would be a better choice, but
>there are very few things that don't. For example, you couldn't even
>raise him from the dead if he dies... You could animate him as a
>skeleton or zombie, or you could clone him. 😀 That said, even if he
>catches a disease, he's screwed without a heroes' feast, and if he's
>level-drained or ability-drained, he's got no way to heal that.

If he were really and truely immune to magic, then he couldn't ever be
level drained, and only natural poisons could do ability damage. Think of
it as a skin-tight mobile anti-magic shell.

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer scribed into the ether:
> >
> > Hey, read closer. He said the *player* is immune to magic.
> > That's neat! I want it; how did he get that way? However,
> > what does this have to do with his character? 😀 *ducks*
>
> Come to that, I'm immune to magic too. I've never been
> affected by a spell in my life!

If you've ever had a significant other, yes you have. Heh.

> > > > The text suggests he is immune only to magic that
> > > > allows SR. He is wanting to know if he can drink
> > > > potions of healing (and such).
> > >
> > > I'd say no, he can't.
> >
> > I agree. Healing spells explicitly allow SR, and
> > therefore would fail. Something that doesn't allow SR
> > would be a better choice, but there are very few things
> > that don't. For example, you couldn't even raise him
> > from the dead if he dies... You could animate him as
> > a skeleton or zombie, or you could clone him. 😀 That
> > said, even if he catches a disease, he's screwed
> > without a heroes' feast, and if he's level-drained or
> > ability-drained, he's got no way to heal that.
>
> If he were really and truely immune to magic, then he
> couldn't ever be level drained, and only natural poisons
> could do ability damage. Think of it as a skin-tight
> mobile anti-magic shell.

Not true. He is explicitly only immune to magic that allows SR, since
other magic isn't actually *magical* once it hits. /Acid arrow/ will
damage him, for instance.

As for level drain, I was taking Aardy's page at face value, which
appears to have been at least a slight mistake: /enervation/ and
/energy drain/, both listed on Aardy's page as SR: No, are both
actually SR: Yes in the PH.

That said, he absolutely *can* be energy drained or ability-drained
via poison or other ability. (Su) abilities explicitly do not allow
SR, and most energy drain or ability drain abilities from, for
instance, undead, are (Su). This is one place where anti-magic is
stronger than this, which is basically "spell immunity for all
spells".

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

> So the question is, what text from where?

Magic Immunity (Su): Dryads are unaffected by magic, ignoring the effects of
any spell that allows for Spell Resistance. They cannot choose to activate
and deactivate this ability and as such are both helped and hindered by this
quality.

It's from the Warcraft d20 game, the critter appears in the manual of
monsters. The text above is quoted from my website, not the book as I don't
have the book handy.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:44:59 -0500, Nikolas Landauer
<dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> Nikolas Landauer scribed into the ether:
>> >
>> > Hey, read closer. He said the *player* is immune to magic.
>> > That's neat! I want it; how did he get that way? However,
>> > what does this have to do with his character? 😀 *ducks*
>>
>> Come to that, I'm immune to magic too. I've never been
>> affected by a spell in my life!
>
>If you've ever had a significant other, yes you have. Heh.

Well, I don't really think of that as magic. More like an old 1E psionic
battle. My tower of iron will crushed by an id insinuation.

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch wrote:

>
> Come to that, I'm immune to magic too. I've never been affected by a spell
> in my life!

Not even a non-magical one?

 

[Guest]

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

Miraumar wrote:

>>So the question is, what text from where?
>
>
> Magic Immunity (Su): Dryads are unaffected by magic, ignoring the effects of
> any spell that allows for Spell Resistance. They cannot choose to activate
> and deactivate this ability and as such are both helped and hindered by this
> quality.
>
> It's from the Warcraft d20 game, the critter appears in the manual of
> monsters. The text above is quoted from my website, not the book as I don't
> have the book handy.

Heh, I do! <g>

It's more explicit:

Magic Immunity (Su):
(Hey isn't Su Magic Immunity an oxymoron? She's immune to her
own Magic Immunity! <g>)

_Magic_ cast on a dryad automatically fail. .... but it
also means that a dryad gains nothing from beneficial magics
such as healing or protection spells.

(Emphasis and snippage mine.)

Thus absolutely no relevance for SR here, and no she can't be
affected by magical potions, good or bad, at all.