question about spell immunity

[Shariell]

Even for me, the "spell name" is more relevant than the heightened level (it's only my point of wiew of course).
Spell immunity works well even against spell like ability, who are similar but not the same as a spell, and are out of every spell-list (they are innate powers of the creature).
Thus, I figure the cleric can choose a specified effect of 4th level or lower and gain his immunity as well the effect is heightened or is not even a spell (but an innate spell-like ability).

No offense to anyone, only my point of view...any other opinion is much apprecciated.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'd rule that Heighten Spell helps bypassing the protection, so to make it consistent with Globe of Invulnerability. But I wouldn't argue a different ruling.

The case of Flame Strike is stronger: one shouldn't perhaps find a 5+ lv spell which is 4 lv or less on the list of a half-spellcasting class (such as Ranger, Paladin or Hexblade) and get immunity. I prefer to say that the actual spell level being cast is what matters, and that is only determined by the caster's spell list, modified with a very few things like Heighten.

I only disagree to ~55%, and agree to ~45%.

And basically at 85% I am not sure and at 15% I don't know

 

[Shariell]

Another take on this topic:

following the rule "the spell name don't matter, but name+level do", to obtain (for example) the immunity for a charm spell heightened to 2nd level, I have to declare that i choose the particular 2nd level heightened charm spell?

For consistency with the rule of the spell+level, I say yes in this case..because ever in this scenario "the spells aren't the same" like in the case of a 1st level charme and a 5level heightene charme.
Otherwise, is not che combination of name+level that matter, but is only the spell name, disregarding the fact the spell is not the same (same scenario like two spell in two different spell list at different levels).

Don't you think is more reasonable to go straight with only the spell name? Otherwise the spell immunity seems to me to not work, or at least, to work in a very forced manner.

Brainstorming on that, I'm inclined to think Thanee is right (only the spell name matter), but maybe can I miss something.
Do you have any opinion about this scenario?
I'm really intrested to your opinion, I want to fully comprend the mechanic of this spell.

Thanks to all for your input on that
Shariell

 

[Infiniti2000]

Don't you think is more reasonable to go straight with only the spell name? Otherwise the spell immunity seems to me to not work, or at least, to work in a very forced manner.

Well, it doesn't need to be so specific. If you grant yourself spell immunity (charm person), then you would be immune to all charm person spells heightened (or cast via, say, a domain) up to level 4. You would also be immune to all charm person spells cast up to level 4 with any other (non-heighten) metamagic on them, even if the spell slot were as high as 9.

 

[PrinceZane]

For my 2 cents...

I would say if you look at spell immunity and think of it as like a spell resistance 95% up to 4th level of X spell... and treated the hightened spell (making it 5th level) then it overcomes the spell resistance (just like overcoming DR or something).

I don't know if this is how to do it, having never have played a caster, but I think if I were in the situation to judge that's how I would rule.

Also, I think this covered both the hightened spell and the flamestrike issue.
If it's cast by the 4th level ranger then its blocked, the 5th level cleric goes through. The 5th level is easier to "bully" its way through. Makes sense to me at least...

 

[isoChron]

The spell immunity works if two conditions are met:
1. The spell is 4th level or lower
AND
2. The spell or spell like ability is named exactly.

Spell like abilities refer to sorcerer/wizard, cleric, druid, bard, paladin, ranger in that order.
So most spell like abilities have the same level as the spell in the most common spell lists.

If you heighten a spell you overcome condition 1, not 2 but since there is an AND between the 2 conditions that should be enough to overcome spell immunity.

Just my opinion.
Greetings

 

[PrinceZane]

If you heighten a spell you overcome condition 1, not 2 but since there is an AND between the 2 conditions that should be enough to overcome spell immunity.

Just my opinion.
Greetings

Well, I disagree with this, because, logically, an AND statement means this AND this have to be met else it doesn't work. So it has to be 4th level or lower AND has to be that spell, otherwise the shield is penetrated and the spell goes through

 

[Ryltar]

I think isoChron hit the nail on the head, there and PrinceZane, you and him aren't really contradicting each other.

Using the example put forth earlier, Spell Immunity would protect a character from a spell that is both

a) named "Flame Strike"
and
b) a spell of 4th level or lower

Once one of both conditions isn't met any longer (for example, by raising the spell's level - or renaming the spell ), the protection granted by spell immunity will not work any longer. The casting of the spell will work, since it has valid conditions to apply to, but the protection effect will not include spells of a level higher than 4th.

That way, it's more in line with Globe of Invulnerability and similar spells, too.

 

[isoChron]

That's what I meant.

 

[moritheil]

I think isoChron hit the nail on the head, there and PrinceZane, you and him aren't really contradicting each other.

Using the example put forth earlier, Spell Immunity would protect a character from a spell that is both

a) named "Flame Strike"
and
b) a spell of 4th level or lower

Once one of both conditions isn't met any longer (for example, by raising the spell's level - or renaming the spell ), the protection granted by spell immunity will not work any longer. The casting of the spell will work, since it has valid conditions to apply to, but the protection effect will not include spells of a level higher than 4th.

That way, it's more in line with Globe of Invulnerability and similar spells, too.

Should it be in line with Globe of Invulnerability? The two are completely different spells.

There are, as previous posters have pointed out, two ways to view this:

One, that Spell Immunity has a limit to its power which is embodied in the "4th level or lower" statement. Casting the chosen spell at a higher level of power (heightened) therefore overcomes Spell Immunity.

Two, that Spell Immunity has a limit to its power which only makes it effective against spells designed within certain bounds (which says nothing of their execution, so it doesn't matter what spell level the spell is cast at.) That is, Spell Immunity protects you from a specified spell, and the list of spells you can choose happens to be the list of spells that are, in their unaltered states, considered 4th level and below somewhere in the spell lists. When you cast Fireball prepared with Delay Metamagic, you aren't casting the same spell as Delayed Blast Fireball - you're casting Fireball. As such, the spell itself is Fireball. In this view, it's in that lower level list of spells, regardless of what you personally happen to be doing with it.

The former interpretation leads to your conclusion. The latter interpretation leads to Thanee's conclusion.

There is, additionally, one more issue to note, touched upon in the question: Are Druid Flame Strike and Cleric Flame Strike the same spell? I would say yes, but some people would say no, by virtue of the fact that it takes up different slots and that different classes are casting it. Furthermore, some people would say that a bard and a cleric Sound Burst are different (one is arcane, the other divine.)

In a sense, there's nothing conceptually wrong with making those statements. However, if you do that, Spell Immunity is pretty much worthless. You won't even need to heighten a spell beyond 4th level to mess with Spell Immunity. You want to be immune to magic missile? Oh, the sorcerer version or the wizard version? I can argue that one is prepared and the other not, so there must be some differences, right? The wizard, you say? Hey, look, it's a Silent Magic missile cast by a wizard! It takes up a different spell slot, and isn't exactly the first-level wizard spell "Magic Missile" that you named! Instead, it's a subtly different second-level Magic Missile! Sucks to be you!

Personally, I think Spell Immunity is a rather weak spell, and as such, it needs all the help it can get. Additional restrictions make an already weak spell outright pathetic.

But hey, call it however you like it.



PS: Just to set things straight:

For my 2 cents...

I would say if you look at spell immunity and think of it as like a spell resistance 95% up to 4th level of X spell... and treated the hightened spell (making it 5th level) then it overcomes the spell resistance (just like overcoming DR or something).

I don't know if this is how to do it, having never have played a caster, but I think if I were in the situation to judge that's how I would rule.

I don't want to sound too harsh, but it's pretty obvious that you don't play a caster. One, SR is a target number to beat with a level check. This determines whether your spell has any effect at all. It is not remotely similar to DR, which subtracts damage from a physical attack. Two, SR in 3.x is not a percentage - that's 2.0 MR, which was independent of the caster and entirely dependent on the victim, barring special spells that lowered MR and the like. Three, Spell Immunity is described as "unbeatable spell resistance." You do not "overcome" it, or it wouldn't be called "Immunity." There's a separate and more generic spell called Spell Resistance that confers SR (which can be overcome.)