DMs: Check v. SR for Healing

[Patlin]

Wondering how many folks find this area of the rules problematic. In a combat situation when a healing spell is cast on a party member with SR, do you require the caster to beat the SR?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Can't you just voluntarily lower your SR? If not, I'd say you'd have to check for it...

 

[Crothian]

No. When my players aquired SR for their characters I gave them a choice. SR could be needed to get through for healing or not, but if we choose not it would apply to everyone even the bad guys. They thought it was best to not worry about SR for healing so it makes the game a little smoother and easier to heal, but it does apply to all parties. I feel that is a fair way to do it.

 

[Crothian]

Can't you just voluntarily lower your SR? If not, I'd say you'd have to check for it...

Yers, but you have to do that on your turn, not the casters turn, and it takes an action. So, if you get hurt and don't have a chance to lower the SR before you get healed you could resist the spell.

 

[Philip]

Yes, we require the caster to beat the SR if the spell in question has a Spell Resistance: yes entry, regardless if the spell is benificial or harmfull, cast by friends or enemies etc.

During our last big battle the party cleric cast Mass Spell Resistance on everyone prior to combat. I doubt he will ever do that again, because it resulted in a bookkeeping nighmare. Haste, prayer and similar spells were cast, and because the enemies had SR as well, it required a multitude of SR rolls, and then we had to carefully record/remember who had what benefits.

And the party wizard getting affected by a symbol of insanity was a problem as well, because he was unable to 'voluntarily' lower his SR, causing multiple Heal spells to fail.

Often players tend to forget their character's SR when a beneficial spell comes rolling around, and often the DM fails to notice it as well. I would favor a 'choose freely if you want to use your SR against spells' option, just to reduce the number of rolls and the bookkeeping.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

We just assume that when a character with SR is healed, he lowers his SR to allow the healing without having to make SR checks. It was decided to be less of a hassle as it was bad enough having to roll SR for attacking enemies with spells without doing the same for your allies.

 

[shilsen]

Wondering how many folks find this area of the rules problematic. In a combat situation when a healing spell is cast on a party member with SR, do you require the caster to beat the SR?

Yup. SR can be a curse in the wrong situations.

 

[tjoneslo]

Yes. We've always (since D&D 1st) played that Healing and other benefitial spells need to go through SR. Either by beating the SR save or by having the recipient take an concentrate action and lower it.

 

[Arnwyn]

Wondering how many folks find this area of the rules problematic. In a combat situation when a healing spell is cast on a party member with SR, do you require the caster to beat the SR?

Yes, if the character did not voluntarily lower his/her SR (which, according to the SRD, is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).

Not problematic for us at all.