question about spell immunity

[isoChron]

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!

Well, WotC gave us a very good tool to decide if a spell is the same as the other or not. It's the spell name . As long as a spell has the same name it is in fact the same, regardless who casts it. The only thing that is different between a druid flamestrike and a cleric flamestrike is the level the spell is on the spell list. So if you take the two conditions I mentioned above (and I think it's exactly what the decription of the spell says) you are protected against a flame strike from a druid but not from a flame strike by a cleric. It's not that difficult. One is a spell at level 4 the other at level 5. There are pros and cons for both positions but that is not the question. I would'nt start to read between the lines of a spell to circumvent a flaw or what you think a flaw is.

It's not in line with lesser globe of invulnerability because the globe is stationary and protects against all spells up to 3rd level aimed into it, where the spell immunity protects against a very few spells up to 4th level, is mobile, is beatable with non-SR spells (like slime wave or others). They are two completly different spells on different spell lists and nobody says that one has to be as strong/good as the other spell at same level. Otherwise there are strong arguments against magic missile or scorching ray ...

EDIT: Ah, and in respect to using a metamagic feat to change the level of a spell:

Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.

Now compare this with the decription of HEIGHTEN SPELL like the one Lord Pendragon posted above. You will see that only Heighten Spell changes not only the slot a spell takes but also the level of the spell. It becomes in fact a higher level spell than it was.

 

[moritheil]

Well, WotC gave us a very good tool to decide if a spell is the same as the other or not. It's the spell name . As long as a spell has the same name it is in fact the same, regardless who casts it.

Yes.

you are protected against a flame strike from a druid but not from a flame strike by a cleric.

This assertion is logically inconsistent with your first assertion.

Either they are the same spell, or they are not the same spell. Are they the same spell? Your answer is yes. Thus, by your answer, SI protects against a flame strike no matter who casts it, because flame strike is the same spell no matter who casts it.

The question of whether or not the spell has to be cast from a 4th level or lower SPELL SLOT is different from the question "Can I find this as a 4th level spell?"

If you wish to assert that a Cleric flame strike ignores the SI:flame strike but not a Druid flamestrike, you must also assert that they are not the same spell. SI does not protect against "all instances of a spell that are cast as 4th level or lower;" it protects against all castings of "a 4th level spell" on you - even if some poor class like Cleric gets shafted into picking up the spell later. Put another way, if they are the same spell, the fact that a cleric casts it does not change the fact that it is still flame strike.

Let me try it from another angle - the only way to say that the Cleric flame strike breaks through is to say that it is not a 4th level spell at all; it is a 5th level spell - and thus, it is a different spell. This has the undesirable side effect of making SI nearly completely worthless.

The attempt to mitigate this by processing the "fourth level or lower" check subsequent to the initial determination of the level of the spell is flawed. SI does not ask if the spell is cast as a fourth level or lower spell; it asks if it IS a fourth level or lower spell. Flame strike happens to be a fifth level slot for a cleric, but if you assert that it is the same as the druid spell, it is a fourth level spell, since that's what the druid spell is, and it is blocked by SI.

 

[isoChron]

Hm. As I mentioned above you have TWO conditions a spell must meet to ignore SI or not. Where is the problem ? Why is SI suddenly worthless ? You choose the spell(s) you want to be immune to when you cast the spell. Let's say flame strike and magic missile.
Now you meet a druid and a cleric and a wizard. Is the spell worthless because you get hit from a fourth level flame strike (blocked), a fifth level flame strike (not blocked) and a assortment of magic missiles (all blocked).
If someone prepares a spell heightend he uses a higher spell slot. Now higher spell slots are more worth than lower levels because there are less of them (often) and the DC is higher (as long as you use heighten spell). If your wizard prepares a heightend 5.level magic missile there should be an effect to it. Without a DC the only effect is the chance to penetrate some defenses otherwise impenetrable (?). Otherwise the wizard could be better off to prepare feeblemind or telekinesis.

But you can use SI as you wish as long as your DM is of the same opinion. I have always seen it this way that clerics get the spell heightend to fifth level only. Because their deities don't want to grant the spell at lower power to a cleric. They get it later but they get it at +1 DC in respect to the same spell of the druid.

I see it that the 4th level spell "Spell immunity" ceases to function at a certain level of power (5th or higher). The only thing to check if SI blocks it or not is the name of the spell ("flame strike") and the power of the spell (level, not slot).

Well, every one has a point of view and our POV differs. That's not unusual and it's more or less not important because we do not game in the same group.

Err, and my example with the non-SR spells was a bad one. There are very few clerics that choose a spell with no SR for their Spell Immunity (granting infinte SR).

 

[moritheil]

Hm. As I mentioned above you have TWO conditions a spell must meet to ignore SI or not. Where is the problem ? Why is SI suddenly worthless ? You choose the spell(s) you want to be immune to when you cast the spell. Let's say flame strike and magic missile.

No, I don't think you get it. WHEN do you check to see if you meet those conditions? You must meet the condition to pick out 4th level or lower when the SI spell is cast. The spell does not thereafter check for that. It's true it must be a fourth level spell, but when you cast SI you check if the named spell is a fourth level spell. You don't arbitrarily stop in the middle of things after it's cast, and check. (You do that for GLOBE, but not for SI. The two are different.)

SI is worthless only if you say that every spell is different if it is cast by a different class. See my example above for the headache that can involve.

Let me see if I can type this out logically. We start with your assertion:

1. Cleric Flamestrike = Flamestrike = Druid Flamestrike.

Then we have

2. SI Target = Flamestrike
3. If spell == SI Target, unbeatable spell resistance
Otherwise, If spell is NOT == SI Target, nothing happens
4. Now, the Incoming Spell = Druid Flamestrike.
Druid Flamestrike == Flamestrike.
5. This satisfies (spell == SI Target),
Thus there is unbeatable spell resistance.

6. Now, the Incoming Spell = Cleric Flamestrike.
But we asserted above that Cleric Flamestrike = Flamestrike = Druid Flamestrike.
7. This satisfies (spell == SI Target),
Thus, there is unbeatable spell resistance.

The question of what level a spell is when the caster casts it does not even factor in at that later time. The only thing that is checked when a spell targets you after SI is up is whether or not it is the same as the spell you named.

Therefore, to assert that Cleric Flamestrike breaks through SI but Druid Flamestrike does not, you must assert that it is A DIFFERENT SPELL. Otherwise it interacts exactly the same as druid flamestrike.

Please note that I am not saying that Cleric flamestrike absolutely cannot break through SI. I am only noting that if you do claim so, to be logically consistent you MUST consider it a different spell from Druid flame strike.

I further note that it is THAT condition - where you consider every spell cast by a different class or at a different level as automatically being a different spell - that renders SI pretty much worthless.

 

[Infiniti2000]

No, I don't think you get it. WHEN do you check to see if you meet those conditions? You must meet the condition to pick out 4th level or lower when the SI spell is cast. The spell does not thereafter check for that.

I'm not sure you can say that. The spell description for spell immunity says that "The spells must be of 4th level or lower." It does not specify something like "The spells must be of 4th level or lower, but only when choosing which spells are blocked." I think that for any spell to be blocked, it must be 4th level or lower, period, at any time before or after that spell is chosen. In other words, a druid's flame strike being the same spell as a cleric's flame strike is totally irrelevant.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

It's interesting how people can draw different conclusions from the same set of facts. I agree with you that ruling it as I do weakens Spell Immunity somewhat. But I do think the spell is still quite useful. Very few spellcasters ever take Heighten Spell, so Spell Immunity is a pretty safe bet for the most part.

On the other hand, if you rule Spell Immunity to block anything, at any level, that is 4th-level somewhere, you unexceptably weaken Heighten Spell, IMO. The feat only does one thing: raise the spell level of a spell. This gives you +1 to the DC per spell level raised, and the "considered higher level" deal. That's it. No extra damage. No greater range or duration. No extra targets. Just +1 to the DC, (paid for by a higher-level slot that could be used to prep a more powerful spell that would also have the higher DC,) and "considered higher level."

There's little enough reason for anyone to take Heighten Spell, without neutering the "considered higher level" clause as well.

 

[moritheil]

I'm not sure you can say that. The spell description for spell immunity says that "The spells must be of 4th level or lower." It does not specify something like "The spells must be of 4th level or lower, but only when choosing which spells are blocked." I think that for any spell to be blocked, it must be 4th level or lower, period, at any time before or after that spell is chosen. In other words, a druid's flame strike being the same spell as a cleric's flame strike is totally irrelevant.

If it's not fourth level or lower, you can't choose it at all. If you can choose it, it's not higher than fourth level. I cannot cast SI and say "wish." That fails right off.

(As a logically equivalent alternative, you could say that in the example Cleric Flamestrike and Druid Flamestrike are identical, and that NEITHER of them is blocked by SI, rather than both. But if they truly are the same spell they must exhibit the same effect. SI has historically never checked for a level after the actual specification of the spell.)

And if, as you say, SI blocks druid flamestrike but not cleric flamestrike, because they happen to reside in different spell slots, then that is logically equivalent to saying the two are DIFFERENT SPELLS, merely because of the different spell slots.

This opens a world of chaos, because I can then say a silent magic missile is a DIFFERENT SPELL because it takes up a different spell slot, and thus not subject to your spell immunity. In a normal battle situation, enemy mages will have a couple of silenced or stilled spells along with their normal ones (well, only if your DM is not moronic, but I'll assume he or she is not.) In addition, they will have their normal array of spells, which probably does not consist of just one spell. Thus your already-slim chances of being immune to the spell that you get targeted with get even slimmer.

Now, to be fair, I went and looked, and certain web versions of the SRD have:

The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks.

However, I am working from a version that has:

The specified spells must be of 4th level or lower.

Do you see where this results in my assertion?

I will agree that the d20srd.org text is in favor of your approach, because it lacks the emphasis "specified." This conflicts with the version I was familiar with.

Nevertheless, I do not see it as consistent to approach SI as a spell that continually has to be checking for level. That approach completely lacks thematic integrity, which is that your immunity is absolute as long as it concerns one particular specified spell.

Ask yourself: does it even make sense to say that it is the exact same spell and yet somehow you are suddenly not immune to it just because a cleric casts it rather than a druid? Metaphors of "punching through resistance" and the like are entirely out of order: this is "immunity," or "unbeatable spell resistance." Power is not even a consideration except in the setup phase where you ask what spells can be picked.

Furthermore, you may be aware that a spellcaster can prepare a 4th level spell in a 5th level slot if he lacks the ability to prepare 5th level spells. So what happens when a druid casts a flamestrike prepared in a 5th level slot? Do you mean to tell me that it somehow is able to pierce through SI just because the druid prepared it in a slot one level higher?

And if you do, then how can you not see how horribly useless this makes SI? The only time SI would be useful, then, would be when you had an exact knowledge of the casting habits of your enemy. How common is that?

I don't have a problem with you playing it how you like - it's your campaign. But to say that Cleric Flamestrike breaks SI, Druid Flamestrike does not, and to still assert they are the exact same spell just strikes me as untenable. It's not even remotely reasonable in terms of thematic coherency.

 

[isoChron]

Why check it beforehand ???

Any spell you tell the GM to be countered by SI is ok for me.
If the spell is actually cast against the SI-person you simply check two things: Name of the spell correlates with the spell chosen and level of the spell (must be 4th or lower).
If you wish you can say Meteor Swarm. Now there are very few meteor swarms at level 4 or lower so it isn't any issue. But if due to some weird (beyond core rules) circumstances a wizard cast a 4th level meteor swarm at you, you are safe (I hope meteor swarm allows SR didn't check it.).

I understand your point of view in that way that you are unable to name meteorswarm at the time of casting SI. I don't see this because you check the spell level at the moment it is cast at the protected creature.
So you don't have to be omniscient about which spell is in what class/PrC at which level.

You just ask the caster what level the spell is and how it is named. Then you check if it is 4th level or lower and the name is one of the chosen ones and if it allows SR or not.
It's just clearer that way. The spells you chose are not listed under target or something. So I don't think the SI fails if you name a spell that is to high leveled or doesn't exist or doesn't allow SR.

 

[moritheil]

It's interesting how people can draw different conclusions from the same set of facts. I agree with you that ruling it as I do weakens Spell Immunity somewhat. But I do think the spell is still quite useful. Very few spellcasters ever take Heighten Spell, so Spell Immunity is a pretty safe bet for the most part.

On the other hand, if you rule Spell Immunity to block anything, at any level, that is 4th-level somewhere, you unexceptably weaken Heighten Spell, IMO. The feat only does one thing: raise the spell level of a spell. This gives you +1 to the DC per spell level raised, and the "considered higher level" deal. That's it. No extra damage. No greater range or duration. No extra targets. Just +1 to the DC, (paid for by a higher-level slot that could be used to prep a more powerful spell that would also have the higher DC,) and "considered higher level."

There's little enough reason for anyone to take Heighten Spell, without neutering the "considered higher level" clause as well.

Actually, I would rule that it is considered a different spell. My interpretation therefore strengthens Heighten Spell and does not weaken it.

See, where this differs from a druid or cleric flamestrike is the fact that once you have, say, a heightened magic missile that is 5th level, there IS no lower level version of it anywhere. It has become a different, although very similar, spell. Heighten spell even mentions that it is different from other metamagic feats in this regard; a Heightened Magic Missile IS NO LONGER Magic Missile, the first level spell. It is a fifth level spell that behaves as magic missile. It does not exist as a fourth, third, second, or first level spell; it is Magic Missile Heightened To Fifth Level.

By contrast, one can say that flamestrike is essentially a fourth level spell, and a cleric happens to require a fifth level slot for it because his primary focus is not as close to that particular manipulation of elemental fire as a druid's.

I mentioned in a post above that it's possible for a druid to prepare flamestrike as a 5th level spell without Heighten Metamagic. In that case, I would still consider it the regular flamestrike. Only with the use of Heighten Metamagic (and no other metamagic, since other metamagics do not change the spell in the same way) would I consider it a different spell.

Now, as to the first part of your post, where you view Spell Immunity as "a safe bet:" Spell Immunity is never a safe bet at all. What guarantee do you have that the enemy will cast flame strike? Maybe they'd rather summon animals. In the case of a druid, they could just as easily have prepared ice storm, a similarly destructive spell. Mages can choose between lightning bolt, hold person, and fireball for their third-level slot, and I'm only mentioning the most popular choices. With all the splatbooks, there are dozens of decent offensive spells that one can cast in any given slot. The chance of you actually guessing right is pretty remote, unless your DM is really that predictable.

Now, that being said, there is one case in which SI is a safe bet: when your own team casts an area spell. If you want to fireball in combat and don't want to hurt your own tank, then SI:fireball is the spell for the job. But it is manifestly useless for everything else compared to globe or SR, for the reasons I just outlined.

Consider this: Protection from Energy will give you 12 points of fire protection/level for a lower level spell slot, making SI pretty inefficient. Why would you waste a 4th level spell slot when a lower level slot does the job? A fireball can at most do 60 damage, and when you are first able to cast Protection from Energy (Fire) you're 5th level (as it's a 3rd level spell.) That means that right off the bat you can protect entirely from a maximized fireball, or two average fireballs, and by the time you're thinking of using SI, you get even more protection for that third level spell slot. Additionally, PFE:F will protect from ALL fire damage, not just that one puny spell, so if you cast it and then you have to switch your plans up, it'll still be around to absorb a scorching ray sent at your tank. It's MUCH more useful.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Actually, I would rule that it is considered a different spell. My interpretation therefore strengthens Heighten Spell and does not weaken it.

See, where this differs from a druid or cleric flamestrike is the fact that once you have, say, a heightened magic missile that is 5th level, there IS no lower level version of it anywhere. It has become a different, although very similar, spell. Heighten spell even mentions that it is different from other metamagic feats in this regard; a Heightened Magic Missile IS NO LONGER Magic Missile, the first level spell. It is a fifth level spell that behaves as magic missile. It does not exist as a fourth, third, second, or first level spell; it is Magic Missile Heightened To Fifth Level.

By contrast, one can say that flamestrike is essentially a fourth level spell, and a cleric happens to require a fifth level slot for it because his primary focus is not as close to that particular manipulation of elemental fire as a druid's.

Interesting. The difference, for me, is that the cleric's version is a fifth-level spell. It gets that +1 DC that Heighten Spell grants. It's not merely a 4th-level spell that costs a 5th-level slot. Flavor-wise I can accept your interpretation, but mechanically it doesn't work for me, because the cleric's version is actually more powerful than the druid version.

I mentioned in a post above that it's possible for a druid to prepare flamestrike as a 5th level spell without Heighten Metamagic. In that case, I would still consider it the regular flamestrike. Only with the use of Heighten Metamagic (and no other metamagic, since other metamagics do not change the spell in the same way) would I consider it a different spell.

I agree and don't think there's really any question about this. Just preparing a Magic Missile or Flame Strike in a 9th-level slot doesn't mean it bypasses the Lesser Globe of Invulnerability or anything else. You gain nothing for prepping a lower-level spell in a higher-level spot (sans-metamagic), save having that spell available if you need that one spell and only that spell, for some reason.

Now, as to the first part of your post, where you view Spell Immunity as "a safe bet:" Spell Immunity is never a safe bet at all. What guarantee do you have that the enemy will cast flame strike? Maybe they'd rather summon animals. In the case of a druid, they could just as easily have prepared ice storm, a similarly destructive spell. Mages can choose between lightning bolt, hold person, and fireball for their third-level slot, and I'm only mentioning the most popular choices. With all the splatbooks, there are dozens of decent offensive spells that one can cast in any given slot. The chance of you actually guessing right is pretty remote, unless your DM is really that predictable.

Actually, I'd never use Spell Immunity to protect against damage dealing spells. It is useless in that situation, as you point out. Instead my clerics use it to protect against spells that provide unique and detrimental effects. vs. a druid, Poison, vs. a sorc/wizard possibly Ray of Enfeeblement, Hold Person, Dimensional Anchor, Enervation, Touch of Idiocy, etc. vs....well, you get the idea. Or if you don't know the caster you're facing, whichever of these that is most damaging to the particular cleric in question.

Now, that being said, there is one case in which SI is a safe bet: when your own team casts an area spell. If you want to fireball in combat and don't want to hurt your own tank, then SI:fireball is the spell for the job. But it is manifestly useless for everything else compared to globe or SR, for the reasons I just outlined.

Interesting. I'd never considered this strategy. Make your allies immune to fireball and then just start blasting away... *scribbles in notebook*