Question about "Spell Immunity"

[Mahali]

I believe that you're mistakenly interpreting the precedent here. Spell Immunity and Minor Globe of Invulnerability have radically different mechanics. Spell immunity grants immunity to specific spells that have to be level x or below. Minor globe of invulnerability grants immunity to all spells of 3rd level or lower. With Spell immunity, the determining factor is the spell's name. That the spells must be lower than level 5 is merely a restriction on which spells can be chosen. Minor Globe of invulnerabilities protection is much broader but is directly contingent upon spell level.

They have the same mechanics. Immunity to spells; one being of 3rd level one of 4th. Also you have to choose certain spells for one and the other gives you blanket immunity of all spells. Mechanically they still work the same.

A heightened Magic Missile is still a Magic Missile. A Shield spell would still stop it. A brooch of shielding would still absorb it. Consequently, as a DM, I would rule that Spell Immunity still protected against it--even if it were heightened to 5th level.

But brooch of shielding doesn't say Magic Missles of less than x level. Spell Immunity "asks" two things when a spell is cast at the protected target. "Is this a spell chosen at casting time? Yes/No" and "Is this a 4th level spell or less? Yes/No" If either of those is "No" Spell Immunity won't stop it.

On the other hand, a heightened 5th level Magic Missile is no longer 3rd level or lower

Exactly my point.

 

[Henry]

Is it Atticus of Amber who is keeping track of the "Ambiguous Rulings" list? If so, someone needs to point him in this direction. I smell a "big one" brewing, especially if two WotC sources can't agree.

I think it would protect from a heightened spell myself, because the description says "one specific spell" - spell-specific criteria versus level-specific criteria. It would have been better had they said, "pick from the 4th level or lower spell lists."

However, Johnathan Tweet and Skip Williams have OFTEN said that, in cases of ambiguous rulings, they try to favor the defender.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

I agree with Elder-Basilisk and the D&D FAQ. Spell Immunity works against heightened forms of the particular spell.

As far as Flame Strike (or similar spells), since Spell Immunity is on the cleric spell list, I would say he cannot choose to be immune to flame strike since it is also on his cleric spell list, but is above 4th level. That's just how I would play it. I can also see the logic in allowing flame strike to be subject to spell immunity since it is a 4th level spell on the druid list.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Spell immunity is not a globe of invulnerability against one spell, so even a heightened 20th-level magic missile spell (cast by a FRCS Red Wizard using the Great Circle ability) won't hurt you if you are protected by spell immunity against magic missile. After all, your god is protecting you.

If PCs are abusing spell immunity, use the 2e rule (they have to had experienced the spell before they can be immune to it). Then blast 'em with polymorph other or blindness/deafness.

 

[gnfnrf]

The question boils down to...

When does spell immunity test the spell level to see if it can stop a spell?

If the answer is "When the spell is chosen" then heighten spell doesn't affect it.

If the answer is "When a candidate spell targets the subject" then heighten spell should allow spells to bypass spell immunity.

I don't think the wording is clear. If you do (or you want to make a choice), go right ahead and do it that way.

--
gnfnrf