RotG: Spell Descriptions 6

[Scharlata]

[...]He says "It is assumed willing creatures lower spell resistance". [...]

Hi!

I think this sentence should be evaluated semantically in the direction of what most of the other posters have tried to explain:

Skip tried to hint some explanation of why some spells have the entry "no" instead of having the entry "yes", which most of the posters - including probably you - would favor. The reason behind a "no" should be (retro-actively) considered a help, because most of the SR-no-spells are *harmless* and no too much targets would deny having cast such a spell upon them anyway. An opposing spellcaster could certainly try to subvert the help and cast a SR-no-spell on a foe just to harm/hinder it. But in normal instances a willing target of a SR-no-spell doesn't have to ready an action to lower his defense with a standard action. Skip tried to explain that you don't have to "waste time".

It should have been the other way around: With all the free, immediate and swift actions you could have constructed a functioning system of lowering SR, if it weren't that the immediate actions saw the light of day just after release of the 3.5 PHB.

Kind regards

 

[Hypersmurf]

Skip tried to hint some explanation of why some spells have the entry "no" instead of having the entry "yes", which most of the posters - including probably you - would favor.

Hmm? I have no problem with spells having a SR: No entry.

But that means that people don't have to lower SR, not that it's assumed they do lower SR.

-Hyp.

 

[Scharlata]

[...] But that means that people don't have to lower SR, not that it's assumed they do lower SR.

I think, that's what Skip wanted to express by the ambiguous sentence.

Kind regards

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think Skip just needs to proofread a lot more.

 

[Jeremy]

Gotta love it. So according to Skip all those times one of my summoned creatures with SR had to lower their SR for me to buff them with a standard action and thus lose their turn, then float around for a turn with their shields down was just me being silly. Who'd have thunk it?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Email reply from the Sage:


RotG: Most spells that work only on willing creatures also have a spell resistance entry of "no" because it is assumed that a willing creature lowers its spell resistance before receiving the spell.

Hyp: Hmm? So if I have SR, and in the middle of a combat, my friend the wizard wants to cast Levitate on me, then even though Levitate is SR: No, I have to lower my SR as a standard action (giving up my attack that round), and remain vulnerable to the evil Cleric's Hold Person until my next turn?

Skip: "SR no" means "SR no," unless your DM, enlightened by Rules of the Game, decides otherwise. When I'm running a home game, be prepared to lower that SR.

Hyp: I assumed that since the spell is SR: No, I don't need to lower my spell resistance before receiving the spell.

Skip: Technically correct.

-Hyp.

 

[DrSpunj]

Skip: "SR no" means "SR no," unless your DM, enlightened by Rules of the Game, decides otherwise. When I'm running a home game, be prepared to lower that SR.

So does this statement imply to anyone else that Sage Advice and the RotG articles are just an official way for Skip to offer us his House Rules instead of sticking to the actual RAW?

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Egres]

Skip: "SR no" means "SR no," unless your DM, enlightened by Rules of the Game, decides otherwise. When I'm running a home game, be prepared to lower that SR.

[size=+2]!!![/size]

 

[ThirdWizard]

I stand corrected. Skip proofreads just fine, its his ethics that need to be looked at.