Saves, SR, Caster Level Checks

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Now, the rules state that a character who is targeted by a spell can volunteer to fail the saving throw, if they wish.

And that a character who has spell resistance can choose to lower their spell resistance to be affected by spells if they wish.

Now, the question is, can a character who casts a spell at a creature who has SR choose to fail the caster-level check against their SR, if they wish?

I've always thought you could, but upon looking I'm finding no written statement to the effect, but it seems to me that a character should always be able to choose to fail something if they have concious control over their actions.

--fje

 

[Infiniti2000]

Now, the question is, can a character who casts a spell at a creature who has SR choose to fail the caster-level check against their SR, if they wish?

No, but the caster could lower his caster level (to the minimum for that spell level).

Note that many people use a single roll for SR (vs. all opponents), so the case in which you want to succeed against some and fail against others cannot be made.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Infiniti2000 has it exactly right.

Allowing failures by choice here creates an absolutely enormous loophole for absurdly over the top powergaming.

Consider what happens when a party of Drow or a demonlord plays this game. Or all the PCs have weak little SR items on the cheap.

Now add Widen metamagic or spells customized to have broad AoEs.

You lose out important balancing potential downsides of Lightning Bolt, Confusion, Cone of Cold, and many other AoE spells.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I've always thought you could, but upon looking I'm finding no written statement to the effect, but it seems to me that a character should always be able to choose to fail something if they have concious control over their actions.

Really?

Let's say my ally A is in a grapple with my enemy E. I decide to make a ranged attack into the grapple, and--following the rules for firing into a grapple--randomly determine who my target is. Unfortunately, it turns out to be A. I have conscious control over my action of firing into the grapple. Should I be able to "choose to fail" my attack roll against A?

The same goes for SR. If I can choose to fail when rolling to beat SR, that would allow me to selectively target enemies with a fireball, for example, while passing over allies with SR. That definitely doesn't seem right to me.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

To me, logic then suggests you shouldn't be able to decide to get hit with spells through your SR.

But that's just me. It's a balance consideration built into the game, which is fine. Just seems odd that you can choose to fail at some things, but not at others.

--fje

--fje

 

[ThirdWizard]

A few things:

Spell Resistance must be lowered if you want to be affected by a SR: Yes spell without the caster having to rolll a caster level check. This is a standard action and the SR stays down until the next turn. If the creature wants to keep it down, they have to use another standard action to do so.

A creature who casts a spell on themselves, however, can freely ignore their own SR. So, a wizard can cast mage armor on themselves or some other beneficial spell.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But that's just me. It's a balance consideration built into the game, which is fine. Just seems odd that you can choose to fail at some things, but not at others.

In this sense, you can only choose to fail a saving throw. Suppressing your Spell Resistance requires a standard action and then it goes back up automatically next round.