Sepll Resistance and curing spells

[msalzer]

Ther was some discussion in my game about whether or not spell resisitance should apply to a cleric casting a cure spell. I think the player needs to lower the spell resistance in order for the healing to work. However, the DMG has some wording that might imply that it isn't the case.

Spell Resistance: DMG p.298 "A cleric's spells are subject to spell resistance, but his use of positive and negative energy is not."

Cure Light Wounds: SRD "When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5)."

Since Cure Light Wounds mentions the phrase "you channel positive energy", the player feels that this bypasses the spell resistance.

An email to WotC Customer Support got this response: "Correct. Positive or negative energy applied to aid allies does bypass SR."

When I read this, I felt it didn't really answer the question. What do you think?

 

[frankthedm]

WotC:CS was utterly wrong as far as cure spells go. Just going by primary sources makes it very clear. The entry for the Spell resistance special ability and the entry for Harmless spells cleanly call out harmless spells are hosed by SR and it take a standard action to drop ones' SR.

Turn Undead is not subject to spell resistance. Neither would an ability that worked off of turn undead to heal or harm someone, as i suspect some Divine Feats do.

Cure spells definitly are effected by spell resistance.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellResistance
A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature’s next turn. At the beginning of the creature’s next turn, the creature’s spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor
(harmless)
The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor
The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless. In such a case, you do not need to make the caster level check described above.

 

[Sylrae]

while I agree that your three points are very valid in the case of most spells, where it says a cleric's use of positive and negative energy is not subject to spell resistance, that would supercede the general case.

any cleric spell that explains itself through positive or negative energy would not be subject to SR, as they fall under exceptions to the rule, because of what the DMG says.

this would also mean that for non-harmless spells you also bypass SR.

cast cure on undead? quite deadly. no SR.

captured by drow? inflict wounds is your new best friend, cause their SR doesn't apply.

 

[Legildur]

The spell description itself (from the SRD) also spells it out (particularly when combined with what Frank quoted above):

Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless); see text

 

[Jhaelen]

while I agree that your three points are very valid in the case of most spells, where it says a cleric's use of positive and negative energy is not subject to spell resistance, that would supercede the general case.

any cleric spell that explains itself through positive or negative energy would not be subject to SR, as they fall under exceptions to the rule, because of what the DMG says.

Sorry, but you're totally wrong here.

The DMG explicitly states that cleric spells are affected normally by SR. The second part of the quote refers to any uses of positive/negative energy that are _not_ part of spellcasting, i.e. using it to turn undead or power one of their Divine feats.

 

[Sylrae]

Sorry, but you're totally wrong here.

That's ok. I've been wrong before. I'd rather know WHY than not.

Thanks for the heads up.