Spell Resistance versus Saving Throw

[The Amazing Dingo]

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I wanted to inquire again (since I couldn't find any old threads) about the difference in physical descriptions between whether a spell fails due to SR or if the creature makes the Saving Throw.

If a PC casts a spell at the creature and the spell fails, can the caster tell whether it was because of SR or the creature making the save? Is it a visible difference between the two or is the caster forced to make a Spellcraft check to tell?

Thanks!

 

[UltimaGabe]

As far as I can see it, there's really no way to tell. I suppose if the spell required a Reflex save, and the target just stood and took it, that would be one indication- but otherwise I don't really think there's a way to tell.

 

[Thanee]

Well, since you have to make a caster level check to beat SR, you probably do notice, that a creature has spell resistance, and when a spell fails because of the SR. There isn't really anything in the rules about that, tho, AFAIK.

Bye
Thanee

 

[taliesin15]

Is it being suggested here that the use of Spellcraft might indicate whether one has Spell Resistance?

Might I further suggest that Sages (NPC Expert class in 3.5, I believe) or characters with high Knowledge craft scores whose expertise includes Monsters might, in a game situation, be able to tell characters which monsters have Spell Resistance?

But back to the thread--I was hoping someone might consider the question here of how one might obtain spell resistance, other than from spells, crafts, feats, and magic items.

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

Is it being suggested here that the use of Spellcraft might indicate whether one has Spell Resistance?

Might I further suggest that Sages (NPC Expert class in 3.5, I believe) or characters with high Knowledge craft scores whose expertise includes Monsters might, in a game situation, be able to tell characters which monsters have Spell Resistance?

That isn't the suggestion here. The question is if a PC (whether the caster or not) is able to deduce whether a creature's Spell Resistance or Saving Throw was what caused the spell to fail. I'm sorry if I worded it wrong.

I was thinking that, while not RAW, a Spellcraft check might be able to tell the caster which the source of the spell failure might have been.

My next question was if some type of physical description difference might exist that a PC might be able to see that could tell the difference.

And your second assessment is something I could hardly argue against.

 

[Thanee]

Yes, a Knowledge check could tell you (if it is high enough, see rules for the Knowledge skill), if a creature has spell resistance (up to the DM, tho, what details you derive exactly).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you cast Charm Monster, for example - any targeted spell - you automatically sense if the spell fails due to a successful saving throw.

The same clause does not exist for failure due to SR.

-Hyp.

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

If you cast Charm Monster, for example - any targeted spell - you automatically sense if the spell fails due to a successful saving throw.

The same clause does not exist for failure due to SR.

-Hyp.

But Thanee raised a good point to me that I hadn't considered: wouldn't a wizard realize that he is facing some type of SR since he is actively making a roll (and I see no reason a DM needs to make this roll behind the screen)?

Hence, a wizard would know why a spell failed. Anyone else on the battlefield would likely have no clue.

 

[Thanee]

Well, there's also nothing in the rules, which tells you, that you know an attack has missed, because you didn't beat the AC.

However, the player will certainly notice this. And it also makes sense to have the character notice, that the attack didn't connect properly.

I see Spell Resistance in a similar way, as a kind of Armor Class versus spells (it's not exactly the same, since not every being has SR, of course).

I can easily imagine, a wizard noticing the spell being more diffictult to connect with the target's aura, because of the intervening Spell Resistance. Like when you try to punch through armor with a sword, the wizard tries to beat the Spell Resistance with a magical equivalent.

Don't really see, why this shouldn't be noticeable by the wizard, whether this was successful or not.

It's an open roll performed by the player, so the information is there, anyways.

Bye
Thanee

 

[UltimaGabe]

But Thanee raised a good point to me that I hadn't considered: wouldn't a wizard realize that he is facing some type of SR since he is actively making a roll (and I see no reason a DM needs to make this roll behind the screen)?

The player would definitely realize, but the character wouldn't. After all, it's not like the mage casts the spell, then says, "Oh, crap! They're resisting it! I've gotta put some more effort into this!" because the spell's already been cast. Caster Level Checks, basically, are ALWAYS happening, every time you cast a spell. However, since it never makes a difference unless the target has Spell Resistance, then the actual casting of the spell is no different in-game when such an event occurs. So, like I said, the player would realize something is up (having to make the caster level check), but for the caster, they're just casting a spell like they always do.

Anyway, that being said, from Hypersmurf's mention of the rules, although it would not necessarily become apparent to a caster that a spell failed due to Spell Resistance, he'd know it didn't seem to work, and he'd know the target didn't make its save. So he can then deduce what may have happened (he may have Mind Blank on, or Spell Immunity, or, in this case, Spell Resistance- he still doesn't know for sure, but he at least knows that the next casting of the spell might not necessarily work either).