SR: You don't have to lower it after all?

[Stalker0]

Pg. 177 of the 3.5 phb says emphasis mine:

"If your spell is being resisted by a creature with Spell resistance, you must make a caster level check...."

As resisting has a specific meaning in dnd, and you can voluntarily not resist spells, then for spells like cures can I just cast them on my SR'd ally without him having to take the standard action to lower it?

 

[Ottergame]

Page 298 of the DMG says, "A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity."

So, a creature with SR must make the special effort to lower it for spells it wants to affect it.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Page 298 of the DMG says, "A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity."

So, a creature with SR must make the special effort to lower it for spells it wants to affect it.

It only says that you can lower DM as a standard action. It doesn't say that you have to do this in order to receive a spell you don't want to resist. I think this works just like spells with saving throw (harmless).

 

[Silveras]

It only says that you can lower DM as a standard action. It doesn't say that you have to do this in order to receive a spell you don't want to resist. I think this works just like spells with saving throw (harmless).

Then what is the point of even mentioning it ?

 

[Darklone]

Some people think it's funny to give someone with SR a small disadvantage.

E.g.: If they need a standard action to be healed in combat.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Someone with SR who wants to benefit from a spell has not to lower his SR, it is enough if the caster of the spell beats the SR, otherwise...loser.
And I think it is good as it is, if you want to be surely affected use a Standard Action to lower your SR for 1 round.
Just to mention it, SR never interferes with your own spell casting.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

Either way, I'm ruling that you have to lower spell resistance with anything that has a saving throw, whether it says harmless or not, that way, I don't have to charge +1 LA for SR, because it's really not worth it, but as it stands, it's too good to give for free.

 

[shilsen]

It only says that you can lower DM as a standard action. It doesn't say that you have to do this in order to receive a spell you don't want to resist. I think this works just like spells with saving throw (harmless).

I don't think you are correct. The DMG (pg.298) specifically says that a "creature's spell resistance does never interferes with its own spell, items, or abilities." That statement would be completely unnecessary if the use of SR was dependent on its possessor's intent.

 

[rushlight]

Either way, I'm ruling that you have to lower spell resistance with anything that has a saving throw, whether it says harmless or not, that way, I don't have to charge +1 LA for SR, because it's really not worth it, but as it stands, it's too good to give for free.

+1 level for SR? Under what circumstances would you do this? If SR was granted as part of a class feature, or by an item? When the spell is cast?

I can't imagine any other circumstances for this, because I would imagine that a class with SR built in would have already figured that into any LA that might be needed.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

According to Savage Species, if your race gives you SR, it is worth +1 LA. That's why drow are LA +2 (Which is, in my opinion, completely and utterly rediculous.)