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

[Kalanyr]

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.

Actually I can think of one good reason for that text, it prevents you casting fireball at your feet. Which kinda sucks since that was a fun if I die you're going out with me gambit.

Edit- And I actually follow a logic similar to Atrioch's but get a different result if you need to drop SR to recieve a non-harmful spell its not worth +1 LA so I houserule that you don't need to drop it to recieve a spell you wish too. I also ignore that bit about your own spells which reallows the fireball gambit. Which IMO makes LA +1 okay for SR of 10 or 11 + Character level.

 

[0-hr]

I find it strange that you can give up your saving throw as "not an action", but have to expend this great effort to give up your spell resistance. It seems it would have been easier, and more consistent, to treat SR like a they do a saving throw (voluntarily failable on a spell-by-spell basis).

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Ki Ryn
I find it strange that you can give up your saving throw as "not an action", but have to expend this great effort to give up your spell resistance. It seems it would have been easier, and more consistent, to treat SR like a they do a saving throw (voluntarily failable on a spell-by-spell basis).

Yes, it would make SR almost perfect, super protection from spells and [SP] with no pay-back.

Our campaign is at a point where we think that the cleric should not cast SR on us because we don't want to be not affected by his Heal,Mass spell.

I have no problem on ruling that you can throw a fireball in front of your feet and can check SR wether you are affected by the spell or not*, but you would never ever get the chance to benefit from another casters spells or effects unless you lower your SR, a Standard Action, or he beats your SR.

* But I think given the rules, the fireball will affect you automatically!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Yes, it would make SR almost perfect, super protection from spells and [SP] with no pay-back.

You mean like AC and attacks? Does the cleric roll to hit you with that cure spell?

 

[Stalker0]

Yes, it would make SR almost perfect, super protection from spells and [SP] with no pay-back.

The payback is level adjustments for creatures, expensive items or dispellable high level spells for pcs.

Also, at higher levels, sometimes SR is the only defense you have against spells... many don't have saving throws at that point.

But I'm not arguing whether SR should or should not be applied to willing spells, what I want to know is what do the rules say?

 

[Ottergame]

You mean like AC and attacks? Does the cleric roll to hit you with that cure spell?

Yes, he does. If you're trying to heal someone in combat, you have to make a melee touch attack (vs AC 10 since the person you're healing isn't trying to get out of the way).

 

[Darklone]

Yes, he does. If you're trying to heal someone in combat, you have to make a melee touch attack (vs AC 10 since the person you're healing isn't trying to get out of the way).

I remember something in the combat chapter about touching up to 6 allies per round without a to hit roll...

 

[Li Shenron]

I find it strange that you can give up your saving throw as "not an action", but have to expend this great effort to give up your spell resistance. It seems it would have been easier, and more consistent, to treat SR like a they do a saving throw (voluntarily failable on a spell-by-spell basis).

As it is at the moment, it plays like SR is almost an "external" thing that protects the creature and is always active. I don't think that spending a standard action to lower it is a big disadvantage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, he does. If you're trying to heal someone in combat, you have to make a melee touch attack (vs AC 10 since the person you're healing isn't trying to get out of the way).

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

-Hyp.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

The payback is level adjustments for creatures, expensive items or dispellable high level spells for pcs.

LA, matters only for players, not for Monsters or NPCs.
Expensive Items, matters far more for players.
Dispellable High Level Spells, matters for almost anyone using spells at all

So as it seems, you try to get one of the best spell protections as a player and want no pay-back, there is nothing you can get for free based on the rules as they are written in D&D 3.5 and don't tell me that a club costs 0GP.

And tell me those uber-spells in high levels that have no Save but SR!
Don't state Ray of Enfeeblement or Scorching Ray they hit you starting at level 3.

And given the rules as they are you have to lower your SR, a Standard Action, to be affected by a spell/[SP] cast/used by someone else then you, if he should be able to do so without beating first your SR with a caster level check.