Immunity to Spell School question

Some clerics receive immunity to specific spell schools (generally after reaching a specific cleric level). I'm not quite sure how this works here in Aenea.

When I think if "spell school immunity", I think of an ability that provides immunity to spell effects from spells specific to that school that target the individual, but not ones with Areas of Effect. That is, Evocation spell immunity would protect the individual from Magic Missile, but not necessarily Fireball.

Is this how it works? Or does spell school immunity grant immunity to all possible effects that a spell might inflict (no damage from Fireball if immune to Evocation)?

Though neither here or there (as this is not PnP), the DnD 3.5 SRD states that spell school immunity only applies to spells that can be resisted through Spell Resistance. I presume this is not in effect?

Thanks!

Edit: Doh! It looks like SR applies to even to spells with an area of effect, with exceptions. For example, someone could use telekinesis to drop a boulder on someone, and that someone wouldn't get the opportunity to resist the damage as it was the boulder + gravity that inflicts the injury. Either way, I'm simply looking for clarification.

The effect should be the same as if it were an item property - i.e. full immunity to all adverse effects via spells of that spell school without question.

That's fine. Is that how it works (regardless the spell's innate SR/no SR possibility, etc)? Please note I'm not suggesting a change, that S.I. works "wrong", etc...I'm merely curious and want to plan accordingly .

It is likely to much trouble to modify spells between those that indirectly and directly/AoE impact a PC. PnP Earthquake doesn't cause damage through the spell itself, but through how it effects the terrain (ie no Spell Immunity to Evocation to mitigate its effects), but what a headache that would be to implement.

Just a thought: True Seeing is a Divination spell (w/ an "adverse effect" for the individual viewed), but I wouldn't think Spell Immunity Divination would protect an individual from the spell. Or would it?

Again, I'm merely asking more out of curiosity than anything else.

In *most* cases, here is how it works:

Spells change things. Specifically what gets changed directly by the spell is what is usually subject to resistance if any. Immunities are pretty much like having perfect 100% resistance to certain magics.

So fireball... it creates fire out of nothing, so resistance would apply to the fire created by the spell itself. Fires that start as a result of the fireball's magical flames, however, would not allow resistance. Magic Missiles are also created by magic, so they are affected by resistance.

True seeing, for example, however... changes only the recipients ability to see. The objects and/or creatures viewed are not being affected/contacted by the magic.

Same thing with spells like greater magic weapon. They change the properties of the weapon itself. When the weapon hits something, the victim cannot resist the spell itself, as the spell changes the weapon, not the weapon's victim..... however they could mitigate the damage through normal means like damage reduction.

Does that help?

Oh sure, I totally understand that line of reasoning (in fact, the PH describes how specific schools of magic "work").

I'm mostly trying to draw upon my PnP intuition and seeing how much of it applies to NWN/Aenea. Earthquake would not be subject to SR or SI in PnP (no, I'm not saying that NWN/Aenea should model PnP as close as possible), but both can negate Earthquake in NWN/Aenea.

Bottom line, I was just seeking clarification of (not validation for) Spell School Immunity and how it works. But if it means anything, I sincerely appreciate your explanation. :-)

Edit: Doh, I have a question Dave. Tempest's Protective Gale is an Abjuration spell that target's the caster. Would an PC with S.I.: Abjuration be subject to the spell's effects (mischance, etc...) if they attack an individual that has the spell cast on them? My instinct says that S.I. wouldn't help an antagonist who attacks a PC with the spell active, but not sure.

I totally understand what you were asking, I just hope my explanation helped clarify like you wanted.

I agree some spells affect their victims indirectly, and as such would not logically be subject to SR. In PnP thats how it works. There are only a handful of spells that come to mind that are like earthquake in that regard... also bear in mind, that such spells are also generally usually significantly behind on the damage scale when compared to spells that directly affect victims and are subject to SR, etc.

I actually asked ages ago about the possibility of having some of them changed.... but it WAAAAY too much work to justify the change when there is so much else that would/should be higher priority...
Pretty much every spell in NWN allows SR... there are very few that don't... while thats not the case in PnP.... meh... its not a deal breaker.... NWN is still lots of fun as a caster.

One thing I *do* want to see, is immunity to dispelling effects, somehow implemented, as an item property. I'd pay for immunity to each of the dispelling spells (all 7 I believe) in an instant if I could. Or at least the breaching effects.

daveyeisley wrote:I totally understand what you were asking, I just hope my explanation helped clarify like you wanted.

I agree some spells affect their victims indirectly, and as such would not logically be subject to SR. In PnP thats how it works. There are only a handful of spells that come to mind that are like earthquake in that regard... also bear in mind, that such spells are also generally usually significantly behind on the damage scale when compared to spells that directly affect victims and are subject to SR, etc.

I actually asked ages ago about the possibility of having some of them changed.... but it WAAAAY too much work to justify the change when there is so much else that would/should be higher priority...
Pretty much every spell in NWN allows SR... there are very few that don't... while thats not the case in PnP.... meh... its not a deal breaker.... NWN is still lots of fun as a caster.

Thanks Dave! And I agree with that the work it would require would make such an effort prohibitive.

Uhm, I actually snuck in an edit in my second post that I was hoping you might be able to help me understand.

Svair wrote:
Edit: Doh, I have a question Dave. Tempest's Protective Gale is an Abjuration spell that target's the caster. Would an PC with S.I.: Abjuration be subject to the spell's effects (mischance, etc...) if they attack an individual that has the spell cast on them? My instinct says that S.I. wouldn't help an antagonist who attacks a PC with the spell active, but not sure.

Excellent question. A bit complicated. too.

In reference to the context of your question, namely in Aenea... you are correct. SR or SI would not help the attacker in any way against the miss chance provided by the spell, as in NWN, the spell effect is applied directly to the caster, not the victim/attacker.

Thats the NWN bit of the answer, which differs from the PnP answer significantly, as follows:

Due to how the miss chance is explained, in a PnP scenario, I believe the attacker would indeed benefit from SR or SI against the miss chance provided by Tempest's Protective Pale if they were making a melee attack, as part of them(or their held weapon) would be directly contacting the magic, and hence have the possibility of resisting the effect on themself. This is very similar to how Fire Shield and similar "damage shield" spells work in PnP. The effects are anchored to the recipient, but actually cause change(damage) directly to the victim(attacker) when the attacker lands a hit in melee.

As long as the victim(ie. attacker) or their held weapon are making physical contact with the spell effect, they have a chance to resist any change it might cause to them(so, for example, they would not have a chance to resist a Stoneskin spell on their target, as the Stoneskin spell doesnt cause change to or affect the attacker). Mind you, ranged attacks do not work the same way, as only the projectile comes into contact with the effect, and as they are no longer held or in the possession of the attacker, they no longer benefit from his/her SR or SI.

Hence, in the case of Tempest's Protective Gale, ranged attacks will never offer a chance to resist, and thus will never work... (unless they are giant boulders or seige weapons, etc.. but those wont allow spell resistance so much as they would overpower the spell effect), but against damage shields, ranged attacks and reach weapons will simply avoid the damage effect, and reach weapons would also allow for SR/SI.

Hope that helps

One thing I *do* want to see, is immunity to dispelling effects,
somehow implemented, as an item property. I'd pay for immunity to each
of the dispelling spells (all 7 I believe) in an instant if I could. Or
at least the breaching effects.

Im so torn on this one.... I have spent a lot of time pondering how changing dispel/breaching would affect gameplay. In Aenea, it really doesnt come up much at all. There are very few caster enemies that actually cast dispelling magic, and even less who cast breaching spells... which can be nice at lower levels.

That being said, it does still happen... and as a caster can be VERY aggravating. Still, if casters can become immune to all the effects that can remove their defensive spells... it becomes a sort of de facto temporary immunity, and would be cheaper (if done right) than actually getting the school or level immunities. The only drawback I see is having to dedicate spell slots/castings to those defensive spells.

I think in the end I agree with what Bioware did with dispelling/breaching for the most part. The breach list should be edited, I think, to include certain spells and have others removed(spell mantles and shadow shield... sure... but stoneskin or premonition? regular dispelling with a caster level check should be fine for those)... but other than that and perhaps giving clerics/bards some lesser breaching magic.... I think overall balance is better served as things are. One can still become immune to damn near everything in Aenea... but it takes a LOT of hours played and voucher value invested to accomplish.

I believe making dispels/breaches allow for immunity would also require making them check for spell resistance, unfortunately. And the effect of doing so I think would make Cast Spell properties on items(even potions) too powerful if combined with Abjurative immunities.

Overall, I think the best changes would be directed specifically at the breaching list... but again, so few enemies use that stuff.