Post/Author/DateTime	Post
goawayugh 06-16-06, 07:58 AM	What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object? (Technically, these two terms cant coexist) Who would win this one? The Beguiler says it automatically overcomes SR, not ignores it. Yet Spell Immunity is unbeatable SR. Spell Immunity: This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome. You become able to automatically overcome the spell resistance of any affected target.
travellersside 06-16-06, 08:22 AM	My personal interpretation would be this: The Beguiler automatically overcomes SR, rather than ignores it. Consequently, the beguiler is assumed to automatically succeed on the roll, effectively always rolling high enough to bypass it. A golem with spell immunity (or whatever else you're thinking of) has unbeatable SR, which means that it doesn't matter what you roll, it isn't possible to succeed. So, no matter how high you go, it still isn't enough. So, the beguiler is the weaker of the two, since it's based on effectively rolling high enough, while the golem says that it doesn't matter what you roll, it won't work anyway. In other words, a beguiler beats SR, but not Spell Immunity. As I said, that's my interpretation. There are almost certainly going to be others who disagree.
Thomas_Covenant 06-16-06, 09:23 AM	I don't think the RAW will give a definitiive answer here. The wording, and perhaps the English language itself, is not precise enough. I'd lean towards spell immunity stops the beguiler, because it's treated as unbeatable spell resistance, it isn't quite spell resistance itself. You could argue either way indefinitely (and this thread well may, knowing this place), and I admit personal bias in my view. Of course, I'm planning on making house rules to beef up golems spell immunity anyway, so I guess it won't matter in my campaign.
runestar 06-16-06, 10:10 AM	I am with the "spell immunity stops it too" bandwagon. :P Just don't ask me why...
Ziggaraut 06-16-06, 11:50 AM	I'm with the 'the moment the beguiler casts at spell immunity, the time-space continuim(sp?) collapses, ending the campaign :D Seriously, I'm with spell immunity winning
Vaelan 06-16-06, 03:38 PM	Why would a Beguiler even bother invoking such paradox? The primary examples of immune creatures are golems, which are immune to all of their spells anyway.
Kadasbrass 06-16-06, 04:06 PM	I remember from my old M:tg days, WotC had the rule "When something says you can do something and something else says you cannot do something, the cannot beats the can..." something along those lines. I'm going with the fact that Spell Immunity overrides the Beguiler's ability. This has to do with the fact that the Beguiler says it beats SR, but to technical the Golem doesn't have a beatable SR.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-16-06, 04:08 PM	I'm with the 'the moment the beguiler casts at spell immunity, the time-space continuim(sp?) collapses, ending the campaign :D That's supiciously similar to my theory: If a beguiler casts a spell at a golem, a catastrophic explosion and the undoing of the whole multiverse would ensue. Maybe they're the same! :eek:
Kradlo 06-16-06, 04:54 PM	I'd have to go with the crowd on this one. Spell Resistance is always intended to be a finite effect, and the Beguiler's ability overcomes that finite resistance, however high. Immunity is not finite, so I'd rule that immune is just that, immune. Unless a given effect is written as "affects even creatures normally immune to X," an immune target is still immune. Kradlo