Supress an extrordinary ability?

[Ithamar]

Technically the red dragon cannot supress its fire immunity to be harmed by lava, since it is not a spell effect.  Unless it is magic lava I guess. 

[Mooncrow]

I still haven't seen a ruling that says immunities can be lowered, except in a few specific cases that actually say so. Example golem's magic immunity.

I see that SR can be dropped, but nothing about energy resistances, which are a separate abilities.

Then you didn't look very hard:

]Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.

There is the general rule for your perusal - all resistances, immunities (note that the example given is an immunity) and the like can be suppressed.  Unless the quality explicitly says so (specific beating general, of course) this is the case. 

edit:

Technically the red dragon cannot supress its fire immunity to be harmed by lava, since it is not a spell effect.  Unless it is magic lava I guess. 

Possibly true, if a bit nit-picky   But the idea that he could suppress his fire immunity to receive a spell is there, so the implication would be that he can suppress it in other circumstances. 

[Thurbane]

If a Golem couldn't lower it's resistance, how exactly can Awaken Construct even function? Would the caster have to find some funky method of modifying the spell with metamagic so it no longer allows SR? Or would he have to somehow modify the golem in question prior to receiving the spell?

FWIW, I believe the example of the Elf and sleep immunity sets precedent that a golem can lower it's magic immunity.

[sirpercival]

There are constructs which are not golems.  Those can be awakened with impunity.

Here's what you do: have a Dweomerkeeper use supernatural spell on Awaken.  Now it doesn't allow spell resistance.

EDIT: (yes, Dwkeeps break the game.  Wheeee)

[zook1shoe]

I still haven't seen a ruling that says immunities can be lowered, except in a few specific cases that actually say so. Example golem's magic immunity.

I see that SR can be dropped, but nothing about energy resistances, which are a separate abilities.

Then you didn't look very hard:

]Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.

There is the general rule for your perusal - all resistances, immunities (note that the example given is an immunity) and the like can be suppressed.  Unless the quality explicitly says so (specific beating general, of course) this is the case. 

Actually, its example doesn't work, since an elf actually has immunity not resistance. Since the rule says specifically "a resistance to magic". Nowhere does it say "immunity" or "immunity to magic"

Just shows some more horrible editing on examples

[ariasderros]

...*Snip*...

I'd agree with you except I have yet to see a dictionary define the word "immunity" without using the word resistance.

[Mooncrow]

Actually, its example doesn't work, since an elf actually has immunity not resistance. Since the rule says specifically "a resistance to magic". Nowhere does it say "immunity" or "immunity to magic"

Just shows some more horrible editing on examples

Or, they used the phrase "special resistance to magic" (which doesn't have an exact definition in D&D) to cover several types of resistance - and then decided to make that clear by including an immunity in the example. 

[zook1shoe]

Or, they used the phrase "special resistance to magic" (which doesn't have an exact definition in D&D) to cover several types of resistance - and then decided to make that clear by including an immunity in the example.

and don't get me wrong.... i see exactly where you are coming from.... its just the phrasing is what matters and i personally don't see it phrased right to work that way.

RAI your way is true.... RAW i feel it is not true

Edit: the Rules Compendium has some stuff on pgs 48, 59, 131

[SorO_Lost]

And yeah, I love when the FAQ contradicts explicitly stated rules; it really builds faith in it's relevance.

I love it when people bash the FAQ without knowing what the hell they are talking about. It really builds faith in people.


For the record, this half assed quote read in full

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.

Is the error. Subject is saving throws in a header about saving throws and has squat diddly dick to do with SR and doesn't have any right to ruling suppression of Extraordinary abilities let alone the ability to trump specific rules on a golem's Magic Immunity behavior.

See also

Errata Rule: Primary Sources When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

The SR and Extraordinary entires trump it just by merit of being the SR/Ex entries. And guess what they have to say on the matter...

[Lo77o]

And yeah, I love when the FAQ contradicts explicitly stated rules; it really builds faith in it's relevance.

I love it when people bash the FAQ without knowing what the hell they are talking about. It really builds faith in people.


For the record, this half assed quote read in full

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.

Is the error. Subject is saving throws in a header about saving throws and has squat diddly dick to do with SR and doesn't have any right to ruling suppression of Extraordinary abilities let alone the ability to trump specific rules on a golem's Magic Immunity behavior.

See also

Errata Rule: Primary Sources When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

The SR and Extraordinary entires trump it just by merit of being the SR/Ex entries. And guess what they have to say on the matter...

You have a valid point, but i did post the entire quote and told people where i got it from.

When i posted it, i was under the impression that the OP wanted a way to cast spells on a golem that was willing. And that is why i pointed to page 177 in the PhB. I felt it was relevant.

But i can see now that there is several people who either think it would be against RaW or RaI to do this, and i have no intentions of trying to change anyone's minds.

[Quillwraith]

When i posted it, i was under the impression that the OP wanted a way to cast spells on a golem that was willing. And that is why i pointed to page 177 in the PhB. I felt it was relevant.

That was what I was looking for.
This whole discussion is interesting though.

[zook1shoe]

Lo77o, had I read it your way, I would have fought just as hard for you

When i posted it, i was under the impression that the OP wanted a way to cast spells on a golem that was willing. And that is why i pointed to page 177 in the PhB. I felt it was relevant.

That was what I was looking for.
This whole discussion is interesting though.

You're welcome

[sirpercival]

There are constructs which are not golems.  Those can be awakened with impunity.

Here's what you do: have a Dweomerkeeper use supernatural spell on Awaken.  Now it doesn't allow spell resistance.

So, there you go.

[linklord231]

I always assumed that golems couldn't voluntarily lower their magic immunity because they can't voluntarily do anything.  They only take commands from their master.  They just aren't smart enough to lower their immunity, even for a helpful spell.