High level caster "fix:" Reasonable or Outrageous

[Wulf Ratbane]

Fun with polls.

Here's an idea I had to address some "problems" with high level spellcasters, and some of the most decried spells.

1) If a creature with spell resistance is inside the area of effect when the spell is cast, the caster must make a check against SR. If the caster fails to penetrate the SR, the spell fails. (If multiple creatures with SR are inside the area, only the highest applies.)

2) SR always applies. Ignore "Spell Resistance: No" in the spell description.

Note that this only applies as the spell is cast. A creature with SR can't "dispel" an existing effect.

Hopefully I'll get the poll options right for a good discussion.

 

[Nifft]

Ugh, no. Terrible.

It makes "works half the time!" the balance for "when it works YOU WIN!"... and that's bad design, unless you're trying to design a crap shoot.

"...and that's a homophone for chute", -- N

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ugh, no. Terrible.

It makes "works half the time!" the balance for "when it works YOU WIN!"... and that's bad design, unless you're trying to design a crap shoot.

(Thumbs up on the post-- it's almost indestructible-- but I'll play devil's advocate after a few more replies.)


(EDIT: I assume that's definitely not your vote for Option 5.)

 

[Cheiromancer]

Just so we are on the same page, could you describe a scenario where the problem is apparent? Are we talking orb spells against golems, or what?

 

[ruemere]

Spell Resistance would become a Spell Armor Class with an added benefit of affecting whole areas.
The importance of SR would skyrocket as a single character with high SR would provide protective umbrella for a whole party while AOE effects would become useless at higher levels (too unreliable to be effective).

...

Not a good idea.

...

Countersuggestion: Turn an SR into binary property of a character with the following ability:
Spell resistance: Whenever you pass a save against a spell, spell like ability, supernatural ability or any area effect, may ignore partial, special or secondary effects. This ability does not allow to ignore "halved damage" results.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Just so we are on the same page, could you describe a scenario where the problem is apparent? Are we talking orb spells against golems, or what?

Just to pick one spell out of a hat: Solid Fog. Lots of large area conjurations (cloudkill, evard's tentacles). And a few [force] evocations: forcecage probably tops.

Actually ruemere can probably do a better job-- he red flagged a lot of spells to me in private conversations-- because I'm personally probably more in the "What problem?" camp.

(But I know a lot of folks who aren't.)

The importance of SR would skyrocket as a single character with high SR would provide protective umbrella for a whole party while AOE effects would become useless at higher levels (too unreliable to be effective).

Not a good idea.

With the caveat that I'm playing devil's advocate here:

I'm not so sure what's wrong with forcing the casters to target around/away from SR-laden BBEGs, and/or to give the high-level fighters something really important to do (take out that BBEG).

It becomes a matter of spell selection and spell targeting-- both of which would change. But my concern would be that it forces the casters (in order to squeeze out the most effectiveness per spell/per action) to be buff buddies for the frontline fighters.

(For a really good demonstration of this in action: High-level D&D Online raids. The BBEG's are immune to almost every spell there is other than straight damage.)

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not so sure what's wrong with forcing the casters to target around/away from SR-laden BBEGs, and/or to give the high-level fighters something really important to do (take out that BBEG)

Well...

This is the same on/off class nerfing the rogue suffers from currently in 3.x. If (for example) you were fighting a golem (or an undead with SR) with the typical party of four (cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue) 75% of the group would not be able to utilize their class features against them (SR, crit immunity). Granted, the fighter could be super-buffed and healed every round (the former assuming the wizard focused on buffing, not direct damage) but I'm not a fan of an encounter than effectively shuts out players from their roles.

(BTW: I'm not a fan of obscure DR for that reason. A lich with high SR under this theoretical system would be nearly impossible without a magical mace or 2-h power attack; ditto with a golem without an adamantine weapon).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well...

This is the same on/off class nerfing the rogue suffers from currently in 3.x.

I've added "Critical anything" and "Sneak attack anything you can flank" to Trailblazer.

 

[Scott DeWar]

I am not quite sure what category i am to vote for:

if the problem is this:

if the 'BBEG' is a group of wizards with a stone guardian or golum that has spell resistance, and the party wizard casts a fire ball, then you attempt spell resistance from the golum thing and if it succeeds, the whole area of effect (fireball) is negated?

if that is the question then:

I acknowledge there is a problem, have not reached high level caster yet and think the spell resistance effect should read that the one with the resistance should only ignore the effect as i do belive resistance does not dispell. therefore the group of 'BBEG' wizards all get cooked by the fireball as per their individual saves.

IMHO

do I understand the problem right?

 

[Victim]

(For a really good demonstration of this in action: High-level D&D Online raids. The BBEG's are immune to almost every spell there is other than straight damage.)

And why is that a good thing?