D&D 5E SR and DR; is there a place in Next for them?

[Remathilis]

So I was thinking...

Part of 4e's rationale for removing spell resistance (SR) and Damage Reduction (DR) was to no longer hose a PC from a combat. Thus, a creature with high SR hoses the mage, a creature with high DR hoses the fighter (and rogue), etc. This made sense in the action economy of 4e (along with the HP drain system) and the desire to balance all encounters for maximum PC fun.

I wonder; if such goals are no longer prevalent in Next, does that leave the door open to the return of SR and DR? The more important question is, should they return?

Spell Resistance (that's Magic Resistance for you grognards) was a chance that magic failed when used against a creature. Some monsters had tiny amounts, but some of the iconic baddies (drow, gith, demons and devils) had it in spades. Raksashas had stupidly high SR, for example. The idea was that magic (or at least direct effect magic like fireball or magic missile) was dicey, if not a waste to use on these foes. They were better faced with cold steel, summoned foes, or other indirect magic. Still, it did have the effect of sitting the mage out of fights.

Damage Reduction comes in a few flavors; all or nothing based on magical + (TSR era) and Resistance overcome by certain plus's or materials (3e and later). Each had a few benefits and drawbacks. All or nothing highlighted the need for magic weapons to overcome mythic foes (vampires, golems, dragons, demons, and other outer-planar beasties), while DR showed how a frost giant could still damage a white dragon without needing a +3 greatclub to do it. (Though AD&D did allow HD of monsters to overcome normal weapon immunity). Attack based on bonus emphasized more powerful weapons needed to face more powerful foes (like needing a mighty +4 weapon to face off against a balor) while item-based DR often tied to the mythic weaknesses (fey = cold iron, golems = strong than steel weapons, lycanthropes = silver) but then required the "golf bag" of different DR-breaking materials. High DR gave fighter's pause and let spellcasters shine. A foe with high DR AND SR was often a dangerous foe to the ill-prepared party.

In a game emphasizing tactical combat, these shut-you-down methods seem ham-fisted. But in a game emphasizing exploration, they could be used to allow certain classes to shine. I wouldn't mind a way to incorporate these elements back in, but I can see a lot of reasons to exclude them as well.

So all this to my questions.

1.) Is the a place for DR/SR in the next edition of D&D?

2.) How should SR be handled to keep wizards from directly nuking, but still active in a fight?

3.) How should DR be done: all or nothing? Resist partial blows? Should it be against silver, magic, +X items, or various special materials based on monster?

4.) Should it be a module, or part of the core experience?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

There should be a feature like SR or DR -- some means of making monsters tougher to attack, without making them outright immune to magic or damage.

DR could be perhaps positive -- a monster takes *extra* damage from a vulnerability like silver, rather than being immune to damage from other sources.

SR is tougher, I think. Perhaps this is where some sort of ability-based skill check comes in to play to affect a creature with a spell if that creature has inherent resistance.

It can be core, but on monsters that don't get encountered in low levels of play (skeletons don't need DR).

 

[drothgery]

There is a mechanic to resist spell effects in D&D and it is saving throws (or defenses in 4e). There is a mechanic to resist physical effects in D&D and it is armor class. Adding a second mechanism on top of this only makes things confusing to little purpose and a lot of frustration.

SR and DR should stay dead.

 

[Harlock]

DR could be perhaps positive -- a monster takes *extra* damage from a vulnerability like silver, rather than being immune to damage from other sources.

SR is tougher, I think. Perhaps this is where some sort of ability-based skill check comes in to play to affect a creature with a spell if that creature has inherent resistance.

I believe you are on the right track here. I love DR being a positive. Hit a lycanthrope with silver, add a +X to damage, do maximum damage, or double damage. Perhaps using the right weapon even grants advantage? There may still be a golf bag approach, but you do limit its actual necessity since a regular weapon can still do regular damage.

And, since I think you are on the right track with DR, why not stay with a positive bonus for SR? Clay Golems can be (partially?) immune to force and electricity damage but vulnerable to fire and hence fire spells grant a damage bonus or advantage. A Crystal Golem could be vulnerable to force. Of course, one could just make it a straight positive bonus and drop the immunities.

 

[Fifth Element]

There is a mechanic to resist spell effects in D&D and it is saving throws (or defenses in 4e). There is a mechanic to resist physical effects in D&D and it is armor class. Adding a second mechanism on top of this only makes things confusing to little purpose and a lot of frustration.

SR and DR should stay dead.

I partly agree, at least with respect to SR. I've always found it a kludgy way to make casters less effective. There are better ways to make sure casters don't dominate.

But for DR, I can see a purpose for it. Given the abstract nature of D&D combat, you can't just say "we already have AC", because hit points are also, partly, a reflection of resisting physical effects. DR can serve a purpose in making sure a dragon can't be taken out by a large group of commoners.

 

[Stalker0]

So I was thinking...

Part of 4e's rationale for removing spell resistance (SR) and Damage Reduction (DR) was to no longer hose a PC from a combat.

4e didn't remove DR, in fact it strengthened it. DR in 4e combines 3e DR and energy resistance. In other words you reduce damage from all sources.

3e included SR because many high level spells no longer required saving throws. If you change that, I don't think you need to keep SR around.

 

[Croesus]

1.) Is the a place for DR/SR in the next edition of D&D?

2.) How should SR be handled to keep wizards from directly nuking, but still active in a fight?

3.) How should DR be done: all or nothing? Resist partial blows? Should it be against silver, magic, +X items, or various special materials based on monster?

4.) Should it be a module, or part of the core experience?

1. If it's common, I prefer Olgar's idea of using vulnerabilities rather than immunities. One of the problems of DR/SR is that it reached a point where half or more creatures encountered had it. Immunities should be relatively rare and memorable, IMO.

2. One option for both DR and SR is advantage/disadvantage. It's not straightout immunity, but giving advantage on all magic saves would nicely model resistance to magic. Likewise, giving disadvantage on damage rolls would reflect the difficulty in affecting a creature with a physical attack. But as I mentioned before, I'd want these to be rare, not something every tom, dick and kobold has.

3. As long as it's rare, it could be either - I can live with 1 creature in a 100 having complete immunity to something like magic or physical attacks or whatever. Every campaign needs a Tarrasque. If it's common, then I'm back to Olgar's idea of using vulnerabilities instead.

4. Again, it depends on how common it is. If common, a module is problematic: how do you layer DR/SR onto all the existing creatures, items, and classes? I remember attempting something like this with 1E's modifiers for weapon vs. armor "type". AC for creatures did not equal an armor type, so it's was a real pain to figure out what armor type to use for each creature. Eventually my group just handwaived it as AC = armor type, even though we knew it made no sense.

Of course, it could easily be a module (heck, just a sidebar) if it's rare. A GM is given some general guidelines on how to apply it - advantage/disadvantage, vulnerabilities, or whatever, a couple examples, and that's it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So I was thinking...

Part of 4e's rationale for removing spell resistance (SR) and Damage Reduction (DR) was to no longer hose a PC from a combat. Thus, a creature with high SR hoses the mage, a creature with high DR hoses the fighter (and rogue), etc. This made sense in the action economy of 4e (along with the HP drain system) and the desire to balance all encounters for maximum PC fun.

4e didn't remove DR, it was just re-named resistance, and was generally a bit lower. SR was rendered conceptually superfluous when spells were given attack mechanics.

The point of SR (and magic resistance) in the past was to try to balance the extreme power of casters. While it failed in 3.5 (because it was easy to pick spells that bypasses SR), prior to that it was at least a factor the DM could use to try to give non-casters a chance to contribute meaningfully, once in a while. With casters no longer (nearly so) imbalanced in 4e, the need for SR was simply gone.

Since 5e is bringing back imbalanced Vancian casters, bringing back SR would make some sense - it would just have to avoid the 3.5 mistake of making it too easy to bypass SR with simple spell choice, at a minimum, to be of any use. And, I can't think of a way to make it a /good/ balancing mechanism. I suppose, as in AD&D, if you throw enough limitations, restrictions, and gotchyas at casters, the DM will at least have tools to potentially balance them, if he works at it meticulously enough.

1.) Is the a place for DR/SR in the next edition of D&D?

Given it's current direction (bootlegger reverse and hit the gas), yes.

2.) How should SR be handled to keep wizards from directly nuking, but still active in a fight?

No need. The Vancian casters are going to be overpowered, SR that shuts him down will give others a chance to do something noticeable while they sit it out. It's unsatisfying, inadequate 'serial balance,' but with so much power concentrated in dailies, there's little other choice but to balance using such mechanisms (and more than just SR wil be needed to achieve that balance).

3.) How should DR be done: all or nothing? Resist partial blows? Should it be against silver, magic, +X items, or various special materials based on monster?

For the classic 'feel,' there should certainly be various special materials and simply 'magic' (with 'bounded accuracy,' it's unlikely there will be +X weapons, just 'magic' and mundane) to bypass DR. With scaling being primarily about damage, the amount of DR could be moderately high - at higher levels, lower-level monsters' DR can just be 'powered through.'

4.) Should it be a module, or part of the core experience?

DR could be a monster-associated module, or core. SR just needs to go with Vancian, so if Vancian is core, it needs to be core.

 

[Mercutio01]

DR could be perhaps positive -- a monster takes *extra* damage from a vulnerability like silver, rather than being immune to damage from other sources.

I like this idea.

(skeletons don't need DR).

Yeah, but based on the above idea, I could see something like "Skeletons take extra damage from bludgeoning weapons" working fine.

 

[Tortoise]

The new Advantage/Disadvantage may lend itself to SR/DR quite well and it avoids any extra math.

For DR just give the attacker disadvantage if they lack the weapon type to harm the creature. It doesn't make it impossible to beat, just makes it tougher and makes characters want to spend the effort to get the right tool for the job.

For SR, give the creature Advantage on saves against spells, or a regular save when the spell would not normally require one.

Just floating this out there for feedback.