D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] They didn't fix SR

[hong]

Ablative SR is an intriguing idea. The downside IMO is that it adds a lot of complexity and bookkeeping.

Well, it would be basically like another set of hit points. D&D already has two types of hit points (lethal and nonlethal); another one wouldn't be that bad. To reduce complexity, maybe you could do away with saving throws; but this is getting to the "total redesign" stage.

And the BEST part is that ablative SR is kinda like shields on starships, so we move EVEN CLOSER to being able to answer the great question: who would win, Elminster or a Star Destroyer?

 

[Stalker0]

My prob with SR is at high level pretty much everything has it. This is true for DR as well, but while many things have only /+3 DR (not too tough for a fighter to completely negate), SR makes it tough for casters to use certain spells.

While DR in 3.5 is a little better at preventing the fighter from completely negating it, now most fighters can still do some damage. This is great. Reducing a players damage makes the fight challenging and exciting. Completely negating their damage makes the fight boring, that's the problem with SR.

My final problem with it is that as a fighter if I make an attack that doesn't hit the AC or bypass DR then I've lost an action, but nothing else. Often times I've only lost a part of an action, as I often have between 4-6 swings at that level. When I fail to bypass SR, I lose my whole action for the most part (unless I'm quickening, then half of my action), and I lose a spell!! While at high levels, wizards may have lots of spells- they only have so many 7th, 8th, and 9th ones- and to my mind those are the ones that matter at that point.

I think the ablative idea is an excellent idea (you could either do it by spell level, a 9th level spell taking away 9 "hp", by caster level- a 20th level caster taking out "20 hp", or combining- a 20th level caster with a 9th level spell takes out 29 "hp")

Another idea would be to make it where SR lowers the effectiveness of the spell but doesn't negate it. For example a spell that fails SR might reduce caster level and spell dcs by 4. Doing it this way you can create SR that works just like DR. For example a Dragon might have SR 4/20 meaning you need a 20th level caster check to beat it, failure means subtracting 4 from the caster level and spell dc.

I'm probably going to post that last idea in house rules.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I'm interested in hearing the difference between randomness and unpredictability.

From the players POV, an unpredictable effect is something like a weird DR or Lightning Immunity on a creature you have never met. Or burrowing movement or the ability to go ethereal. It is something that opens up new tactical avenues that were not expected. It is trivial to create unpredictability by flipping through the PHB and giving an individual creature a custom spell-like ability.

A random effect is something like SR, a Wand of Wonder, or a Deck of Many Things. You only choices are to avoid them entirely or just hope for good luck.

In my book, unpredictablity is often good -- it can create surprises that encourage the players to learn and adapt. Randomness isn't necessarily bad -- but I do not see the attraction of adding more to a game that uses a lot of dice in its simplest form.