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

[RangerWickett]

I agree that SR as is isn't fun for PCs. I personally rarely use critters with SR, because it doesn't seem fair to have a spell succeed or fail outright. Similarly, I think I prefer spells that are designed to have a minor effect even if the victim succeeds its save.

Sure, the comparison to incorporeal critters is fair, but there are a heckuva lot more monsters with Spell Resistance than those that are incorporeal. As an occasional challenge, a creature that simply ignores x% of spells would be interesting, but we already have one mechanic that handles resisting magic, and that's saving throws. I think it is poor game design to have two mechanics that model pretty much the same thing.

In my ideal game, all offensive spells would have saving throws to reduce or negate the effect. No more Power Words, for one. Creatures that have spell resistance now would just gain a bonus to their saving throws against spells.

Additionally, just as some creatures have damage reduction, some creatures might have spell resistance, like we have now, except that if you fail your caster level check, the victim automatically succeeds its save. Also, almost every creature that has spell resistance would have some way to bypass it, as some people proposed above. As a story-based example, consider the various demons in The Jackie Chan Adventures. They have SR 40, but if you have the appropriate item, you can ignore their SR. This would make demons still be a huge threat against low-level characters, but experienced heroes would have a small arsenal of demon-bane items.

I'm glad I read this thread. I will implement these changes in my game, and propose them to WotC for 4th edition in a few years.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Re: Don't compare SR & DR

First, since you insist on comparing apples to oranges, lets' look at monster DR & CR. Low CR monsters are suggested to have DR x/5, High CR monsters are suggested to have DR x/15, and anything between probably gets x/10.

Indeed, comparing SR and DR is comparing apples and oranges. However, because of the SR mechanic - roll to succeed with no possible variation within the control of the character - there is nothing else to compare SR with in D&D. This is actually the thrust of my argument. A character can do nothing to change the likelihood of success in this roll except gain levels - at which point, the theory goes, he's facing creatures with higher SR anyway.

"Unfair!" you say, "Casters can only cast one spell a round in 3.5!"

Except that higher levels spells are meant to be the equivalent of multiple attacks for fighters. Around the time the fighter gets his second iterative attack, the wizard gets Fireball, which is a major increase in power. Around the time the fighter picks up his third attack, the wizard has Cone of Cold. A fighter gets his fourth attack around the time of Horrid Wilting.

I agree with you, as one can hardly disagree with the statement that "each level of spell casting is an increase in power". But the level of the spell is irrelevant to the chance of it affecting a creature with SR (unlike say, the magic resistance of daemons in 2E).

There is a way around SR: use the right spell. Not all spells allow for SR. Each spell says whether it does or not.

There are very few that directly affect an unwilling spell resistant creature. This theory is supported by the description of SR in DMG. You might be able to indirectly affect such a creature by creative use of a spell (use the telekinesis to drop a rock on it, etc.), but actually inflicting damage etc. by the spell itself is invariably subject to SR.

And even for spells that do allow SR, there's a way to beat it: roll high enough. As stated earlier, most SR is CR +10, which is around 50/50 chance for a primary spellcaster.

My point exactly (apart from SR is usually CR + 11). It is a flat chance with no feasible ability for the character to alter that chance.

Here again, your analogy breaks down. SR isn't like DR; it's like a miss chance that the character can actually effect. If you want to compare DR to something, compare it to energy resistances, which are also a fixed amount, and in 3.5 work exactly the same on a per-attack basis.
...

Again, your comparison is flawed. Physical attacks don't have saving throws because you roll an attack versus an AC. The 'saving throwC' mechanic is identical to the 'attack:AC' mechanic, with the role of who rolls the die reversed.
..
And creatures don't get saving throws against some spells.

...
Here again, it's a bad comparison, because you're leaving out some key points. A monster who is 'just hurt' because of DR will drain more party resources than the same monster without DR. How? By living longer, thus making more attacks & dealing more damage. A character can make any number of physical attacks, but he can't take an endless amount of attacks. Spells are a finite resource; so are hit points.

I agree the analogy between SR and DR is poor. As stated above, there is simply nothing to compare SR with because of its mechanic - flat chance of spell working, no way of character altering that chance. In relation specifically to:

Physical attacks don't have saving throws because you roll an attack versus an AC. The 'saving throwC' mechanic is identical to the 'attack:AC' mechanic, with the role of who rolls the die reversed.

How many ways exactly can a character influence the attack roll other than by gaining levels? Hey, I've run out of fingers and toes, not sure what I'm going to use next... </sarcasm>

A wizard casting against a monster with SR will fail anywhere from 25% to 75% of the time, but assuming he's using strong spells, he will do tremendous damage.

This response does not take into account the fact that (a) spells are limited resources, hence the "strong" spell is often not available because of limited spell selection (either it's not in the spellbook/repertoire, or hasn't been memorised for the day because of other possibilities which the "generalist" wizard always has to take into account); and (b) saving throws.

At higher levels, SR becomes much more common. Which means that feats that beat SR become more useful.

As opposed to, say, feats which increase damage against all opponents, increase the DCs of saving throws of a whole class of spells, increase duration, area, level etc. of spells, or allow you to create marvellous magic items "at will"? I maintain that, on the whole, Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration are less useful than most other feats spell casters can take.

Nope. SR is just fine. If you want to compare DR to something, compare it to Energy Resistances. If you really want to compare SR to something, compare it to a miss chance like Incorporeal or Displacement.

"Hey, Incorporeal is broken & unfair to fighters. It's a 50% miss chance even with a magic weapon. And the only way to negate that is with a weapon enhancement that only works for Incorporeal creatures. And the way magic weapons are priced, that throwaway, limited-use +1 effect is waay too costly at higher levels."

"Hey, miss chances from concealment are unfair to fighters. A wizard can fire area effect spells, but a fighter has to target his foes and have a chance of missing, no matter what level they are. And there's only one feat to help it: Blind Fighting. And that only helps in a very specalized situation. It needs to be fixed!"

< /sarcasm >

My point being - there are ways by which the character can alter his or her chances of affecting incorporeal and concealed opponents - most of them magical. But the D&D system specifically contemplates these mechanisms. The D&D system does not specifically contemplate any mechanism - other than the two feats mentioned before - for defeating SR.

In the interests of moving on to some fixes, just off the top of my head:

1. Spell level is added to the caster level check to overcome SR. Similar to 2E daemon magic resistance, and Heighten Spell has a new use.

2. Ability modifier is added to the caster level check to overcome SR. The spells and magic items which modifier relevant abilities become useful (does anyonetake fox's cunning now that its duration is 1 min/level?).

3. A specific spell or spells are used to lower SR - a la lower resistance from 2E Tome of Magic.

4. Magic items grant the benefits of Spell Penetration or Greater Spell Penetration feats.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar.

 

[Dagger75]

I say we just go back to old 2ed way of spell resistance

Spell Resistance 50%

There you go, roll a percentile, no modifiers, no nothing. A 2nd level wizard has the same chance to get a spell through as a 20th level wizard.


I love SR as it is now. I wish they were higher My players always make the stupid checks, but they fear monsters with SR more than Damage Reduction. DR to them is a hinderance, SR is a real threat to them it seems. Then again I had 3 casters and 1 fighter type in the party I ran.

 

[Celtavian]

re

It would be cool if they came up with some material or focus components that allowed you a better chance of penetrating the SR of certain creatures. My biggest gripe right now with the D&D magic system is that it is very hit and miss. I would love a more interactive magic system where arcane casters can have a more direct affect over the operation of their magic.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I think comparing SR to DR is like comparing apples and oranges: they're two entirely different beasties. DR is a modernization of the old "+1 or better weapon to hit" stuff, while SR is a modernization of the old "50% magic resistance" stuff.

Actually, it's not even a modernization. Your caster level adjusted the Magic Resistance of anything you cast against by-- you guessed it-- 5% per level over or under level 11. So, Magic Resistance 50% was almost identical to SR 21.

All they really did here was change the die type.

 

[DaveMage]

Let's not forget that even if a creature has a seemingly unbeatable SR, spellcasters can still cast plenty of spells to help their comrades or otherwise help in the battle.

Not every spell needs to be an offensive one to defeat a monster. In such cases you may want your spellcaster to help a fellow party member, or change the conditions of the battlefield. Even a creature with SR 50 is still affected by grease or obscuring mist.

 

[reiella]

Agreeing with the common sentiment about SR being ok as is.

3E and 3.5e as well were really designed and party balanced around the idea that -most- parties will perform roughly 4 or 5 challenging encounters before recouping their resources.

The spellcaster can do other things that mutter "burn baby burn" in combat hopefully .

One possibly idea if the problem of SR comes up that often in your game, and you still want to maintain some fairness is let the spellcasters add a round to the casting time of spell to add a +5 or somesuch to their check.

 

[Garmorn]

Re: Re: Don't compare SR & DR

Indeed, comparing SR and DR is comparing apples and oranges. However, because of the SR mechanic - roll to succeed with no possible variation within the control of the character - there is nothing else to compare SR with in D&D. This is actually the thrust of my argument. A character can do nothing to change the likelihood of success in this roll except gain levels - at which point, the theory goes, he's facing creatures with higher SR anyway.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar.

Here is where I disagree with you. I look at SR as the Magical equivalent of AC. AC is a fixed pass or fail test. You either hit/over come the targets AC/SR or you don't. If you do then you deal damage. The one big difference is the "to hit role" is rolled by the defender for spells (Saving Throw) unlike a normal attack.

If you look at that way it makes very good sense. It is just that your "magical BAB" is fixed and has no ability modifier, and "Armor is also fairly fixed and is very hard to improve for both monsters and players.

 

[National Acrobat]

I sort of Agree

Just my 2 cents, I can see where SR might need some sort of tweaking. I am currently running a group through City of the Spider Queen and the Drow SR has pretty much killed the Wizard and Sorceror in the group. They literally have had several encounters with high level drow where they have launched 5 or 6 spells in a row with none succeeding. In essence, in each encounter at least one of the front line fighters have died as a result of the drow not being affected. Last time, all 3 front line fighters (including the Paladin) were killed. It basically came down to the players wondering what in the heck they played an arcane caster in this campaign for. I have a feeling that should the 2 arcane casters die both players will play something else. Ditto for anyone else who dies. I don't, however, know quite what to do to fix it. 2 of the characters have spell resistance also (13th level monk and the 14th level wizard, Robe of the Archmagi) so whatever I do also affects them as well.

 

[sithramir]

SR being semi level based makes total sense to me. My first level novice caster can't hurt that spell resistant creature but the might arch-mage still has no trouble.

Note that there is a variant in the DMG that offers having special items that allow you to beat things like SR. For instance, you have a unicorns horn which is magical enough to allow you to sacrifice it as a component to defeat SR or something. Adds a new flavor for tring to quest for some powerful items that can be used in the future to beat creatures that are resistant to that wizards spells.

I don't get why SR is bad. It makes the creatures actually a worthwhile fight. What do you mean there aren't ways to adjust your scores? Spell penetration and Greater are two ways and I don't get that just because they don't help in other ways they are bad? Whirlwind attack doesnt' help my fighter wield 2 weapons or climb a cliff but it still helps him attack. It doesn't even help him versus one big creature. Its specialized hence why its a feat and of course its only useful sometimes.

Ever think of other things like heighten spell? Now you can make your spells higher to beat the SR.

Magic items like +1 swords help fighters attack but there are items that help vs spell resistance. They are just more expensive because being able to easily beat spell resistance would make bigger creatures boring.

So I see many ways to beat it and no reason why it shouldn't be there. Would you rather creatures have 4 times their normal hps so that they are still equal CR? That wold make a party without a mage die quickly because fighters gotta dish out that much more damage. Or maybe you'd rather boost the elemental resistances up another 2 on for each score to even it? Now any wizard with those types of spells are more useless than before.

Fact is its hard to make a creature powerful enough to withstand a cone of cold or 3 without making him too powerful or too weak because he would either have high resistance to one typ and not the others or too many hps and be very hard to beat without the mage.