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

[Tellerve]

I kinda wanna know how pax got a caster level check of 1d20+47, yesh! I'm figuring you've got some nifty epic stuff I don't know about, as I don't have much knowledge at all of that stuff.

I looked through the monster manual and while there are some monsters that have high spell resistance, I don't think it is too rampant to worry about overly. I do like the idea of items granting spell penetration and greater spell penetration.

Tellerve

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

On the other hand, I thought I heard that most creatures' SR's in the revision were getting changed to CR+10 in most cases. Can anyone confirm this?

This is correct. Some fiends have low SR (eg vrocks) however.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I am with Al'Kelhar.

(1) I really see no good justification for SR at all. It is nothing more than an extra saving throw. We already have mechanics for those.

(2) It makes the game less fun, not more. Spellcasters already have saving throws and resistances and immunities to overcome. Throwing in an extra random chance of total failure is a bummer.

(3) Wrong flavor. Wizards and clerics are pretty weak against demons and devils. It is a job for fighters. I discovered from the school of hard knocks never bother to cast spells against SR creatures unless you could get at least 3 in the area of effect. I no longer cast spells at weird critters at all -- it is much more effective to just aid the guy with the biggest +n weapon. When we fight Durin's Bane, Aragorn goes out on that bridge alone. Gandalf pulls out pompoms and cheers from the side.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I am with Al'Kelhar.

(1) I really see no good justification for SR at all. It is nothing more than an extra saving throw. We already have mechanics for those.

(2) It makes the game less fun, not more. Spellcasters already have saving throws and resistances and immunities to overcome. Throwing in an extra random chance of total failure is a bummer.

(3) Wrong flavor. Wizards and clerics are pretty weak against demons and devils. It is a job for fighters. I discovered from the school of hard knocks never bother to cast spells against SR creatures unless you could get at least 3 in the area of effect. I no longer cast spells at weird critters at all -- it is much more effective to just aid the guy with the biggest +n weapon. When we fight Durin's Bane, Aragorn goes out on that bridge alone. Gandalf pulls out pompoms and cheers from the side.

#3 gets me.

If your facing a magical creature send in the fighters, if your facing a huge monster send in the mages with their hold mosnter spells. It's the exact opposite flavor of what it should be. I happen to agree with 1 & 2 as well.

 

[Pax]

I kinda wanna know how pax got a caster level check of 1d20+47, yesh! I'm figuring you've got some nifty epic stuff I don't know about, as I don't have much knowledge at all of that stuff.

I'll admit, 5 points of it is form a custom (but IMO non-munchkin) magic item, which in that arena has in fact become generally-available (it's a cloak, which gives +10(enhancement) to each of spellcraft and concentration, and +5(luck) to spell penetration).

From the character's sheet:

[color=green]
SR Penetration:
  Enchanment                : 1d20+47 (25/lvl 6/arch 5/rwz 2/sha 3/feats +1/weave +5/luck)
  Illusion, Necromancy      : 1d20+41 (25/lvl 6/arch       2/sha 2/feats +1/weave +5/luck)
  Transmutation, Evocation  : 1d20+38 (25/lvl 6/arch             2/feats -1/weave +5/luck)
  All Others                : 1d20+39 (25/lvl 6/arch             2/feats          +5/luck)
[/color]

The key to understanding the above:
... "6/arch" is the 6 spell power from archmage
... "5/rwz" is the 5 specialist spell power from Red Wizard
... "2/sha" is the 2 shadow spell power from Shadow Adept
... "2/feats" is from Spell Penetration (Dhao actually doesn't have GSP yet, heh!)
... "+1/weave" (and the -1/weave) is from teh effects of Shadow Weave Magic.
... "+5/luck" is, of course, from the cloak.

The character is a human Specialist Wizard(5)/Archmage(3)/Red Wizard(10)/Shadow Adept(7) -- specifically, an Enchanter, with opposed schools of Conjuration and Evocation (remember, Red Wizard double-dips you for opposed schools).

Come the 3.5 revision, he'll be changing drastically, as that particular setup becoes so sub-optimal as to be beyond useless in an arena (I'm relying on spells like Nybor's Wratheful Castigation, which has a Save DC of 47 currently (effectively 57 once I drop a quickened mind fog on you). Since Spell Power will no longer help saves in 3.5e, I stand to lose THIRTEEN points off of all the DCs. While 34 is nice enough, it's not good enough when facing equal-ECL PCs one-on-one.

I'll probably drop the Shadow Weave Magic stuff, and go Conjuration specialist.

I looked through the monster manual and while there are some monsters that have high spell resistance, I don't think it is too rampant to worry about overly. I do like the idea of items granting spell penetration and greater spell penetration.

Tellerve

In an epic arena, high SR is something you should expect by default (the Mantle of Epic Spell Resistance (SR40) is ludicrously underpriced at 290,000gp ... ). That Mantle puts you at failing 75% of the time, sans some means to boost yoru SR checks.

With Dhao, I decided "I don't want to ever bother to ROLL SR again" ... and I think I achieved that goal, quite nicely in fact.

As for 3.5e ... I have no idea how often SR will be encountered; I haven't seen the MM1/rev yet.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Thanks for all the useful contributions. I had missed that "amendment" to the Conjuration school. Lucky my specialist Evoker just picked up Conjuration (his previous opposition school) while dropping Enchantment and Illusion in his conversion to 3.5E.

I'd noticed a few gaffes in the posts since my last one yesterday, such as errors in interpretation of magic resistance in previous editions, Heighten Spell having some effect on SR, and use of multiple PrCs, magic items, and feats from outside the Core Rule Books to overcome SR. I won't go back and specifically answer them, particularly as it appears that the "rules for when SR should and should not apply" as per the DMG seem to have changed (I don't have my 3.5E books here at work, so I cannot compare the 3.0E DMG entry on Spell Resistance with the 3.5E entry). Just to make it clear to everyone, I'm not anti-SR, and since I am the principal DM of my playing group, I'd be more prone to shouting its benefits than decrying it.

My principal thesis about SR is simply this:

SR is a combat mechanic from the Core Rule Books. Like just about all combat mechanics, it is simply a "roll to succeed" mechanic. But where SR differs from every other combat mechanic in the Core Rule Books, there is no facility in the Core Rule Books (with the exception of two little-used feats) for a spell caster to modify his or her chance of making the roll to succeed.

That's it in a nutshell. I am not saying it is broken. It is simply inconsistent with every other combat mechanic. The question which follows from this statement is - why?

In terms of House Rules to "fix" this inconsistency, I'm tending towards either relevant spell casting ability modifier or spell level as a modifier to the roll. Spells, feats and magic items which affect either the relevant ability or the level of the spell then have the effect of modifying the roll to defeat SR. The latter has an attraction simply because it makes Heighten Spell a somewhat worthwhile feat (adds to both save DCs and chance to overcome SR in one), but the former seems more flexible. In the event that I chose the former, SRs would have to be increased slightly to take into account the "average" ability bonus.

Using the standard 25-point ability buy from which all D&D mechanics are derived, a primary spell caster of 1st-3rd level will have an ability modifier of +2 (from a 15 in the relevant ability), a primary spell caster of 4th-11th level will have an ability modifier of +3 (from a 16 (4-7) or 17 (8-11) in the relevant ability), a primary spell caster of 12th-19th level will have an ability modifier of +4, etc.

Then factor "average" stat-boosting magic items into the mix: +2 to the ability for a 12th-15th level spell caster, i.e. +1 to ability modifier; +4 to the ability for a 16th-19th level spell caster, i.e. +2 to ability modifier; +6 to the ability for a 20th+ level spell caster, i.e. +3 to the ability modifier.

So if the chance to overcome SR is dependent upon the relevant spell casting ability modifier, SRs should be increased as follows:

For CR1 to CR3 creatures: +2
For CR4 to CR11 creatures: +3
For CR12 to CR15 creatures: +5
For CR16 to CR19 creatures: +6
For CR20+ creatures: +8

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The whole rationalization for SR seems to be that very magical creatures tend to be more resistant to hostile magic because...they are so magical. I have never seen anything of the kind suggested outside of a D&D sourcebook.

IMNSHO the opposite is (should be) true: magical creatures are more vulnerable to magic. Frexs, the tales such as the Djinni of the Lamp, Rumplestikskin, and any old story of demonic summoning show us the most astoundingly magical creatures are near helpless against the right kind of magical knowledge -- heroic levels of ability (i.e. high levels characters) are not usually necessary. That is an intriguing metaphysical concept.

But who cares about philosophical ramblings! Someone explain to me in small words why spell resistance makes the game more fun so that it justifies tacking on an extra game mechanic. Any takers?

 

[hong]

(2) It makes the game less fun, not more. Spellcasters already have saving throws and resistances and immunities to overcome. Throwing in an extra random chance of total failure is a bummer.

This is the one for me. My problem with SR is that it's another all-or-nothing roll. If a wizard makes the roll, he can end the encounter with one spell. If he doesn't, he's contributed nothing for that round, and he might be dead next round.

The same arguments why D&D has ablative hit points should apply to spells. In general, you don't usually want fights to be decided by one character, with the other characters not making any contribution. You also usually don't want a chance for a climactic fight to be short-circuited because someone got lucky in the first round. Conversely, if you don't like ablative hit points, you are probably playing the wrong game.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

That's it in a nutshell. I am not saying it is broken. It is simply inconsistent with every other combat mechanic. The question which follows from this statement is - why?

In terms of House Rules to "fix" this inconsistency, I'm tending towards either relevant spell casting ability modifier or spell level as a modifier to the roll.

IMNSHO SR is and always was a half-baked mechanic. Somehow it wandered into the same pasture as the sacred cattle without anyone looking at it carefully.

I agree with you that the problem with SR is once the adventure begins the spellcaster is helpless to do anything about it. (In contrast, a Fighter can move into flanking positions, get a comrade to Aid Another, or beg for a buff spell if he is ever up against an obnoxiously high AC. There are real options open.)

I think the best thing to do would be roll d20 + <spell level> against <SR divided by 2>. The effect would be the most powerful spell would usually cut through SR while low level spells would be inconsistent. Now we would actually have a new strategic dimension to consider which potentially adds fun. "I like to save a high level spell just in case we meet a Demon."

 

[Pax]

SR is a combat mechanic from the Core Rule Books. Like just about all combat mechanics, it is simply a "roll to succeed" mechanic. But where SR differs from every other combat mechanic in the Core Rule Books, there is no facility in the Core Rule Books (with the exception of two little-used feats) for a spell caster to modify his or her chance of making the roll to succeed.

Note that my example (epic) character has three PrCs, two of which are now Core -- Archmage and Red Wizard, both of which allegedly show up in the 3.5 DMG. Shadow Adept has a comparatively-minimal effect, by comparison to those two.