Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al'Kelhar" data-source="post: 1019496" data-attributes="member: 7884">Re: Don't compare SR & DRIndeed, 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.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 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.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.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: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>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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification