Assay Spell Resistance

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I agree that wizards need some way of dealing with SR; it's just that I think Assay Spell Resistance makes it way too easy.

And I should make it clear that I also think that adding all those direct damage no-SR spells to the conjuration school was a big mistake (and to add insult to injury, they moved Teleportation spells into the Conjuration school in 3.5).

It's just that I don't think that a spell like Assay Spell Resistance is the right fix.

I do like the idea of a ray that works in an ablative fashion. Maybe a ray with no save that does 4 points of 'SR damage'. I think that such a ray as a 3rd or 4th level spell would be just fine.

Ken

 

[Felon]

I notice spell vulnerability hasn't been mentioned. It's also into the SC, it's a level lower, and it lowers SR by an amount equal to caster level (max +15). Note that since it actually lowers the SR, so not just the caster benefits. Unlike assay resistance, however, there's a save.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I notice spell vulnerability hasn't been mentioned. It's also into the SC, it's a level lower, and it lowers SR by an amount equal to caster level (max +15). Note that since it actually lowers the SR, so not just the caster benefits. Unlike assay resistance, however, there's a save.

Spell vulnerability is probably broken on a level comparable to power word pain, making it so obviously overpowered that no one in their right mind would even consider asking whether or not it is, in fact, as stupid as it sounds.

Of course, being that there was a thread a while back on power word pain, I realize the flaw in that reasoning, but I think I'm funny, and nothing you can say will change my mind, so its probably not worth it to point that out to me. Really. People have tried. I'm very dense.

 

[evilbob]

I find it was a desperately needed addition to aid the underpowered evocation school, and welcome it whole-heartedly. Conjuration just kicks too much a@@ now. And, as someone mentioned, at level 1, True Casting may be more powerful. My group uses it tons. The best part? Caster level means nothing for it, so it's the cheesiest spell ever to get scrolls of for 25 gp a pop.

I also agree that the spell is not overpowered, but casting that aside: your post just made me realize that for a scant 750g, you could have a wand of true casting. Now there's an item worth its weight in... well, gold pieces.

Seriously, true strike is balanced in that a standard action for one attack is a lot to give up, but if you only have 3 high-level spells, what's an extra round to cast them just to make sure they go through? Seems like a good investment to me. Not to mention that you could prepare quickened versions for 5th level spells for extra goodness.

 

[Felon]

Spell vulnerability is probably broken on a level comparable to power word pain, making it so obviously overpowered that no one in their right mind would even consider asking whether or not it is, in fact, as stupid as it sounds.

Of course, being that there was a thread a while back on power word pain, I realize the flaw in that reasoning, but I think I'm funny, and nothing you can say will change my mind, so its probably not worth it to point that out to me. Really. People have tried. I'm very dense.

OK, that deserves a ROFLMAO. Here you go.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I also agree that the spell is not overpowered, but casting that aside: your post just made me realize that for a scant 750g, you could have a wand of true casting. Now there's an item worth its weight in... well, gold pieces.

Seriously, true strike is balanced in that a standard action for one attack is a lot to give up, but if you only have 3 high-level spells, what's an extra round to cast them just to make sure they go through? Seems like a good investment to me. Not to mention that you could prepare quickened versions for 5th level spells for extra goodness.

I just realized, reading my post again, I accidentally quoted something completely unrelated! Never even heard of that Irresistable thing! *Ninjas post*

As to what you said, yes, the wands of True Casting were the best investment our party ever made, and are frequently used when we get surprise rounds.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I notice spell vulnerability hasn't been mentioned. It's also into the SC, it's a level lower, and it lowers SR by an amount equal to caster level (max +15). Note that since it actually lowers the SR, so not just the caster benefits. Unlike assay resistance, however, there's a save.

I consider Spell Vulnerability a horribly weak spell, especially when Assay Resistance and True Casting exist. Most things w/ SR will have good will saves (monks, outsiders, other casters, etc...), so it's rather self-defeating.

 

[Stalker0]

People complain about SR at high levels, but seriously, you got to have something to hinder those high level wizards!!

I mean wizards can alter reality, summon bad ass creatures, see the future, change the weather, alter time, travel to other planes, etc etc. So what if there spells have a bit more trouble getting through than a fighter's attack. The fighter's attack is all he has!! And besides one spell gets through at high levels and its often game over.

If you want beat SR, there are two feats in the core to do it. With a +4, your going to beat SR most of the time. We don't need spells that make SR irrelevant.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I have to agree that making SR easy to defeat makes the high level wizards overshadow the fighter even more than he already does. It's another good reason why Assay Spell Resistance changes the game in a negative way.

Ken

 

[zlorf]

If i wanted to stack the deck against spell casters, i would just play Dnd in a antimagic room

Seriously, i actually like the idea of the caster keeping there spell if they miss because of SR, i cant see anything wrong with it. Otherwise i also like the idea of the spell improving as you go up levels and maxing out at +10. So the mage/cleric misses 75% of time, i would still play one Yes creature also get saves most of the time, but i still come back to CR of the monster.

Now im going to argue against myself because im crazy. You could say what about DR, surely creature CR's are based on the fact they have DR and look how easy that is to bypass...yes you have a point there. Maybe just get rid of SR and DR and the game would
pretty much be the same after 10th lvl or whatever.



Btw im not trying to stack the deck, i was wondering why suddenly SR became fairly trivial
and insignificant. I just wonder who makes these spells up, is it a frustrated spell caster from some long ago campaign who his friend used to laugh at because his spell fizzed every 40% of the time and vowed to get revenge by getting a job at WOTC and slipping this spell unders the editors noses?

Btw whats wrong with missing 40% of time? So you have no problems with feats that may
allow someone to hit all the time in melee ? Gee's what a fun game Dnd would become.
*yes if going over the top*

I'll run with and see how it goes, i'll get some feedback from the other player and see how
they view the spell after the campain ends. If another DM veto's it because its not to his taste and the players are happy with it..cool. I would still play a spellcaster, sometime i dont
mind relying on a bit of luck from the dice, makes it more exciting when you been the odd's

Cheers
Z

That is actually a really good feat, well worth mentioning. But in the scenarios I'm hearing, the DM just wants to stack the deck so that some uber no-save spell probably fails. Taking 10 doesn't help if you need over a 10.

OK, stop here for a second. Consider what that cleric (or, better yet, wizard) would be going through without assay resistance. He either packed a bunch of summon monsters and other no-SR spells, which makes the matter moot, or he packed yes-SR spells and is going to fail 40% of the time.