Pathfinder 1E Do high-level monsters need Spell Resistance?

[RangerWickett]

I'm editing the latest ZEITGEIST adventure, which is for 17th level PCs. I know as a player I've always loathed spell resistance (Yay, I hit it; wait, it made its SR roll; dammit!), so I'm wondering if as an adventure writer I owe it to not use the mechanic. I could include some other way to have high-level monsters defended against magic that isn't quite so binary.

What are some alternatives? Or is it baked too solidly into the game?

Ideally the mechanic would somehow interact with abilities like Spell Penetration, since some PCs will take them and I don't want those choices to be useless. Maybe the monster gets a bonus to all its saves against magic, but spell penetration negates 2 or 4 points of this bonus?

 

[Starfox]

Having just played in a game with a high DC save-or-suck sorcerer in my game, I've actually only seen this problem in my very latest game. In my experience, the most important defense a monster has is armor class. But this latest campaign have made me see what a Heightened Hideous Laughter, Blindness, or Slow can do.

What defenses are appropriate depend very much on the nature of the opponent. For a monster such as a dragon or outsider, Spell Resistance is a natural choice. For a humanoid with classes, abilities that grant additional saving throws or effects like spell immunity and freedom of movement fit better. I feel it is more important that the feel of the opponent is right than that the mechanics are 100% balanced, actually. If your human fighter-rogue NPC feels unoptimized and weak for his level, you can always add additional levels.

For things like Spell Penetration, I think it would feel artificial if you have it an entirely different effect, as you outlined above. It changes it form a very specific trick to an amorph bonus and goes against pretty much everything DnD (and Pathfinder) stands for. What I would do is have a varied menagerie of opponents, some of whom have SR. The players should be (almost) guaranteed to be able to use every ability they have during a campaign, but not in any specific encounter, even if this encounter is with the final boss.

 

[TarionzCousin]

(Yay, I hit it; wait, it made its SR roll; dammit!)

I've seen this many, many times in high level 3.5E games. In my humble opinion, the problem without SR is the "Save or Die" spells. Did Pathfinder change those?

There was an alternate, unofficial, online feat at the end of a chain that allowed +5 to the DC of a spell and +5 to overcome spell resistance. One PC in a high level game dove into that feat chain and it paid off nicely. Of course, she used up all her feats to get there, so it wasn't cheap.

 

[Starfox]

Yes, pathfinder changed many of the save or die spells. Disintegrate and Slay Living now does boatloads of damage if you fail your save, but do not kill you.

 

[Kinak]

I shy away from SR unless I'm using pre-statted monsters.

It discourages blasting, while allowing summoning and buffing through fine. Both of those strategies make combats drag at my table, so I don't throw SR in to make the blasters feel ineffective.

There is something to be said for the added resilience against save-or-suck effects. But increased saves and abilities like stalwart can take care of much of that.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[RangerWickett]

There is something to be said for the added resilience against save-or-suck effects. But increased saves and abilities like stalwart can take care of much of that.

Cheers!
Kinak

What's 'stalwart'?

 

[Kinak]

What's 'stalwart'?

It's an obscurish class ability, basically evasion for Fort and Will effects. So if you succeed at the save, you take no effect, rather than a reduced effect.

Especially for bosses, it helps take care of save-or-suck effects that still suck if you make your save, like suffocation.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Dog Moon]

I shy away from SR unless I'm using pre-statted monsters.

I think is pretty much how I've always done it. I could go through all my homebrewed monsters, but I honestly think that I've given only like maybe one or two creatures SR. Anything built from a creature that already had it of course retains it, but otherwise I usually don't just add SR to a creature unless I feel like there's a really good reason to.

But that won't stop me from using a room full of Demons in my adventures. I'm not going to not use regular monsters just because they have SR.

I know one time a DM took an idea I had seen online where you take the SR, consider it a stat and then added that modifier to all saves. So 16 SR would be +3, so would add +3 to all saves. But that sorta just make things wonky because at 1st level SR 11 is a good chance of failing but then wouldn't add anything to the saves while SR 20 at 15th level isn't going to fail very often but the +5 to all saves is just going to make their saves even more ridiculous than they already are.

As much as I hate to say it, I feel like SR is too built into the system as it is and either the entire thing would need to be redone to balance out among all creatures, it needs to just stay how it is, or it should just be completely removed. The easiest way is to leave as is because then you don't have to modify anything.

 

[Kinak]

I know one time a DM took an idea I had seen online where you take the SR, consider it a stat and then added that modifier to all saves. So 16 SR would be +3, so would add +3 to all saves. But that sorta just make things wonky because at 1st level SR 11 is a good chance of failing but then wouldn't add anything to the saves while SR 20 at 15th level isn't going to fail very often but the +5 to all saves is just going to make their saves even more ridiculous than they already are.

It's an interesting thought, but I agree I wouldn't quite work.

If I were going for a simple fix, I'd tend towards something like completely negating the effect if they roll an 11 or higher on the save die. It works out similarly probability-wise, removes a roll, and makes life harder for really optimized casters with stratospheric saves rather than the casters falling behind every level.

As much as I hate to say it, I feel like SR is too built into the system as it is and either the entire thing would need to be redone to balance out among all creatures, it needs to just stay how it is, or it should just be completely removed. The easiest way is to leave as is because then you don't have to modify anything.

Yeah, I'd tend to just leave it on creatures that already have it. But, like you, I basically never give it to my new monsters.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Dog Moon]

It's an interesting thought, but I agree I wouldn't quite work.

If I were going for a simple fix, I'd tend towards something like completely negating the effect if they roll an 11 or higher on the save die. It works out similarly probability-wise, removes a roll, and makes life harder for really optimized casters with stratospheric saves rather than the casters falling behind every level.

Well, whatever is done I think it would have to take into consideration both level and SR, unless you would just say ANYTHING with SR negates the effect on a roll of 11 or higher, but then everything with SR would then have a 50% chance of not affecting it. Which is kinda goofy. An epic 30th level Wizard still only has a 50% chance of any spell successfully targeting a CR 1 creature with SR whereas in this system it would be impossible for them to fail. And a level 1 Wizard which normally would never have a chance of besting the SR of a Balor [31], would then have a 50% chance of being successful. How many level 1 Wizards would you need at 50% chance success rate if each of them cast 1 magic missile to kill the Balor in 1 round? Saddest Balor death ever.

I don't know... I can't think of any option that would be a good, quick fix, especially not without a bunch of math involved.