High level caster "fix:" Reasonable or Outrageous

[Kid Charlemagne]

SR = +X on saves and AC vs Spells

I think I prefer some other method - just from a flavor point of view. I want it to feel different somehow from facing any other opponent.

 

[Sadrik]

I think I prefer some other method - just from a flavor point of view. I want it to feel different somehow from facing any other opponent.

It will when you cant hit them with spells. Right now it adds an extra roll to upper level game play. I am not sure if upper level game play needs it...

 

[Scott DeWar]

How about making SR more like Evasion, or allowing a second saving throw (or both)? What's the ability that allows you to make a second save versus an enchantment effect... Mettle?


SR is one of the things that seems to me to not work very well in 3.X. I think the key thing is to make the benefit something that is both simple mechanically, and also is thematically similar to other familiar effects, making it easy to recall when it comes up.

I like where your thinking is going on that.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

How much of a creature's power is wrapped up in SR? Would it be that big of a deal to nerf it? Because I personally would love to.

Off the top of my head, I think it's about +1 CR for a base SR equal to 11+CR.

(So a CR7 creature with SR likely paid 1 CR for it's SR18.)

Cost increases if you have "better than average" SR.

Also remember that CR is worth a lot more at low levels. For a CR25 uber-fiend to spend 1 CR for SR36, it's almost free.

That +1 CR is a much bigger part of a low-level drow's CR.

Another idea off the top of my head (building off of Wulf's "reactions" mechanic): what if a creature with SR could use a reaction to resist a spell? The demon holds out his hand, and the spell dissipates harmlessly - or it walks up to the Solid Fog, holds out his hand, and then passes through it.

I worry about There/Not There effects and how it will play with verisimilitude. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense for one creature in the group to "not be affected" by an ongoing spell effect he's standing in the middle of, when that effect is shaping reality around him.

If you conjure up a Wall of Fire, the guy with SR can walk right through. But if you conjure up the same Wall of Fire in an old library, and all the books catch on fire... what then?

 

[The Black Kestrel]

I worry about There/Not There effects and how it will play with verisimilitude. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense for one creature in the group to "not be affected" by an ongoing spell effect he's standing in the middle of, when that effect is shaping reality around him.

If you conjure up a Wall of Fire, the guy with SR can walk right through. But if you conjure up the same Wall of Fire in an old library, and all the books catch on fire... what then?

He receives no damage from the wall of fire. The next round he starts receiving damage from the non-magical fire caused by the wall of fire, and oh yeah make a Fortitude save or start suffering from smoke inhalation eventually escalating to suffocation from the lack of oxygen. I would rule that an extremely smart use of wall of fire, assuming the PC's don't fall prey to smoke inhalation of suffocation either.

"Your spellcasting is futile. My will is supreme...cough, hack, cough"

To answer you original question I see no issues with no save, no SR spells in general. Specific spells yes, all spells no. I'd also like to see what spells Rumere thinks have the potential for abuse (forewarned is forearmed).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like it and don't like it.

Conjurations as cheap way around Spell Resistance is lame.

But forcing two rolls on many spells (touch attack or save + spell resistance) is bad for gameplay.
Aside from that, some spells are in fact "balanced" with these benefits. Not the Orb spells, but Melfs Acid Arrow with an attack and spell resistance sucks compared to Scorching Ray.

I think the best take on it would indeed be to use Spell Resistance differently:

Minor Spell Resistance: Spell Resistance <= 5 + CR: +2 to save vs spells and +2 to AC vs spells.
Normal Spell Resistance: Spell Resistace <= 10 + CR: +2 to saves vs spells and +2 to AC vs spells. On a succesful save, the spell has no effect.
Good Spell Resistance: Spell Resistance <= 15 + CR: +2 to saves vs spells and +2 to AC vs spells. On a succesful save, the spell has no effect on the creature, on a failed save, spells deal only half damage, has their duration reduced in half, and any other numeric effects are reduced in half (if beneficial to the target.)
Superior Spell Resistance: Spell Resistace > 15+ CR: +2 to saves vs spells and +2 to AC vs spells. On a succesful save, the entire spell fails. On a failed save, the spell deals only half damage, has its duration reduced in half, any other numeric effects are reduced in half (if beneficial to the targets.)

The last type of spell resistance is so strong that it negates the entire spell, not just its effect on the target.

 

[ruemere]

[...]To answer you original question I see no issues with no save, no SR spells in general. Specific spells yes, all spells no. I'd also like to see what spells Rumere thinks have the potential for abuse (forewarned is forearmed).

Could you rephrase the question, please? I am a bit lost as to what kind of relevance it has with regard to various fixes to SR mechanic.

My stand on Spell Resistance (as it should be) is as follows:

- Spell Resistance should be spell resistance, i.e. a quality improving characters ability to reduce or avoid spell effects. For the sake of simplicity, "spell effects" include also effects of supernatural abilities, spell like abilities, magic item abilities and abilities which produce lasting magic effects.

- abilities which produce tangible objects (incorporeal and force objects are considered tangible), elemental effects, energy effects, force effects are NOT subject to Spell Resistance

- illusions: figments, glamers and shadows are not subject to spell resistance
- lllusions: patterns - the mind affecting part is subject to spell resistance
- illusions: phantasms - subject to spell resistance

- it is not possible to dispel or counter magic effects using spell resistance, however, with a successful save, character benefiting from this quality could temporarily ignore magic effects for a set period of time.

- spell resistance should NOT bestow modifiers to saves (we have too many of them already), it should function like Evasion or Mettle with regard to effects listed above

Reasoning:
3.5 version of spell resistance adds another roll to resolution process. It often abused by designers (too many creatures base their CR on high SR, while in reality the monsters are often poorly designed... golems come to mind) and quite a lot of spells circumvent it SR completely, providing unfair advantages to certain spell users (or owners of spell supplements).


Regards,
Ruemere

 

[freyar]

Interesting discussion. Certainly seems like there's no real consensus. Unfortunately, I don't have much to add, other than that a save bonus seems like the wrong intent (and flavorless) and that nullifying an entire spell seems overpowered.

Reasoning:
3.5 version of spell resistance adds another roll to resolution process. It often abused by designers (too many creatures base their CR on high SR, while in reality the monsters are often poorly designed... golems come to mind) and quite a lot of spells circumvent it SR completely, providing unfair advantages to certain spell users (or owners of spell supplements).

I'm not sure if golems are the best example. The core golems (and I think pretty much all the others, as well as a few other critters) don't have SR; rather, they have immunity to spells that allow SR, up to specified exceptions. And getting rid of this would be sacrificing another sacred cow, albeit a minor one.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I don't like the idea of a creature with SR being able to disrupt a spell that affects a broad area. Imagine a Fine golem of some kind - why would it be able to disrupt a spell that would otherwise affect the whole battlefield?

Now suppose you vary the proposal a little: say the creature has to be Small or larger, and can suppress an area spell as it is being cast, but only in its own space. I would be disposed to accept that as fine. A golem on the edge of a solid fog would not have any fog in its square, and if it stepped outside the AoE the fog would fill in behind it.

 

[Sadrik]

I like it and don't like it.

Conjurations as cheap way around Spell Resistance is lame.

But forcing two rolls on many spells (touch attack or save + spell resistance) is bad for gameplay.
Aside from that, some spells are in fact "balanced" with these benefits. Not the Orb spells, but Melfs Acid Arrow with an attack and spell resistance sucks compared to Scorching Ray.

I think the best take on it would indeed be to use Spell Resistance differently:

Minor Spell Resistance: Spell Resistance <= 5 + CR: +2 to save vs spells and +2 to AC vs spells.
Normal Spell Resistance: Spell Resistace <= 10 + CR: +2 to saves vs spells and +2 to AC vs spells. On a succesful save, the spell has no effect.
Good Spell Resistance: Spell Resistance <= 15 + CR: +2 to saves vs spells and +2 to AC vs spells. On a succesful save, the spell has no effect on the creature, on a failed save, spells deal only half damage, has their duration reduced in half, and any other numeric effects are reduced in half (if beneficial to the target.)
Superior Spell Resistance: Spell Resistace > 15+ CR: +2 to saves vs spells and +2 to AC vs spells. On a succesful save, the entire spell fails. On a failed save, the spell deals only half damage, has its duration reduced in half, any other numeric effects are reduced in half (if beneficial to the targets.)

The last type of spell resistance is so strong that it negates the entire spell, not just its effect on the target.

This is what I am talking about!
My only concern is that it is pretty fiddly, I would rather have a system that either worked the same way - all the time. Or had only two versions.