High level caster "fix:" Reasonable or Outrageous

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Well, the "dispell/counterspell" effect could be something very unique - more an optional thing that you put on monsters that it fits to.

But I don't think that size has to do anything with this. It doesn't matter what size a monster if, if your Mordekainen's Sword doesn't overcome its Spell Resistance, it winks out. If the monster is that small and still in a level range where you can't beat its SR or it doesn't fail your save, it is okay. It's a special effect one has to account for these monsters.

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.

You could just pick the 2nd and 3rd one. And you can remove the "fiddly" bits of changing duration and non-damaging effects. When I go into 3.x mode, I tend to make things complicated.

Spell Immunity could work like option 3, except the save always succeeds.

 

[Voadam]

Fun with polls.

Here's an idea I had to address some "problems" with high level spellcasters, and some of the most decried spells.

1) If a creature with spell resistance is inside the area of effect when the spell is cast, the caster must make a check against SR. If the caster fails to penetrate the SR, the spell fails. (If multiple creatures with SR are inside the area, only the highest applies.)

2) SR always applies. Ignore "Spell Resistance: No" in the spell description.

Note that this only applies as the spell is cast. A creature with SR can't "dispel" an existing effect.

Hopefully I'll get the poll options right for a good discussion.

What problems specifically are these trying to address? Spell casters getting around spell resistance in targeting foes? Driving casters to focus more on buffs, divinations, healing, utility and battlefield control instead of direct targeting of enemies? Spells working too often?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Well, the "dispell/counterspell" effect could be something very unique - more an optional thing that you put on monsters that it fits to.

But I don't think that size has to do anything with this. It doesn't matter what size a monster if, if your Mordekainen's Sword doesn't overcome its Spell Resistance, it winks out. If the monster is that small and still in a level range where you can't beat its SR or it doesn't fail your save, it is okay. It's a special effect one has to account for these monsters.

I think a worthy goal is to assert that the general guidelines about SR apply to certain spells that otherwise trump them. For instance, the guidelines state that effect spells that affect a creature directly, like web, are supposed to be subject to SR. Yet the SRD says that web does not allow SR. SR is also supposed to protect a creature from area spells. Yet a spell like black tentacles does not allow SR.

So it seems a rule modification is needed to trump the spell text. But I don't think it is a good idea for a creature's SR to provide protection to other creatures. But if a spell affects an area, and a creature is protected by its SR from that spell, then it makes sense that the space the creature occupies is protected. So the size of the creature is relevant.

My main concern, however, is that "pocket watch golems" would not give their owners immunity to area effects.

[sblock]Targeted Spells

Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature’s spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.

Area Spells

Spell resistance applies if the resistant creature is within the spell’s area. It protects the resistant creature without affecting the spell itself.

Effect Spells

Most effect spells summon or create something and are not subject to spell resistance. Sometimes, however, spell resistance applies to effect spells, usually to those that act upon a creature more or less directly, such as web. [/sblock]

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think a worthy goal is to assert that the general guidelines about SR apply to certain spells that otherwise trump them. For instance, the guidelines state that effect spells that affect a creature directly, like web, are supposed to be subject to SR. Yet the SRD says that web does not allow SR. SR is also supposed to protect a creature from area spells. Yet a spell like black tentacles does not allow SR.

[sblock]Targeted Spells

Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature’s spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.

Area Spells

Spell resistance applies if the resistant creature is within the spell’s area. It protects the resistant creature without affecting the spell itself.

Effect Spells

Most effect spells summon or create something and are not subject to spell resistance. Sometimes, however, spell resistance applies to effect spells, usually to those that act upon a creature more or less directly, such as web. [/sblock]

I had no idea that the text for web was contradictory.

EDIT: Or is that your proposed text?

I need to get my head around the concept of a creature passing through a magical effect.

For the record, I always defer to general rules, as opposed to making specific exceptions, whenever possible. This is why I am not a fan of the, "Just fix forcecage!" approach. 3rd party exceptions will slip through an exception-based design.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I cut'n'pasted the spoilered text from d20srd.com.

I agree about the desirability of general rules. It seems, though, that the rules already exist, but that the problematic spells have been designated as exceptions.

If we made a blanket rule that made every spell subject to SR, I'd include an exception for spells that create mundane materials. A wall of stone or wall of iron could be SR:None. But a wall of fire or wall of ice isn't mundane. If you make a wall out of ordinary ice, you don't get anything like wall of ice. Mundane materials don't have effects measured in caster levels. Nor durations.

 

[Voadam]

Web, Wall of Iron, and Wall of Stone are each conjuration spells and are SR no. Wall of Ice and Wall of Fire are evocations with SR yes.

The general rule in 3.5 is that conjurations do not allow SR, evocations do.

Under Spell Reistance in the srd it says "The Spell Resistance entry and the descriptive text of a spell description tell you whether spell resistance protects creatures from the spell. In many cases, spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place." So I do not expect SR to apply to webs. Under the web spell description it says SR no and I do not expect sr to apply. It is a conjuration creation which means magic creates and holds it together, not that the stickiness or physicalyity is magical itself.

You are right that in the Special abilities, spell resistance entry of the srd it has that reference to web, my guess is that it is a holdover from 3.0 when web was a conjuration with SR yes. http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdspellsuvwxyz.rtf

 

[Cheiromancer]

But Voadam, is it OK to toggle SR off and on just by switching schools? Could I take the spell description of wall of fire, change the school to conjuration, and then switch SR from Yes to No? Would this be good game design, or could someone call shenanigans on me?

I think that's the issue with these problem spells. They shouldn't be SR: No, but someone decided that since they were conjurations then that's what they had to be.

 

[The Black Kestrel]

I'm half tempted to say go with Player's Make all the Rolls option from UA and roll a caster check. If it beat's the targets SR, check to see if it beats his Fort, Ref or Will save next. If it does the spell effects the target.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

But Voadam, is it OK to toggle SR off and on just by switching schools? Could I take the spell description of wall of fire, change the school to conjuration, and then switch SR from Yes to No? Would this be good game design, or could someone call shenanigans on me?

It could be good design - so long as there was some overarching theory/game design element backing it up. Historically (less in 3.x than in previous editions) conjurations did less damage.

 

[ruemere]

[...]
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.

The problem with a golem ("a" as in "any") is that it relies on its spell immunity to provide a challenge. Spell immunity is defined as:
"Immunity to Magic (Ex): A [...] golem is immune to any spell
or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance[...]".

Regards,
Ruemere