High level caster "fix:" Reasonable or Outrageous

[Voadam]

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.

No, they wanted to get rid of the SR so they made them conjuration.

The problem is not that conjurations are sr no. The problem is that these conjurations are doing everything an evocation does at the same level mechanically but take away SR as well. This makes them unbalanced, which is a problem mechanically for me.

In the core there was acid arrow doing a little damage spread out over time at level 2 with sr no. Scorching ray is a 2nd level evocation that does a lot more damage immediately but with SR yes. That is an acceptable mechanical balance for me with low damage sr no spells falling into conjuration and high damage SR yes spells being evocations. The problem for me is that lesser orbs are just as powerful as magic missile at the same level, but with no SR.

Orbs were made conjuration in 3.5 to get around SR, not because orb of force is thematically appropriate for conjuring instead of evocation.

I'd have no problem with conjuring elemental fire that is not subject to SR, as long as it was less efficient than a comparable evocation effect.

Conjuring fireball
Sor 3/Wiz 3
Conjuration
SR No.
This spell conjures actual flames from the plane of elemental fire for a brief instant in the are of effect doing 1d6 fire damage per two levels of the caster, maximum of 5d6.

 

[Cheiromancer]

It's hard to think of a blanket fix that would rein in the broken conjurations without nerfing the ones like conjuring fireball.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Edit:

Not to sound too down, but I give up on Spell Resistance.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Generally speaking a well-designed spell (and this is 95% of them) requires at least one roll: a saving throw, SR, or an attack roll (even if it's an easy-peasy touch attack).

Fixing the orb spells (and other damagers) is easy and really not what I'm worried about.

I am more worried about long-lasting control/lockdown spells, such as web, solid fog, forcecage, etc. These spells allow the wizard to place them with pinpoint accuracy to maximum effect, with no recourse whatsoever from the targets.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

How about making SR more like Evasion, or allowing a second saving throw (or both)?

A similar idea: Give every creature SR=x, where x is a positive integer. (Most creatures will have SR=1.) When a spell is cast that allows a save, targeted creatures roll the save x times; if any of the rolls succeed, then the spell has no effect on that creature. It would probably be a good idea to go ahead and give every spell a save at this point...?

 

[freyar]

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[...]".

I see what you're saying. What I was trying to say was that Immunity to Magic is a separate mechanic from standard SR. So I don't think Immunity to Magic is a good reference point in a discussion of SR, that's all. This isn't really the right thread for a discussion of whether this is a good ability for monsters to have or not, though.

 

[Scott DeWar]

. . . edit. . .
I am more worried about long-lasting control/lockdown spells, such as web, solid fog, forcecage, etc. These spells allow the wizard to place them with pinpoint accuracy to maximum effect, with no recourse whatsoever from the targets.

do you mean such as a creature with SR caught in a web, it does its SR cherck, fails the first round. next round it fails but the third round it makes it and it is as if there are no sticky webs any more? am I understanding you correctly?

 

[MichaelK]

Nicely written post and poll. It made your question very clear.

I usually DM and voted that I acknowledge the problem but think the solution you've posed is unreasonable.

Mostly because any power gamer knows how to get their effective caster level high enough to beat any spell resistance you'll ever encounter. This merely encourages them to exercise these options and makes it a higher priority than other possibilities.

Also I don't think that it's all the No SR, No Save spells which are problematic only certain ones (Otto's Irresistable Dance being the first one to spring to mind).

 

[Voadam]

Generally speaking a well-designed spell (and this is 95% of them) requires at least one roll: a saving throw, SR, or an attack roll (even if it's an easy-peasy touch attack).

Fixing the orb spells (and other damagers) is easy and really not what I'm worried about.

I am more worried about long-lasting control/lockdown spells, such as web, solid fog, forcecage, etc. These spells allow the wizard to place them with pinpoint accuracy to maximum effect, with no recourse whatsoever from the targets.

OK then, this is a different kettle of fish. Your problem is apparently not the no SR aspects per se but the whole no save and nothing can be done at all aspects of them.

These are problems for both PCs and monster targets. Very few PCs though have sr of any kind.

I think SR is not the right way to fix this. Outsiders, golems, drow, certain common templates, and a few others will have SR while many don't, leaving the problem existing for many. Some DR is trivially easy for a caster to overcome leaving the SR only relevant for magic from item and low level casters.

I don't know, I think you have to go spell by spell for this type.