Problem with the Fortify Epic Spell Seed

[Chris Parker]

Granting spell resistance to a creature that doesn’t already have it is a special case; the base Spellcraft DC of 27 grants spell resistance 25, and each additional point of spell resistance increases the Spellcraft DC by +4 (each –1 to spell resistance reduces the Spellcraft DC by –2).

Lets say I wanted to grant Spell Resistance 1. Does that mean that the base DC is -21? Or is there a cap on how low you can get Spell Resistance? The 13 from the DMG's items section seems like the best bet... but does it actually say that thats as low as it can get?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I say that you can't get a seed's base DC below 1. I think you've found one of the loopholes - they didn't intend to give you a seed that will lower the DC while still giving you something for it (though SR 1 or 2 have no use whatsoever, unless you're dealing with negative caster levels, and I haven't yet)

 

[Anubis]

It would indeed be that low. For logic, consider how useless a spell that would be. A casting time of 1 minute for SR 1 . . . Hmmm . . .

Get the idea?

Basically, here's how you would logically design such a spell, even though it'll still be useless:

Seed: Fortify; SR 25 (DC 27)
SR -24 (DC -48)
1-action casting time (DC +20)
No verbal component (DC +2)
No somantic component (DC +2)

Sub Total: DC 3

Permanent duration (DC x 5)

Final Total: DC 15

Heh, still useless, but there you go. That is more like a spell that would be used. For a suggested minimum, you can go with SR 13 if you like. Here you go:

Seed: Fortify; SR 25 (DC 27)
SR -12 (DC -24)
1-action casting time (DC +20)
No verbal component (DC +2)
No somantic component (DC +2)

Sub Total: DC 27

Permanent duration (DC x 5)

Final Total: DC 135

As you can see, "Permanent duration" is rarely worth the cost of admission, although DC 135 should be easy to reach at Level 30+ seeing as an epic spellcaster worth anything should have an item to boost the skill check by +60 minimum at that point.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Anubis, the real problem is when you add this seed to another. Seed: Fortify DC 27, -24 SR DC -48, 1 action casting time DC +20.

OK, the SR is absolutely useless, but you can add another seed that actually does anything. You will practically get the 1 action casting time for free and still lower the DC of the next seed by one.

 

[iceifur]

SR 1 isn't TOTALLY useless ... having SR of any amount makes the opposing caster roll against it. Behold the awe-inspiring might of a 1 in 20 chance of resisting spells! Marvel at the ability to annoy your enemies by taking away their assured success! Marvel!! Marvel!!!

--B--

 

[James McMurray]

I would never allow that, nor would ny sane DM. Just chalk it up to another problem with the epic spell system and move on.

iceifur: 1s don't fail SR checks automatically. Unless you are using a house rule, you cannot fail to penetrate SR 1.

 

[Chris Parker]

Its all about the Swarmfighting Advanced Epic Monsters!

I would never allow that, nor would ny sane DM. Just chalk it up to another problem with the epic spell system and move on.

iceifur: 1s don't fail SR checks automatically. Unless you are using a house rule, you cannot fail to penetrate SR 1.

Yeah, thats along the lines of what I was thinking (combining it with another buffer, and make it permanent, etc etc).

And house rules say (not sure how much of that has any basis in the rulebooks) - unless your a diety, or paragon or equivalent, 1's are critical failures (and 20's autosuccesses on everything but skills). And for some characters (dragons and the ilk), 1's mean reroll a d20 and subtract that instead of adding it. ie- base spellcraft is 23, roll a one, reroll, get a 13, total result is 10.

And while most (99%) of DMs would not allow it, there are some who look at Epic and decide that if the characters get horribly broken... well, it is epic, just throw bigger monsters at them. A family Xixecals and thier pet (Advanced) Devastation Beetles will still probably chew through the party.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[iceifur]

iceifur: 1s don't fail SR checks automatically. Unless you are using a house rule, you cannot fail to penetrate SR 1.

From the SRD:

SPELL RESISTANCE
Spell resistance is a special defensive ability. If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature’s spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature. The defender’s spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. Include any adjustments to your caster level to this caster level check.

and

ATTACK ROLL
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.

Bold = emphasis mine.

From this I deduce (perhaps wrongly) that a 1 on a caster level check against SR is an automatic failure. If not, well, it makes a damn sensible house rule, IMHO.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm relatively confident that the passage you emphasized isn't meant to be understood that way. Comparing SR to AC is meant to illustrate how SR works, not to say that SR has all of the exact mechanics of AC.

If we do want to get extremely literal, saying that SR is like AC proves nothing, because that's just the target number to hit; it says nothing about a caster level check being like an attack roll, which is the actual mechanic that has the automatic-failure and auto-success features.

 

[iceifur]

Also notice, though, that the entry for SR doesn't have the disclaimer text that the entry for skill checks does:

From the SRD:

Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.

Of course, the entry for SR doesn't explicitly say that a 1 is an automatic failure, either. Yet another ambiguity in the rules. Yay!

--B--

Edit: I apologize for the hijack, Chris. Got off on a tangent.