Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iceifur" data-source="post: 1571704" data-attributes="member: 18077">How so? I see the possibility of an automatic success on a SR check as following the spirit of the game:  a world in which anything can happen.What you see as "oomph," I see as "magical aptitude." Most people don't have any noteworthy defense against magical attacks (i.e. SR); they're completely open, so spellcasters don't even have to roll, normally.  When someone DOES have such protection, though, the caster has to see if he can break through their magical defenses, just like any fighter would have to do when trying to hit a certain AC.  Since it's no longer a sure thing, it has to be rolled, and since it's treated like AC, SR checks fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20.  Thus, I believe that luck IS involved, and one can indeed get lucky, or UNlucky.  DnD is a game of the suspension of disbelief:  dragons (with wings that, in the real world, wouldn't be able to support them) can fly and breathe fire (and other nasty substances); an animated table can attack the people sitting down to enjoy a meal conjured from thin air; a holy man can obliterate waves and waves undead soldiers sent by his unholy rival.  I have no problem with a level 1 wizard getting a magic missile through on ANY creature not IMMUNE to magic.As silly as, say, a level 1 goblin warrior being able to somehow miraculously block a +2000 Greatsword (+4000 versus Goblinoids) wielded by a level 10000 ranger (primary favored enemy: goblinoids)? Where does the suspension of disbelief end?And I would compare spell penetration more to an attack roll to a skill check.  And, with some more food for thought, another section from the SRD, this time from the section on scroll activation -- another type of caster level check which, I do believe, works very similar to that required by SR:Bold, again, is emphasis mine.  Now, as to whether the bolded section is referring to the caster level check or the Wisdom check remains to be seen, but due to the passage declaring Ability checks as untrained skill checks,how could THAT possibly be, given that skill checks never automatically fail on a roll of 1?I thank you for your profound opinions, Anubis.  As to the validity or viability of house rules, be them my own or someone else's, I again thank you for your insights.  Truly, you have opened my eyes.  I never realized the wide gulf between what is believable, and what is inconceivable. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />--B--</blockquote>

Verification