NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3175330" data-attributes="member: 141">Ah, but think of what a steal it would be using the original formula!  A SR 70 item would be 522K according to the official rules, only a third what my new formula would yield. [spoiler]Mind you, saying a rule is less broken than the official rules is not much of a defense, is it?[/spoiler]Having cheap, high SR items helps prevent the "glass jaw" syndrome that characters currently have; characters can dish out immensely destructive effects, but they can't take a hit.  Protecting them against direct spells by equal level opponents would address this nicely.  It would play the same role that the mantle of epic spell resistance holds right now; available to a 23rd level character and very hard to beat by equal level opponents.  We are already considering that greatly enhanced spell turning would be de rigeur; shouldn't there be more than one reason why a caster wouldn't directly attack another caster?It would help enable them to cope against higher level opponents as well; as you get into epic territory the spread of appropriate encounters gets wider and wider.  If a party is going to be able to tackle a higher level threat, they need to have protection against an opponent 20 levels higher.  A SR of level+10 won't cut it.  Conversely, they have be to threatened (at least a little) by opponents 10 levels lower than they are.  It helps if those opponents have significant SR.And it is not like this gives a party an insuperable advantage: there are counter-measures.  Attacks that avoid SR, like those appropriate against golems.  The lowly assay resistance spell helps a fair bit.  Spell penetration items (150,000 gp + (bonus cubed) x 30).  Plain old-fashioned melee.Or... you might be right.  I'll think about it.  But if we come to an agreement, I'll want to know that we gave fair consideration to both sides of the question.</blockquote>

Verification