D&D 4E Should Spell Resistance make it into 4e

[Klaus]

I'm not a huge fan of SR mechanics, but I disagree that it could be rolled into saves. There are spells that have no saves for a reason, but still SR. Even more importantly, there as spells with no SR, but saves. Like conjuring something so it's really there (no chance of magic resistance stopping it - it's really there), but you can still dodge out of the way, etc.

I don't like the current mechanic, or that it's so works completely or doesn't work. I'd rather see SR like DR, that blocks part of the effects of a spell, but there are so many spells that do things that aren't straight damage I don't know how to quantify that.

Good luck,
=Blue(23)

Going with my SR suggestion, the spell entries would be something like this (and how the rule would go):

Save: [any other than None]
SR: No

A creature with SR gets no benefit if it saves by a margin of 5 or more.

Save: [any other than None]
SR: Yes

A creature with SR completely ignores the effect if it saves by a margin of 5 or more.

Save: None
SR: Yes

A creature with SR gets a saving throw. It ignores the effects of the spell if it makes its save (no need for a 5 or more roll). This could even be expanded upon with an entry like [SR: Yes (Will negate)] or [SR: Yes (Fort partial)], indicating what save you roll against, and what happens if the SR isn't beaten.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I'm sorry, but this is just ugly.

That's okay, I wasn't going to beauty.

This would mean every spell...*every spell!*...would have to be rewritten to have numerous different XX-YY-ZZ-etc. effects depending on the roll result. Then, a huge amount more player-DM memorization (or book-consulting) would be required - compared to now - to determine what happens when any given spell resolves.

This doesn't have to be as complex as you're suggesting. Suppose, for instance, that the mechanic were something like this:

The dice of damage that a spell does is 1d6 per spell level plus 1d6 per 5 by which you beat the DC on your roll.

So, if the DC is 17 and it's a 3rd level spell, and you roll a 25, then that's 4d6 damage.

Let's say it's a fire spell, and the creature has Resist Fire 5 (which, in the new system, means the DC is 5 higher). Now the DC is 22 and so the 25 doesn't beat the roll by 5, so the damage is 3d6. Admittedly, that's an average of only 3.5 less fire damage, and not 5 less fire damage, but, it's close, and it's tweakable. (And, perhaps, on the system, a roll of 18, which is less than the DC, might do 2d6 instead of no damage, if that's the kind of system you want. Lots of flexibility in this idea, at least.)

Admittedly, there are tons of spells that don't have a damage-die system, so this won't work for them. But, there are tons of spells, like, say, a spell that sheds light like a torch, or a spell that opens a locked door, that don't have to rely on such a mechanic to begin with.

It's okay with me if my idea gets rejected. I figure that keeping the dialogue alive, and throwing ideas at people, even if they're wild and ultimately not useful, is itself a useful part of the 4e building process.

I can't know what the best ideas will be unless I'm willing to sift through a lot of bad ones.

Dave

 

[Victim]

I wouldn't mind seeing SR go away. It would certainly make the evokers happy. As it stands, the evocation wizards are pretty much pooched in high level play because everything has SR. Whack on a big save bonus for SR and add in a mettle/evasion line into the special abilities.

Easy, simple.

So giving everything a bonus to saves and evasion somehow helps evokers? I don't think they want that kind of help.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

So giving everything a bonus to saves and evasion somehow helps evokers? I don't think they want that kind of help.

I'm not sure about the idea about evasion, but a bonus to saves is much better than SR, especially for an evoker. If the enemy makes his save due to his "SR bonus", he'll still get half damage. If you don't overcome SR, he isn't even scratched...

 

[hong]

I'm still partial to the idea of hero points. They have the bonus that they can be used to avoid other instakill situations, all in one elegant mechanic. They also allow you to make progress even if your instakill spell doesn't slay the target, because you're still depleting their resources.

Spend 1 hero point = unaffected by power word kill
Spend 1 hero point = unaffected by medusa gaze (for 1 round)
Spend 1 hero point = avoid bull rush that sends you over the cliff
Spend 1 hero point = land the killing blow on the BBEG before it takes you all out
Spend 1 hero point = avoid the killing blow from the annoying hero, thus allowing you to take them all out

Why??/? WHY DOES NOONE LISTEN TO ME????/

 

[Sammael]

The concept is sound, but change the name from "hero" (blech) to "fate." By the way, Warhammer FRPG called, they want their money back.

 

[Tzeentch]

I'll just agree with the consensus - ditch SR for a unified magic save bonus. Make counterspell actually *useful* and clean up anti-magic effects (dispel/aMF/disjunction) by making magic actually BALANCED past level 5.

 

[Arkhandus]

Bleh. I'd rather have two moderate chances of failure with a spell than one big chance of failure with a spell. With the right planning, I can at least slightly reduce the chances of those two failures, but it's harder to boost the save DC alone against a monster with ungodly save bonuses and special abilities to avoid harm entirely if they make the save.

If there's going to be 'degrees of failure' for saves, just have it be partial/half effect if you make the save, full effect otherwise; and abilities like Evasion or Mettle can just be made a tiny bit more commonplace (so that avoiding all harm can still be possible for characters who focus some effort on acquiring such capacity, but only for one type of save most likely).

Fate points, hero points, etc.? Just call it action points if you really want it to be a neutral term.

hong: I like it! I listen! ......but I'm not important, so what does it matter?

With action points, it could be that you may spend a point to negate an attack's effect after making a successful save against it; rather than still suffering half/partial effect after succeeding at the save.