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

[Kae'Yoss]

If the SW Saga Edition saves - now called "defenses" - are a preview for 4E, than this issue has already been resolved. All spells that had a touch attack will now require the caster to beat the target's Reflex Defense. Yay for one less layer of complexity (which actually makes sense)!

They stole my idea!

Except that I would take it further: AC should go away. Reflex is to dodge things - be it fireballs, arrows or big heavy axes. Armour should provide damage resistance - for physical attacks, just like there's damage resistance for fire and the like.

All spells and attacks are basically attacks rolled against one of the defenses. You roll against the defense, not the other way around.

 

[Klaus]

A few ideas:

Spell Resistance (Special Quality) - If a creature with Spell Resistance succeeds at a saving throw by 5 or more, it completely ignores the spell effect. If the spell offers no saving throw, the creature is entitled to one.

Counterspell (Feat) - A spellcaster with this feat may, as an immediate action, spend a spell slotof a level (equal to or higher than a spell being cast by an enemy) to completely unravel the enemy's spell. If he chooses to do so, he forfeits his next action.

Improved Counterspell (Feat) - A spellcaster with Improved Counterspell can spend several lower level spell slots to match or exceed the spell level of an enemy's spell.

 

[Nifft]

All spells and attacks are basically attacks rolled against one of the defenses. You roll against the defense, not the other way around.

This only makes sense if there are no area effect spells. Otherwise, you're going to get to roll one "crit" to affect a whole party, and that's lame.

Single-target vs. area-effect are solid distinctions, though. It's okay if they're handled differently.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Roman]

This only makes sense if there are no area effect spells. Otherwise, you're going to get to roll one "crit" to affect a whole party, and that's lame.

Single-target vs. area-effect are solid distinctions, though. It's okay if they're handled differently.

You do not need to distinguish between them with this mechanic. All you need to do, is to have the attacker roll against each target separately. This takes more rolls, of course, but it is the same amount of rolls, as would be needed if each victim rolled his own saving throw. If you want to speed up the game, for example, when there are huge numbers of enemies, you can instead have only one roll apply against all of them.

 

[Nifft]

You do not need to distinguish between them with this mechanic. All you need to do, is to have the attacker roll against each target separately. This takes more rolls, of course, but it is the same amount of rolls, as would be needed if each victim rolled his own saving throw. If you want to speed up the game, for example, when there are huge numbers of enemies, you can instead have only one roll apply against all of them.

This is bad for people who gain re-rolls, though, since you then only get to use your re-roll offensively. I like the idea of some effects using saving throws, since there are things a player can do to boost his rolls. Action Points, Counters (Tome of Battle), Luck Domain power and the Luck feats from C.Scoundrel -- all of these go out the window if the player isn't the one making the roll.

Basically, I see the benefit for some things, but not for others.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Roman]

This is bad for people who gain re-rolls, though, since you then only get to use your re-roll offensively. I like the idea of some effects using saving throws, since there are things a player can do to boost his rolls. Action Points, Counters (Tome of Battle), Luck Domain power and the Luck feats from C.Scoundrel -- all of these go out the window if the player isn't the one making the roll.

Basically, I see the benefit for some things, but not for others.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with rolling saving throws, but if one wants to unify saving throws with AC, it makes more sense to have the active person roll every-time. On the other hand, I guess it would be possible to simply subtract 10 from all saving throws and use opposed rolls instead, where both the attacker and the defender roll. It would probably be too much rolling for me, but it could work for some. In any case, using the above principle, one could allow rerolls for defenders if they have such an ability even if defense is a normally just a number to roll against.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

A few ideas:

Spell Resistance (Special Quality) - If a creature with Spell Resistance succeeds at a saving throw by 5 or more, it completely ignores the spell effect. If the spell offers no saving throw, the creature is entitled to one.

Counterspell (Feat) - A spellcaster with this feat may, as an immediate action, spend a spell slotof a level (equal to or higher than a spell being cast by an enemy) to completely unravel the enemy's spell. If he chooses to do so, he forfeits his next action.

Improved Counterspell (Feat) - A spellcaster with Improved Counterspell can spend several lower level spell slots to match or exceed the spell level of an enemy's spell.

I like the SR suggestion. For counterspelling I think the feat description sounds good, but I think there needs to be a mechanic, such as opposed Spellcraft checks, rather than it just being automatic because you burned a spell slot.

 

[BarkingDeathSquirrel]

They stole my idea!

Except that I would take it further: AC should go away. Reflex is to dodge things - be it fireballs, arrows or big heavy axes. Armour should provide damage resistance - for physical attacks, just like there's damage resistance for fire and the like.

All spells and attacks are basically attacks rolled against one of the defenses. You roll against the defense, not the other way around.

That is how it appears to be in Saga Edition. There is no Defense or AC listed in the Defenses entry, just Ref, Fort, Will.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

This only makes sense if there are no area effect spells. Otherwise, you're going to get to roll one "crit" to affect a whole party, and that's lame.

I don't see too much of a problem with that. After all, you have to confirm the crit with the second roll, and that has to beat everone's defense.

 

[Stalker0]

A few ideas:

Spell Resistance (Special Quality) - If a creature with Spell Resistance succeeds at a saving throw by 5 or more, it completely ignores the spell effect. If the spell offers no saving throw, the creature is entitled to one.

Counterspell (Feat) - A spellcaster with this feat may, as an immediate action, spend a spell slotof a level (equal to or higher than a spell being cast by an enemy) to completely unravel the enemy's spell. If he chooses to do so, he forfeits his next action.

Improved Counterspell (Feat) - A spellcaster with Improved Counterspell can spend several lower level spell slots to match or exceed the spell level of an enemy's spell.

This counterspell version is too strong. That's the problem with counterspelling, its a very tricky mechanic to balance. You can swing between completely garbage and utterly overpowered in a heartbeat.