Spell Resistance...

Scribble

First Post
So I was reading the thread on saving throws and thinking I agreed with the change because it makes it fall more in line with Spell Resistance... Why roll against one, but have the other rolled against you? Why not keep them the same...

Then I thought, with the seeming emphasis on less die rolls... do you think SR will still exist? (at least in the same form?)

Do you think it might just be a large bonus to the save DC?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I have no idea, but it would seem reasonable to just grant a bonus to defense vs spells and spell like abilities instead of requiring two rolls for the attacker.
 

Nikosandros said:
I have no idea, but it would seem reasonable to just grant a bonus to defense vs spells and spell like abilities instead of requiring two rolls for the attacker.
I agree. Keeping the 3.5 spell resistance mechanics would be redundant. Spell penetration (if such a feat or talent continues to exist into 4e) could simply negate a certain amount of this bonus.
 




Scribble said:
Thats sort of how Saves are going to work... You'll have a save AC, and they roll against it...
Careful. We don't know this is how 4e is going to work (unless I missed something), although it is an adequate description of SWSE.
 


Just a wild thought, but with the SAGA reroll idea, what is SR just gave you the ability to reroll your saves?

It would be simple, and it scales in its own way (the better your saves, the even better they get with rerolls). On the other hand, its probably too on/off for the game.
 

Stalker0 said:
Just a wild thought, but with the SAGA reroll idea, what is SR just gave you the ability to reroll your saves?

It would be simple, and it scales in its own way (the better your saves, the even better they get with rerolls). On the other hand, its probably too on/off for the game.

That's an interesting idea. Forcing your opponent to reroll a successful attack/spell/ability.

Spell Resistance is rather on/off anyways. :)
 

Remove ads

Top