"Swords are no more use here"

[Schmoe]

My Players' fighters not being able to kill things is not the problem. I almost have to make sure there are creatures in the game with considerable DR just to ensure the spellcasters get their licks in.

I think increasing AC's of enemies helps quite a bit. My party of 13th level characters just recently fought a Gelugon (CR 13). With Unholy Aura, the creature's AC was 36, which was more than enough to keep the fighters from having an easy time of it. In addition, they couldn't effectively Power Attack, so the DR made a big impact. If I had wanted to make them nearly ineffective, all I would need to do is add some Bracers of Armor +5 (or so). There ya go, CR 13 and AC 41 - "Swords are no more use here".

Most of the demons are shown unequipped and are very, very tough for their CR. If you add a few defensive items, they begin to fall into the realm you're looking for.

 

[A'koss]

I've never really liked the binary, all-or-nothing nature of SR. As a mental exercise, I thought about how it could be changed so that casting a spell would almost always had some effect and only rarely nothing. I thought about tying it to saving throws and re-working some of the benefits of making your save. For example, if you exceed the minimum number you need to save by 10, you take half damage/effect. Exceed it by 20, quarter damage/effect. Spell Resistance then becomes a bonus to your saving throw and you could even break it down by type if you wanted (Eg. +5 vs Magic, +10 vs Enchantments). I've toyed with a mental hit point scheme to go along with it called Resolve Points - eg. all Will save effects inflicted RP damage. You were okay until you ran out of RP and the effect could then take hold (eg. charm).

That said, I agree with some of the other posters who have suggested that the game remove/alter the "one hit wonder" Save or Die/Nerf spells which can make HL play so grating.

 

[the Jester]

Well, you could allow a lower resistance type of spell- there are about three different ones in various WotC books, iirc.

Bumping ACs helps hold off the fighters, but it also nerfs rogues and fighting clerics/druids pretty hard. It's a not-entirely-ideal solution imho. However, clerics can overcome this; so it's really only monks, bards, rogues and druids that get really slapped by this.

High DR works fairly well too, especially if it requires something most of the party tanks don't have to overcome it (DR x/lawful and adamantine, for example).

Larger groups of enemies is another reasonably good way to go, because the fighters can only be in one place at a time and more bad guys are left open for the wizard to shine against. Also, a very large starting encounter distance helps ranged and magic types. Overwhelming numbers also means that a tank with a very high AC still gets hit occasionally.

Obstacles in closing with the enemy are great- "he's on the other side of a slippery ice bridge covered with caltrops."

 

[Psion]

Try a few oozes.

Gray ooze and black pudding can destroy a weapon that hits it.

Black pudding and ochre Jelly are immune to slashing and piercing damage.

Guess I should have thought of that, considering that in my last high level game, the party ranger/ghostwalker lost his nifty sword this way.

I like intelligent opposition though... time to dust off the oozemaster PrC?

Or the dreaded Remorhaz.

Cold world visit in my future...?

Incorporeal undead (50% miss chance even with a magic weapon). Some also possess really nasty abilities, such as strength drain and level drain.

Well, good advice in general, but my particular case, only one of the casters is heavy on force spells (the other is a druid.)

I think increasing AC's of enemies helps quite a bit. My party of 13th level characters just recently fought a Gelugon (CR 13). With Unholy Aura, the creature's AC was 36, which was more than enough to keep the fighters from having an easy time of it. In addition, they couldn't effectively Power Attack, so the DR made a big impact. If I had wanted to make them nearly ineffective, all I would need to do is add some Bracers of Armor +5 (or so). There ya go, CR 13 and AC 41 - "Swords are no more use here".

Most of the demons are shown unequipped and are very, very tough for their CR. If you add a few defensive items, they begin to fall into the realm you're looking for.

There you go... that's what I'm talking about. A cleric with align weapon goes a long way in an encounter like this. And my party is into the buff principle... but they lack a cleric. This will work nicely. Nice find, thanks.

 

[Odhanan]

I don't know if you'll consider this off topic, but there's a huge difference between the concepts behind LOTR and the concepts behind D&D.

D&D is a game. As such, one of the main concerns was to not let any particular character design take a step over another. We have a name for that: game balance.

In LOTR, the concept is quite different. It's a story, not a game, first. And its a story with a very coherent and strong logic of its own. Magic is extremely rare in the Third Age for a good reason: because it always emanates somehow from the divine, whether it has fallen or not. Thus, Magic always has the upper hand on the use of the sword, which is the weapon of mortals and exiles. The Istari are messengers of the Valar. Sauron is/was a Maia, and all his scions owe their might to the original Dark Lord, Melkor/Morgoth.

Just thought I could point this out.

 

[Schmoe]

Bumping ACs helps hold off the fighters, but it also nerfs rogues and fighting clerics/druids pretty hard.

The way I understand it, that is the whole point of this thread - what can you do in the game to make the game hold a little closer to the background fiction. If a fighter's sword is ineffective, then a rogue's, cleric's, and druid's weapons should also probably be ineffective.

 

[Psion]

I don't know if you'll consider this off topic, but there's a huge difference between the concepts behind LOTR and the concepts behind D&D.

D&D is a game. As such, one of the main concerns was to not let any particular character design take a step over another. We have a name for that: game balance.

In LOTR, the concept is quite different. It's a story, not a game, first.

You are so preaching to the choir, m'boy. I'm the last person you'll hear saying "we have to change demons to be like balrogs in LotR."

That said, I enjoy LotR and other inspirational sources, and would like to add a bit to my gaming pallette to realize the same feel on occasion. I think you can do that and be balanced. (And not house rule the heck out of the system...)

 

[Odhanan]

You are so preaching to the choir, m'boy.

I'm sure I do! I don't pretend to be like "the man" on the subject...

That said, I enjoy LotR and other inspirational sources, and would like to add a bit to my gaming pallette to realize the same feel on occasion. I think you can do that and be balanced. (And not house rule the heck out of the system...)

... and I certainly don't mean to say your wish is wrong. It's perfectly right to discuss such topics!

 

[drothgery]

I've never liked SR as a mechanic. It's a saving throw to be able to make a saving throw.

d20 has a basic mechanic for resisting spells in the saving throw; if a creature is supposed to be unusually resistant to magic, it should just have better-than-normal saves. And the mechanics for creatures with subtypes like [fire] or [cold] nicely handle immunities and hitting things with the right type of effect.

 

[Klaus]

Psion,

The best way to create a "swords are no more use here" scenario is to know what kind of magic capability your PCs *do* have.

You mentioned a Druid. Does he/she prepare stuff like Flame Blade (touch attack = good vs. high AC), Call Lightning or Fire Shield? High AC + elemental vulnerability is a combination you might want to look into.

You mentioned the group being prone to buffing spells. In this case, look at what kind of DR your group's weapons can overcome, and use something else.