What would the Spell Resistance be on a Drow Forsaker?

[RigaMortus]

A Drow gets a Spell Resistance of 11 + character level.

A Forsaker gets a Spell Resistance of 11 + 1 per Forsaker level.

Do these Spell Resistances stack? Would they get TWO seperate Spell Resistance saves (one for Drow and one for Forsaker)? Do you just take the higher of the two?

 

[apsuman]

A Drow gets a Spell Resistance of 11 + character level.

A Forsaker gets a Spell Resistance of 11 + 1 per Forsaker level.

Do these Spell Resistances stack? Would they get TWO seperate Spell Resistance saves (one for Drow and one for Forsaker)? Do you just take the higher of the two?

I believe that they do not stack. One roll, the higher one.

g!

 

[Crothian]

Actually, right in the Forsaker's SR description it specifically says the SR stacks with all other sources.

 

[0-hr]

Hmm, it does indeed say that. So if a drow moves into being a forsaker at, say, level 7, then he'd have a (11+7)+(11+1) = 29 SR? Maybe I should make a dark elf...

 

[shilsen]

A Drow gets a Spell Resistance of 11 + character level.

A Forsaker gets a Spell Resistance of 11 + 1 per Forsaker level.

Do these Spell Resistances stack? Would they get TWO seperate Spell Resistance saves (one for Drow and one for Forsaker)? Do you just take the higher of the two?

The DnDFAQ says that they don't stack (the example is of a Drow and a Foe Hunter, although the Forsaker is also mentioned), since both examples of SR depend on character level. So you use the higher of the two (with only one SR save per opportunity, not two). In this case, it would be the SR from being a Drow, since character level would be higher than Forsaker level.

 

[Crothian]

Re: Re: What would the Spell Resistance be on a Drow Forsaker?

The DnDFAQ says that they don't stack (the example is of a Drow and a Foe Hunter, although the Forsaker is also mentioned), since both examples of SR depend on character level. So you use the higher of the two (with only one SR save per opportunity, not two). In this case, it would be the SR from being a Drow, since character level would be higher than Forsaker level.

It's nice when the FAQ does a 180 from the written text. Both these classes specifically say they stack. Personally, in both of these cases I think they should stack. THe Forsaker is anti magic guy and needs all the help he can get. The Foe Hunter's is just towarda specific foe, so again I think it should be higher then what he would normally get.

 

[Dreaddisease]

If I were to interpret this as if they stack I would not say the base stacks twice. 11 is a general number to have a foundation. So 11 + char level + forsaker level

Of course I would not let them stack. The per level doesn't mean you get 2 points of SR per level.

 

[FANGO]

There is no interpretation involved in this. They stack, as specifically stated in the description of the forsaker. Until errata is issued for Masters of the Wild (which the FAQ isn't), then this is the way it is.

 

[Crothian]

There is no interpretation involved in this. They stack, as specifically stated in the description of the forsaker. Until errata is issued for Masters of the Wild (which the FAQ isn't), then this is the way it is.

There is no interpretation here. It's a choice of following the text or the FAQ. Wizards is very slow about true Errata, so the FAQ is used until it comes out.

I still follow the text though.

 

[tarkin]

I always get tired of fools claiming that the FAQ is not errata.

Yes, in a perfect World, WOTC would not put out Errata in their FAQ's. But in a perfect World, WoTC would not have any Errata to put out.

No matter how much we whine about it, it is the official policy of Hasbro/Wizards_of_the_coast to put out their Errata in their FAQ's. Go to their FAQ download page. You will cleary see this line:

(This game rule FAQ does not cover errata found in the errata documents.)

If the FAQ had no errata it would read :
This game rule FAQ does not cover errata.

The FAQ clearly includes some errata, just not the errata published in the Errata documents. Claiming it isn't just makes you look like a Munchkin looking for an excuse to cheat.