Why is SR necessary to the game?

[Li Shenron]

To model that permanent psychic fortress / holy or unholy shielding / otherworldly mazelike soul-pattern type effect. And stuff.

But I think it's also important to remember that saves don't only apply to magic. SR does, pretty much. That's a significant difference, and a useful one for when you're creating creatures that operate differently across various levels of reality.

That is exactly the same as the Dwarves' ST bonus against spells

So why the Dwarves don't need SR, but Drows do?

 

[Li Shenron]

ST's are not a good mechanic IMO to model multiple levels of success. The ST + SR gives you three levels: completely ignore (SR), and two different possible effects for the ST based on success or not. By removing SR, and using it to modify the ST, you artificially increase/decrease the success on the other two options in order to introduce a third. This is especially true if you try to introduce some modified version of evasion (to work on non-Reflex saves). It complicates the saving throw mechanic, as well, and for a game that is supposed to be simplified, particularly towards the player, that's not good. It will not make much of a difference for the average reader of a Rules forum, but I know there are many players (and even DM's out there) who think that even D&D's simplified ruleset is too complicated.

So, let's take a crack at it. Consider slay living. It allows a Fort save where success means you take some damage and failure means you die. It also allows SR where success means you completely ignore the spell. For simplicity, let's ignore all other things like AC, crits, death wards, etc. In order to use the ST mechanic only (multiple people here have suggested it), you would need to create a multi-level ST. As you decide on your rules to handle that, I'm sure you'll quickly see how poorly it models the existing mechanic, meaning that the existing mechanic is a good one.

Think about SKILLS. Many of them give you different levels of success/failure with a single roll.

Why couldn't that be done with ST?

There could be a general rule saying for instance that when a spell has a partial effect in case of success, the effect is ignore if you beat the DC by 10 or more. (10 is just a made up example) That would be a simple enough way to cover all spells. If we are afraid that it becomes too general, we could "move" this rule to specific spells only, those which have a partial effect I mean.

Why do you think the game would be more complicated?
It's one roll less when casting a spell, it's one parameter less to keep track of in the spell's description, it's one less area that the player needs to keep his character proficient with*.
The existing SR could be translated in ST bonuses vs. magic, which is one more parameter in the monster description, and that general rule about ignoring partial effects.
It's not more complicated than before...

*I know this may sound bad, since we do like to have more options for our characters. But with SR the player of a caster needs to boost both his save DCs and his caster level vs SR to obtain the same conceptual objective: make her spells work. I am not saying this is bad, I use it all the time, I'm only saying it's redundant. It would be like having two separate mechanics for attacks, the first being a roll by the attacked to aim the target and the second a roll by the defender to parry the blow. It wouldn't be terrible (many DM use parrying rolls) but because it isn't in the PHB most players don't see the necessity of it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It is not necessary at all.

It is just a different kind of saving throw that, in the vast majority cases, could be adequately replaced by a racial modifier to the normal saving throw.

The upsides of having this extra mechanic are small to non-existent.

The downsides are that you have to support and entire new mechanic to magic -- another entry to remember in the spell description, another roll some of the time, lots of weird balance issues when it comes to multiclassing, and the boatload of FAQs/errata that come with it.

Racial modifiers are integrated into the stat blocks of monsters and are just little footnotes that are trivial to skim past.

I would also point out that the highly magical creatures that do not have just 2 "saving throws" (the save and SR), they have 3 -- the ST, SR, and the racial Resistances/Immunities.

That is way overkill IMNSHO.

Creatures that have SR very commonly have Resistances/Immunities, as well. In general, these monsters are already fussy little things that require a careful perusal of the stat block for oddball exceptions.

If SR models anything useful at all, it does not seem to be doing a good job. It is not an elegant solution to any problem. It is just another bandaid that got carried along with the kitchen sink from previous editions.

 

[Sejs]

(I thought this was more relevant in Rules, but could be moved to General...)

What do you think are the fundamental reasons (mechanically or otherwise) for Spell Resistance to exist in the game?

Since all it does is lower the chance that a certain creature is affected by a spell, why couldn't we just have Saving Throws?

What does SR achieve that the Saving Throws cannot, even with a minor tweak?

Two points, one being an analogy.

1) Comparing physical combat vs magic: saving throws are to magic what AC is to combat. Spell resistance is to magic what DR is to combat. Namely a chance that what you do just doesn't fly because the thing you're fighting is too cool for school.

2) The reason to keep SR and not go to a tweaked save mechanic is due in part to the non-uniform way in which saving throws operate. Some spells don't allow saving throws. Some only offer a reduced effect baesd on your save. If you got rid of SR on the whole, you'd just end up having to rework the save mechanic from the ground up and ultimately end up in roughly the same place, just coming from a different direction.

 

[Tessarael]

One way of removing spell resistance and replacing it with high savings throws would be to have finer grained results from savings throw. For example, if you make the save by 10 or more then you are unaffected by the spell. So Fireball would work like: normal damage if you fail the save, 1/2 damage if you make by +0 to +9, no damage if you make by +10 or more. Creatures with spell resistance would just have better saving throws.

I think D&D would be simpler without spell resistance. You would no longer have to specify which spells allow spell resistance and which don't, and the distinction between Conjuration and Evocation would be clearer (e.g. Melf's Acid Arrow would presumably be Evocation).

 

[Aus_Snow]

That is exactly the same as the Dwarves' ST bonus against spells

No. No, it isn't.

So why the Dwarves don't need SR, but Drows do?

Hey, I didn't design the Dwarf, or the Drow. And I don't use either in its current official incarnation, as it so happens. That is the kind of question you might want to ask Cook, Reynolds, Mearls, Tweet. . . or some other big name involved in the 3rd ed. / d20 design process somewhere along the line.

Of course, SR dates back a lot further than 2000, but then so do a lot of those guys!

 

[Li Shenron]

1) Comparing physical combat vs magic: saving throws are to magic what AC is to combat. Spell resistance is to magic what DR is to combat. Namely a chance that what you do just doesn't fly because the thing you're fighting is too cool for school.

2) The reason to keep SR and not go to a tweaked save mechanic is due in part to the non-uniform way in which saving throws operate. Some spells don't allow saving throws. Some only offer a reduced effect baesd on your save. If you got rid of SR on the whole, you'd just end up having to rework the save mechanic from the ground up and ultimately end up in roughly the same place, just coming from a different direction.

1) SR is a chance of avoiding a spell altogether, as such it IS more similar to AC than the Saving Throws are, since it's a successful ST that sometimes still results in a reduced effect. But then the real magic equivalent to DR is energy resistance, or similar resistances to other types of damage, which I think give definitely more benefit to the game than the SR rules.

2) You agree with me then? We would end up in the same place without a separate mechanic

I actually said that reworking the ST IMHO it's easier than we might be afraid of, but that is beyond the main discussion.

 

[Li Shenron]

No. No, it isn't.

Why isn't it?

You wrote: "To model that permanent psychic fortress / holy or unholy shielding / otherworldly mazelike soul-pattern type effect."

A creature might have a holy resistance to spells.

It might have a SR which results in a 50% chance of avoiding a spell, and a ST which gives a 40% chance of saving. Overall a 70% of success.

It might have a total ST bonus which gives it 70% chance of success straight away.

First: what is the mechanical difference between those two 70%?
Second: why can't you say that the psychic/holy/soul force concept isn't included in the final ST?

You then wrote: "...saves don't only apply to magic. SR does, pretty much. That's a significant difference, and a useful one for when you're creating creatures that operate differently across various levels of reality."

I made you the example of Dwarves because they have a ST bonus which applies only to magic, just as SR.

 

[nittanytbone]

SR gives a significant advantage to higher level casters as compared to lower level casters.

While it is true that higher level casters generally have higher DCs than low level ones, that is only the case for builds specced to pump DCs.

Example:

Low level gnome wizard specced for Illusions with high DCs. Int 18, spell focus, greater spell focus, gnome racial abilities, level 1 spell: DC 17

9th level wizard with more generic focus. Int 17 (started at 15+2 bumps), no spell focus (due to crafting feats, martial combat feats as a gish, etc), level 5 spell: DC 18

The 9th level wizard's MOST POWERFUL spells are only 5% harder to resist than some 1st level whippersnapper's. But when SR is factored in, the 9th level wizard is 40% more likely to punch through SR, which means only dedicated primary casters with high caster level can do it reliably.

 

[lukelightning]

SR needs to be totally changed. It should become something like DR or energy resistance. If you want something that is resistant to magical damage, then SR 10 would reduce damage from magical and/or energy effects by 10. If you want something that is resistant to magical effects, just give it save bonuses.

This gets rid of stuff like the weird "conjured fire hurts golems, but evoked fire doesn't" and hopefully the even stupider "a torch can burn a stone golem but a fireball can't."