Why is SR necessary to the game?

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

There is a difference. AC is a very very simple mechanic, and thus it makes some degree of sense to layer another very simple mechanic on top to add some texture. But DR is not necessary in the least (and I happen to like the DR mechanics in 3.5), most PCs survive just fine without it.

Your "magical AC" is already a very complex mechanic -- 3 different flavors, situational mods based on type of spell and target (Fear, Charm, Poison, etc.), various Resistances/Immunities, and two different spell resolution systems for every spell in the book (one if the save is made, one if it is not). How much more texture do you need?

Do you really need to add an entire new complex mechanic on top of that rich complexity to keep magic interesting? By your own admission, you could get pretty close.

 

[geosapient]

Explain to me in a reasonable amount of detail how is it a "different kind" from a general (non-related) point of view.

Because SR makes the offender prove how powerful he/she is by forcing an 'attack' roll against the creature's Natural Spell Armor Class (NSAC = SR).

Saving Throws force the defender to defend himself.

 

[Nadaka]

you also have 3 different flavors of armor class: normal, touch, flatfooted. so the arguement that saves are more complex than AC on account of flavor number doesn't seem to apply.

 

[geosapient]

Let me change up a bit:

SR would be more like the armor that a fighter would wear. The attack would have to penetrate the armor to affect the wearer.

ST's would be more like dexterity and dodge AC. The defender relies on these to get ut of the way of harm.

Unlike physical armor that should be the last line of defense to overcome since it should be expected that even people without dex or dodge are still trying to avoid avoid the attack, SR becomes the first line of defense against magic even though it should be expected that they are still trying to avoid the attack.

Having three different flavors of armor class is a moot point since we aren't actually talking about armor class specifically, but rather using general armor class as an example.

 

[pemerton]

Li Shenron (and Ridley's cohort), I'm in broad agreement. I also feel your pain at getting answers to your question which already presuppose the current spell descriptions (built around SR) and imposes a particular flavour interpretation onto the current mechanics which is not even consistent (as the Dwarf example shows).

I also think the suggestion that Saving Throws need to be kept distinct, because they apply to things other than magic, is a bit of a red herring. At high levels where SR tends to kick in, it's not as if monsters are having to make a heap of saves against poison, pit traps etc. And when it comes to non-magical abilities like Stunning Fist, there's no obvious balance reason why SR should not apply to this, but should apply to spell-caster class abilities that produce the identical effect.

Furthermore, if SR was dropped, than the distinction between Supernatural abilities, Spell-like abilities and Spells would become a lot clearer (and I think the first two categories could in fact be collapsed, couldn't they?). Likewise, as Lukelightning said, the artificial Conjuration/Evocation distinction could be cleaned up (acording to the SRD, Conjuration "brings manifestations of . . . energy to you" or "creates . . . effects on the spot" while Evocation "manipulate energy to produce a desired end . . . [and] create something out of nothing".- what's the difference?).

Two well-known fantasy games which do not have SR, but rely simply on Resistance Rolls (= Saving Throws, in D&D terms) are Rolemasater and Runequest. Do these games suffer from their lack of SR? Not in my experience.

What is interesting about this sort of question (ie why SR?) is that draws attention to further odd features of the D&D ruleset. For example, when it comes to modelling the ability to avoid or ignore damage, we have:

* Hit Points, which go up with level not because high-level people are beefier, but because they avoid fatal blows, turning them into mere nicks;

* DR/-, which reflects the ability to shrug off what might otherwise be fatal damage;

* DEX, which adds to AC because it reflects the ability to dodge what might otherwise be a fatal blow;

* Armour and Shield bonuses to AC, which reflect the fact that armour protects from what might otherwise be fatal blows;

* Reflex saves, which reflect the ability to avoid what might otherwise be fatal damage;

* Evasion and Improved Evasion, which are a further escape mechanic sitting on top of Reflex saves (these originated in 1st ed to protect Monks from the consequences of low hit points in the face of fireballs or breath weapons, and have been generalised from that origin in D&D3);

* Tumbling skill, which (when moving through threatended squares) relects the ability to dodge what might otherwise be fatal blows.

There's no denying that having so many variable to model the same ability allows for complexity in monster and character design. But it does give rise to doubts as to whether any coherent interpretation of that design in anything like real-world terms is possible. And it is not an obvious virtue in a rule-set to model the same thing in so many different ways - for a start, it makes mechanical balance that much harder to achieve.

I think the same is true with SR. What it models - given that if protects against Magic Missile, or Scorching Ray, but not Acid Arrow, although all three are simply spells that fire energy missiles at their targets - is far from clear. What mechanical benefit it offers is also not at all clear.

 

[Li Shenron]

Because SR makes the offender prove how powerful he/she is by forcing an 'attack' roll against the creature's Natural Spell Armor Class (NSAC = SR).

Saving Throws force the defender to defend himself.

That's not really necessary, otherwise there would be also a defensive/parry roll in combat, if it was really necessary to put attacking ability and defensive ability into separate rolls.

Furtermore, it is actually a bit accidental that SR requires a roll by the attacker against a fixed SR value: it could have been the other way around (a SR defensive roll vs a fixed caster level) without changing anything in the % chances.

 

[WizarDru]

I also think the suggestion that Saving Throws need to be kept distinct, because they apply to things other than magic, is a bit of a red herring. At high levels where SR tends to kick in, it's not as if monsters are having to make a heap of saves against poison, pit traps etc.

While I see your point, it should be noted that while MONSTERS aren't making a heap of saves, PLAYERS ARE. One of the benefits of the 3.X system is that monsters obey the same rules as players, at least in the main. Changing this is fine, but make sure you understand the more subtle ramifications as a DM and be prepared to address them. One of the things that gets driven home again and again is that monsters are not players...because of this, they get a generally sweeter deal in some ways and not in others (because at the end of the day, they cardboard cutouts...most monsters don't get to use all of their abilities and only engage in a single combat in-game...EVER).

And when it comes to non-magical abilities like Stunning Fist, there's no obvious balance reason why SR should not apply to this, but should apply to spell-caster class abilities that produce the identical effect.

I suppose that depends on how you mean balance. Stunning Fist is one of the monk classes best features (although technically now it's just a bonus feat); conceptually it's a strike to the vitals or some similar attack that effectively knocks the wind out of an opponent. It's not a magic effect at all, so I'm not sure how it enters into the discussion any more than having Dodge contrasts with Mage Armor. If it were to be classified, it would be an Extraordinary ability.

There's no denying that having so many variable to model the same ability allows for complexity in monster and character design. But it does give rise to doubts as to whether any coherent interpretation of that design in anything like real-world terms is possible. And it is not an obvious virtue in a rule-set to model the same thing in so many different ways - for a start, it makes mechanical balance that much harder to achieve.

Well, I think you're mixing-and-matching, here. Tumbling is a conditional ability, for example, that doesn't change your AC, merely adjusts whether or not you are eligible for an attack. DR is primarily meant to show that some creatures just selectively ignore damage entirely (such as a fire elemental ignoring fire damage). This is not the same as saying there are two alternate forms of magic defense; SR and saves pretty much cover the same territory, while something like Tumble, Dodge and DR do not.

Which again brings us back to the idea that SR is not necessary, if you don't want to model magic in the fashion that core D&D does. I disagree that what SR protects against is unclear....quite the contrary. SR protects the creature/character from DIRECT magical effects. In the case of Acid Arrow or Scorching Ray, the spell is the delivery system, not the damaging effect....and the spell requires a separate roll to be successful. Magic Missle, by contrast, never misses (though it can be absorbed, it doesn't fail). There, the spell IS the damaging effect. No rolls are made, there is no chance for failure, ever. Acid Arrow and Scorching Ray do higher, more variable damage in return for that failure chance. The same idea applies to Flaming Arrow, for example, where the spell affects the arrows, not the target.

Is this is a useful or meaningful distinction? Well, that's left as an exercise to the reader. Clearly it isn't necessary, but I like the level of granularity that the current system offers...and I haven't heard a compelling enough counter-offer, system-wise, to take issue with it. If the alternative is monster entries that are greatly expanded to list all of their potential special saving throw circumstances, I'll stick with what I've got.

 

[DrNilesCrane]

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."

I completely agree. I don't care for the SR mechanic: it feels like a legacy mechanic that could be handled much better through SDR (spell damage reduction) or something similiar. For spells that don't do damage but have an on-going effect, give those creatures the ability to make additional saving throws once per round (or whatever timeframe is appropriate).

 

[Nail]

SR models spell caster power.

Saving Throw DCs model spell level power.

.....they are quite different in both intent and execution. They do NOT "do the same thing".

 

[pemerton]

SR models spell caster power.

Saving Throw DCs model spell level power.

.....they are quite different in both intent and execution. They do NOT "do the same thing".

If this is so, then why does the caster get to add her stat mod to DC? And what about the Spell Focus feats, and analogous class abilities? Surely all these reflect caster power.