Why Lower Spell Resistance Spells are bad ideas.

[Victim]

There's a save to give monsters false hope, perhaps.

Of course, the spell was introduce in the book about dragons. The dragons, especially in the Draconomicon, have high SR and Fort saves. So the saving throw penalty that gives dragons a small chance to save leaves most other monsters with no chance.

 

[shilsen]

There's a save to give monsters false hope, perhaps.

Plus a save, however high, has a 5% chance (natural 20) of being made. Still not a great idea, IMO.

 

[HeavyG]

Of course, the spell was introduce in the book about dragons. The dragons, especially in the Draconomicon, have high SR and Fort saves. So the saving throw penalty that gives dragons a small chance to save leaves most other monsters with no chance.

It's not necessarily a small chance.

Let us take as an example a 20th level party fighting a wyrm red dragon (CR 24) with a base fortitude save of +30. The dragon could easily have a Protection from spells active or some magical item that grants it, say, a +5 resistance bonus. It could also have other bonuses to saves. Let us assume a total of +8 bonus to saves. So, +38 to the roll, or +18 after the -20 penalty.

Assuming a 30 Int and no spell focus and so on, that comes up to 10+4+10 = 24 spell DC, giving the dragon a 75% chance to save.

I think the penalty is a little high, myself, and the effect is a little much, but negating it altogether would make this spell useless.

 

[James McMurray]

It may not remove the save from dragons, but it almost certainly removes the save from most lesser creatures. Besides, a great wyrm red is CR 26. The party is going to have one heck of a time with that fight even with remove resistance. And SR 32 is only a roll of an 8.

Against a comparably CRed dragon (Ancient is CR 23) they'll only need a 4 or higher without remove resistance. If they do cast remove resistance with a -20 to the save, the dragon's +36 (assuming your +8 bonus) becomes a +16. In other words, he needs to roll a twenty.

The penalty is way too high. Perhaps at -1/2 levels, or if it were capped at 10. But when its 1 per level, it practically removes the save altogether (other than the 5% chance of success that rollinga twenty grants).

 

[jodyjohnson]

Adding a "per 3 levels" to the Fort save penalty is sufficient for me.

-6 at 20th is the difference between a Good save and a Poor save.

As written with no SR and the 1:1 save penalty it is a little strong.

The full round casting time combined with short range makes it avoidable for quite a few intelligent foes. (Spellcraft check to identify spell then move out of range.)

 

[Black Knight Irios]

The penalty to SR and Save are both capped at 15, both values are at caster lvl 15.
True many weaker creatures will not make their saves (but why use the spell on them at all), but against those creatures you have to use this spell, outsiders and dragons, do have most of the time good saves. And note Undead are not affected by that spell at all since it requires a Fort-Save but does not affect objects at all.
So the penalty to the Save is very high, I think it is not that big deal, but maybe I will think about it different after a bit more experience how that spell feels in the game.

 

[HeavyG]

It may not remove the save from dragons, but it almost certainly removes the save from most lesser creatures. Besides, a great wyrm red is CR 26.

I was talking about a wyrm (CR 24 as already mentioned). A tough fight, yes, but within the realm of possibility for end-of-adventure bosses at 20th level, I think.

Against a comparably CRed dragon (Ancient is CR 23) they'll only need a 4 or higher without remove resistance. If they do cast remove resistance with a -20 to the save, the dragon's +36 (assuming your +8 bonus) becomes a +16. In other words, he needs to roll a twenty.

To have a save DC of 36, you'd need to heighten the spell or have greater spell focus and an intelligence of 50. Or heighten the spell, have greater spell focus and an intelligence of 40.

The penalty is way too high. Perhaps at -1/2 levels, or if it were capped at 10. But when its 1 per level, it practically removes the save altogether (other than the 5% chance of success that rollinga twenty grants).

Even though your numbers seem a little off, I would tend to agree with this. Well, either that, or keep it as is (which means that opponents will almost never make that save) and lower the effect to, say, -1 SR per 3 caster levels or something. Lowering SR by 3-5 makes a huge difference.

The penalty to SR and Save are both capped at 15, both values are at caster lvl 15.

IIRC, only the penalty to SR (the effect) is capped. The penalty to the save is mentioned in another paragraph altogether.

 

[James McMurray]

Sorry, I was posting in a hurry and it looks like I included the -20 from level twice. DOH!

 

[hong]

IMO SR is a st00pid mechanic in the first place, and come 4E, it should be removed entirely. But in the meantime, I don't dispute that there is a need for a lower SR spell. Unfortunately the Draconomicon implementation is messed up.

If I were to make such a putative spell, I would give it a regular Will save. On a fail, you lose 1 point of SR per 2 caster levels (max -10). On a success, you lose 1 point per 4 caster levels (max -5).

I would also ditch spells like Otto's irresistible dance.