Crothian said:Perhaps having a 5% or 10% arcane failure come with it would be okay. Don't make it to high. You want it to be an annoyance, not a huge disability. I'd also allow him to take a feat that got rid of the arcane failure. The feat would show that he's learned to cast with SR on him.
Arravis said:Magic is a funny thing... if you look at the "history" of magic in any of the settings, there are MANY samples of spells going awry, of magics not working like their casters intended and other unusual side effects. I agree that normally Spell Resistance doesn't affect the caster's spells, but when you raise spell resistance to heretold unknown levels for a creature that isn't meant to have those levels of resistance... unusual things can happen. I see the spell resistance at times 'overflowing' from the caster, since he has so much from the extreme magics he has called upon and places on his body. I don't see that unreasonable at all. Especially since what makes an interesting gaming experience is creativity, and not all things work according to the rules.
kreynolds said:
Good point. But I see this as a DM who is running a great risk of pissing off a player that spent a whole lot of time and money to get SR just because the DM wants to try something "fresh". Hey, the player may not mind and might actually think it's kinda cool. But seriously, what are the odds of that?

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.