Spell Resistance vs. Saving Throws

[TavishArtair]

Is a mechanic like Spell Resistance even useful when you have a way to determine the effectiveness of a magical assault already (saving throws, et cetera). Pretend, for a moment, that you can rewrite all the outliers that don't use Spell Resistance to determine effectiveness or don't use Saving Throws to determine effectiveness. Would you nix Spell Resistance in preference of just saves for everything? Or would you nix Saving Throws in preference of just Spell Resistance for everything? Would you keep both?

And, of course, why?

[Avoraciopoctules]

Personally, I intensely dislike Spell Resistance. It might be acceptable if most magic arbitrarily failed to affect a few types of monsters most of the time, but once it becomes a more-or-less standard ability, I think it takes more away than it adds.

[ggroy]

[Kaelik]

Spell resistance is a forth defense that sometimes overlaps with the others.

Scorching Ray is a spell subject to spell resistance. I would not make it use a saving throw.

The things spell resistance does that saves do not and cannot are:

gives graduated effect spells a 0 value. Fireball does 0 or half or full, instead of just half and full.

Makes creatures with SR immune to spells of power level characters. You can Fireball spam from a hundred casters a 50HD Bear. You cannot do the same thing to a Tarrasque.

creates a defense that doesn't penalize using lower level spells as much as saving throws. You can raise the monsters save bonus so attacks have the same success as iterated saves against average foes, doing so penalizes lower level spells more than having lower saves and SR.

Is an option. SR can have any value from no to yes, with a scale of numbers in between. Spells can either be negated or bypass.

It just adds another level of options.

With just saves, you have a spell that targets each save, with saves + SR.

You have monsters with SR, spells without and each save, so it adds three options to the game for each save that wouldn't exist otherwise.

[JonSetanta]

Saves should be single rolls that include the function of Evasion and Mettle when a DC is bested by at least 10, maybe 5.

Resisting spells should be an ability and action type for non-casters or semi-casters, but never full-casters.
It would be more like a binary defense of denying spell effect on the target and all of their allies within melee reach; it either works or it doesn't but at least with damned good odds.

SR should NOT be a static defense solely for monsters, spellcasters, and non-casters wearing spellcaster-made items.

[Crissa]

What if SR, instead of being a new mechanic, was just a flag that said they would get to save on things they otherwise would not?

That would make me happier, honestly, it's the double-roll that peeves me.

-Crissa

[Emerald]

What if SR, instead of being a new mechanic, was just a flag that said they would get to save on things they otherwise would not?

That would make me happier, honestly, it's the double-roll that peeves me.

-Crissa

That's a good idea, but makes SR meaningless against spells that do allow saves. Maybe include sigma's idea of a built-in Evasion/Mettle as well, so if it already allows a save you get that and if it doesn't you can make a save?

[RobbyPants]

What if SR, instead of being a new mechanic, was just a flag that said they would get to save on things they otherwise would not?

That would make me happier, honestly, it's the double-roll that peeves me.

-Crissa

That's a good idea, but makes SR meaningless against spells that do allow saves. Maybe include sigma's idea of a built-in Evasion/Mettle as well, so if it already allows a save you get that and if it doesn't you can make a save?

It could allow a double save, but that doesn't help the annoyance of two rolls; it merely removes one mechanic... :/

[Emerald]

It could allow a double save, but that doesn't help the annoyance of two rolls; it merely removes one mechanic... :/

I didn't mean a double save; if you would get a save, you go with sigma's idea and get Evasion/Mettle with 5 over the DC or whatever, and if you wouldn't already get a save you now get one.

[RobbyPants]

It could allow a double save, but that doesn't help the annoyance of two rolls; it merely removes one mechanic... :/

I didn't mean a double save; if you would get a save, you go with sigma's idea and get Evasion/Mettle with 5 over the DC or whatever, and if you wouldn't already get a save you now get one.

I was more responding to your first sentence about it making SR meaningless if you already get a save. It shouldn't have quoted the second sentence about Evasion/Mettle.

Although, using Sigma's approach would get rid of the need for the second save, so I agree with you there.

[Emerald]

I was more responding to your first sentence about it making SR meaningless if you already get a save. It shouldn't have quoted the second sentence about Evasion/Mettle.

Although, using Sigma's approach would get rid of the need for the second save, so I agree with you there.

Ah. Yeah, adding another roll just leaves us back at square 1.

The one thing I do like about SR as it is (or % Magic Resistance in older editions) was degrees of resistance: a creature with SR 40 is really resistant while one with SR 10 isn't really at all, and their saves might not reflect high or low levels of magic resistance. Maybe creatures could have SR X such that it denotes that you need to roll DC+X for evasion/mettle to kick in and DC+2X for the improved versions. The problem with that, of course, is that you have low SR = good, which is bad, but I can't think of any other easy way to scale it.

[Roy]

Does SR even have any effect on competent characters, like at all? No? So why worry about it? Sure there's spells with no save but SR: Yes, but you know they're going to pass the check, so why pretend to care?

At the same time, these spells are usually weaker to reflect the fact they have a 100% chance of affecting a competent target instead of a 5% chance. So all 'save everything' does is make a lot of spells useless and/or redundant.

[hogarth]

Does SR even have any effect on competent characters, like at all? No? So why worry about it? Sure there's spells with no save but SR: Yes, but you know they're going to pass the check, so why pretend to care?

Because it allows you to get rid of moronic shit like "That golem will just laugh at me if I evoke a loud screeching noise, so I'll conjure a loud screeching noise instead because that's TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN EVERY WAY."

[Roy]

*shrugs* And how would that help exactly? Golems have terrible saves, so the spells would still stick. Just now instead of Silent Image, Got Them All you don't give a fuck in the slightest.

[JonSetanta]

About the problem of adding more rolls: Another approach would be to have SR become merely a bonus to saves against magic. Simple, a bit like the Dwarf racial ability, easy to implement.
One drawback would be breaking the RNG.

One could instead go in reverse as well, and allow that second (SR) roll only when the first normal save fails. Most of the time you wouldn't even need it.
It would also prevent many "half" effects on successful saves.

All in all I'd expect SR to add an additional 25% to success of resisting magic.
Assuming the normal save provides about a 50% (in 3e) then the second roll cuts odds of failure by half again; 75% success, from 2 rolls.
Why not give everyone a 75% success chance of reducing magic effect from the start, then 25% (within that 75%) of ignoring outright?

[Kaelik]

Here's my simple question to anyone proposing alternative SR mechanics such as automatic evasion and mettle and bonus to saves against magic.

What does this provide that the current system doesn't?

[hogarth]

Here's my simple question to anyone proposing alternative SR mechanics such as automatic evasion and mettle and bonus to saves against magic.

What does this provide that the current system doesn't?

For starters:

• one fewer die roll, sometimes
• eliminates the need to dumpster-dive for SR=No spells
• eliminates moronic behaviour where conjuration fire is burnier than evocation fire

[Voss]

Back in the days of 1E AD&D, I thought magical resistance was a way of lessening the overpowered abilities of high level magic users. Though at higher and higher levels, it didn't seem to make much of a difference anyways.

Actually, it was the opposite. In first edition, a creatures magic resistance was set for an 11th level caster. For every level below 11, you added 5% to MR, for every level above, you subtracted 5%. So basically, if a low level wizard encountered a MR creature at all, he hid behind the fighter. A really high level wizard just shrugged and blasted the thing.

As for SR in 3rd... eh. I would've canned it, and just tweaked the saves of resistant creatures. It made all or nothing spells even more so, until you had enough books with feats and spells and things that just let you ignore it outright.

[Kaelik]

For starters:

• one fewer die roll, sometimes
• eliminates the need to dumpster-dive for SR=No spells
• eliminates moronic behaviour where conjuration fire is burnier than evocation fire

So instead of rolling, you have to add a number to some rolls, and determine whether or not to add the number.

You still dumpster Dive for SR no in order to avoid the bonus to saves and mettle/evasion Or to prevent them from being able to save, since they can save against your Scorching Ray, but not against your Orb of Fire.

Conjuration Fire is still burnier, because you don't get the save bonus or evasion, or ability to save against a touch spell from Conjuration, but you do from Evocation.

[hogarth]

You still dumpster Dive for SR no in order to avoid the bonus to saves and mettle/evasion Or to prevent them from being able to save, since they can save against your Scorching Ray, but not against your Orb of Fire.

Conjuration Fire is still burnier, because you don't get the save bonus or evasion, or ability to save against a touch spell from Conjuration, but you do from Evocation.

Where are you getting these ideas from (that some spells would be better against the proposed new version of SR than others and therefore dumpster diving is necessary)? I didn't see anyone propose that.

[TavishArtair]

Kaelik apparently is merely construing the post where I grant the thread posters the ability to rewrite the spells in the game in the narrowest possible way. Which I did not intend for. If there are other mechanical conceits that need to be addressed, then please mention them, but I also intended them to be under the purview of the participants of the discussion, I mostly specified a specific area of the rules so that people would focus on that particular area. Not that the insight is unwanted... indeed, identifying these problems would be necessary.

I must say this raises some thoughts from me about attack rolls with spells too, but I'm not sure I can elucidate them usefully at this point, merely to say "how many different rolls and mechanics (Reflex, touch AC, etc) do we need to resolve a spell landing or not again?"

[Josh_Kablack]

Call me crazy, but I actually prefer the 4e standard method here:

1. Caster makes an attack roll against a defense (this could just as easily be inverted to "target makes a save against a DC set by caster without changing probabilities)
2. If it hits, target uses applies any and all relevant damage or condition resistance, immunities and vulnerabilities.
3. Then target makes a save each round to shake off lingering effects.

To the 3.x standard method

1. If applicable, caster makes a touch or ranged touch roll against the target's touch AC
2. If that hits, then if applicable, caster rolls a caster level + spell penetration check to overcome SR
3. If that succeeds then, if applicable, target rolls one or more saves to reduce or ignore effect
4. Then, if applicable, target applies any elemental damage type or status condition resistances, immunities, resistances or vulnerabilities.

[Kaelik]

Where are you getting these ideas from (that some spells would be better against the proposed new version of SR than others and therefore dumpster diving is necessary)? I didn't see anyone propose that.

There is no point to a spell resistance that is just a bonus to saves and affects all spells. That's called a saving throw bonus.

Either you have a spell resistance mechanic which affects only some spells, or you have a generic bonus to saving throws that only affects saving throw spells.

Currently spell resistance works on Scorching Ray. Anything you do that makes it a bonus to saves doesn't affect scorching ray until you start making up more complex and generally stupid rules.

honestly, there is no reason to have any sort of spell resistance effect at all if you are so opposed to a second dice roll. Just say, "I want spell resistance to not exist, and no monster or spell needs changing except ignoring that stuff from now on."

That's all.

If you don't like spell resistance, then get rid of it, but don't pretend that a funky ass bonus to save/maybe evasion/forcing saves on spells that don't have them, somehow constitutes a mechanic with even remotely the same purpose or simplicity as the current spell resistance.

[Vnonymous]

I personally am a big fan of spell resistance working like fire or cold resistance.

It makes spells less effective, instead of "doesn't happen at all".

The only problem is figuring out how the fuck that works with spells that do things other than just deal damage(i.e. all the ones you really care about.)

[erik]

If you were so inclined to grant some sort of benefit to monsters losing their SR you could replace it something like a +2 bonus versus spells or however the dwarf bonus is worded in 3.x

If you wanted it to scale, then perhaps +1 per every 10 pts of SR rounded up (+2 at 11, +3 at 21 etc.)

SR immune stuff mebbe a +6. meh