I think a lot of people house rule skill checks, but as far as I know there is no rules citation on that.
Are you saying you think skill checks auto-fail on a 1 and auto-succeed on a 20?
Seriously? Seriously?I think a lot of people house rule skill checks, but as far as I know there is no rules citation on that.Are you saying you think skill checks auto-fail on a 1 and auto-succeed on a 20?
It was a genuine question because I couldn't tell if you were suggesting people were house ruling skill checks so that they failed on a 1 or so that they didn't.
Wouldn't everything technically have an SR, even if it were zero, and therefore you would have to make a Caster Level check against everyone, failing on a one?
|
@Jiggy - Your question was answered.Where? In the other thread? Or did I miss it in this thread? Which rules did they say ported over?
You asked "if the chain of connection spelled out by ciretose is sufficient cause to apply the "1/20 rule" from attack rolls to CL checks to overcome SR (let's just call them "SR checks" for brevity), do any other rules about how attack rolls work carry over to "SR checks"? Why or why not?"
I said any rules with the same wording would have the same interpretation, but I wasn't aware of any rules that do. So if something says "acts like armor class" I would presume it acts like armor class. If it doesn't, I wouldn't presume anything.
That my answer to your question. If you would like to write your own answer to your question, feel free.
|
|
It was a genuine question because I couldn't tell if you were suggesting people were house ruling skill checks so that they failed on a 1 or so that they didn't.Seriously? Seriously?I think a lot of people house rule skill checks, but as far as I know there is no rules citation on that.Are you saying you think skill checks auto-fail on a 1 and auto-succeed on a 20?
I literally used the words 'house rule' in the quote you cited.
Literally.
I would love for someone to show me a rule saying skill checks are run as 1 fails and 20 succeeds as most GMs I play with (with circumstantial exceptions) run that way.
But as far as I know, that is pure house rule territory. Which is exactly what I said.
I said any rules with the same wording would have the same interpretation, but I wasn't aware of any rules that do. So if something says "acts like armor class" I would presume it acts like armor class. If it doesn't, I wouldn't presume anything.
When you answer a question, the answer is supposed to actually have something to do with the question.
Normally I'd assume you just misread Jiggy's question, but this is like the fourth time you've evaded answering this exact point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose, I generally respect your reasoning and rational approach to arguments on these boards, but I'm afraid this time I can't see how you got from A to B.
I know you have repeatedly described your path, but the path you take doesn't look solid to me. There are two major leaps of faith in your path that I don't believe pass the logic test.
1. The idea that because SR acts "like" AC that means you can assume that a spell vs spell resistance follows the exact same mechanic as a weapon attack vs AC. "Like" does not mean "is the same as". This is a major leap in the dark and while you think you are landing squarely on the path of proving your point, I see this leap landing in a wasteland of assumptions and bias.
2. The idea that because the word "attack" is used in the description of resolving a spell attempt, that you can assume that a check for spell resistance uses the same mechanic as a weapon attack vs. AC. Again, another mighty leap into the lightless abyss of assumption and hope, and again you believe you landed firmly on the path, but this leap has moved you right out of my field of view and I have totally lost you.
Neither of these leaps are defensible by pure logic. They are based on assumptions and biases about what the developers meant.
I would like to see the developers weigh in on this, but I can't help but point out that I believe your fundamental logic in this case has two very obvious and fatal flaws.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Jiggy - Your question was answered.Where? In the other thread? Or did I miss it in this thread? Which rules did they say ported over?You asked "if the chain of connection spelled out by ciretose is sufficient cause to apply the "1/20 rule" from attack rolls to CL checks to overcome SR (let's just call them "SR checks" for brevity), do any other rules about how attack rolls work carry over to "SR checks"? Why or why not?"
I said any rules with the same wording would have the same interpretation, but I wasn't aware of any rules that do. So if something says "acts like armor class" I would presume it acts like armor class. If it doesn't, I wouldn't presume anything.
That my answer to your question.
Ah, okay, seems my question was misunderstood. I wasn't asking whether anything besides SR worked "like armor class", I was asking whether "like armor class" had any ramifications besides failing on a 1/succeeding on a 20. Sorry for the confusion. Do you have an answer for that question?
@Jiggy - Your question was answered.Where? In the other thread? Or did I miss it in this thread? Which rules did they say ported over?You asked "if the chain of connection spelled out by ciretose is sufficient cause to apply the "1/20 rule" from attack rolls to CL checks to overcome SR (let's just call them "SR checks" for brevity), do any other rules about how attack rolls work carry over to "SR checks"? Why or why not?"
I said any rules with the same wording would have the same interpretation, but I wasn't aware of any rules that do. So if something says "acts like armor class" I would presume it acts like armor class. If it doesn't, I wouldn't presume anything.
That my answer to your question. If you would like to write your own answer to your question, feel free.
I see, it wasn't that you were ignoring Jiggy's question, you just didn't understand it.
Does Concealment give your Caster Level check a 20% miss chance against SR? Attack rolls have this, Caster level checks do not.
Does casting into melee against SR give you a -4 to CL checks? Attack rolls have this, Caster level checks do not.
Etc.
That is what Jiggy was asking. Which "Attack roll" modifiers do you apply to your caster level check if it is "like" an Attack roll, and if you don't apply ALL of them, why do you insist that a CL check should follow the same rules as Attack rolls (except for all the ones that you think don't apply for some reason).
|
What is the max Dex bonus allowed with different levels of SR?
What is the ASF?
Can you get masterwork SR?
What is the range increment for magic missile?
If my CL is 11, and CL is an attack roll, can I cast one spell at +11 and iterative spells at +6 and +1?
If I'm prone, does my SR increase by +4 or does my foe's CL get reduced by -4?
If I cast defensively, do I reduce my CL by -4?
Casting a spell into melee? CL -4!
If you interpret 'SR is like AC' to mean 'CL is an attack roll', what justification would you have for cherry-picking the 'auto-fail/success' as applying while the rest don't?
Or do you think that the above examples do apply?
Wouldn't everything technically have an SR, even if it were zero, and therefore you would have to make a Caster Level check against everyone, failing on a one?I wouldn't presume anything has spell resistance that isn't listed as having spell resistance.
But if SR is like AC and everything has an AC then everything should have SR too. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
Ah, okay, seems my question was misunderstood. I wasn't asking whether anything besides SR worked "like armor class", I was asking whether "like armor class" had any ramifications besides failing on a 1/succeeding on a 20. Sorry for the confusion. Do you have an answer for that question?
I don't think so, which is kind of the point. Why say "Like Armor class" if it works like a skill check?
I can't think of anything else that would be different, which is why it is relevant they said it was like Armor against magic attacks rather than saying "This is the DC".
|
Ah, okay, seems my question was misunderstood. I wasn't asking whether anything besides SR worked "like armor class", I was asking whether "like armor class" had any ramifications besides failing on a 1/succeeding on a 20. Sorry for the confusion. Do you have an answer for that question?
I don't think so, which is kind of the point. Why say "Like Armor class" if it works like a skill check?
I can't think of anything else that would be different, which is why it is relevant they said it was like Armor against magic attacks rather than saying "This is the DC".
so, the caster can cast True Strike and then next round, cast the spell and add +20 (if the spell does not have an attack roll) to by-pass the SR?
It was a genuine question because I couldn't tell if you were suggesting people were house ruling skill checks so that they failed on a 1 or so that they didn't.Seriously? Seriously?I think a lot of people house rule skill checks, but as far as I know there is no rules citation on that.Are you saying you think skill checks auto-fail on a 1 and auto-succeed on a 20?I literally used the words 'house rule' in the quote you cited.
Literally.
I would love for someone to show me a rule saying skill checks are run as 1 fails and 20 succeeds as most GMs I play with (with circumstantial exceptions) run that way.
But as far as I know, that is pure house rule territory. Which is exactly what I said.
Ok, so now I can't explain myself without you thinking I was being a jerk, but honestly, I could not tell if you really knew the rule
You are claiming something so outlandish about SR (that your caster level check is an attack roll?) that I thought it was possible you also thought skill checks auto-failed on 1s, and that you were claiming people who ran skill checks as not auto-failing (i.e. correctly) were the ones houseruling.
Again, sorry, you apparently know the rule on skill checks, but from your statement, I really couldn't tell.
I really can't follow your logic on the caster level check failing. I understand the things you're saying, but making the leap form "SR is like AC" to "a caster level check works like an attack roll" just doesn't follow.
|
Ah, okay, seems my question was misunderstood. I wasn't asking whether anything besides SR worked "like armor class", I was asking whether "like armor class" had any ramifications besides failing on a 1/succeeding on a 20. Sorry for the confusion. Do you have an answer for that question?
I don't think so, which is kind of the point. Why say "Like Armor class" if it works like a skill check?
I can't think of anything else that would be different, which is why it is relevant they said it was like Armor against magic attacks rather than saying "This is the DC".
It's "like AC" because its a static defense that your opponent has to roll against to defeat. That's it.
Aren't caster level checks used for more than just spell resistance? If so, do they auto-succeed / auto-fail there as well?
|
|
so, the caster can cast True Strike and then next round, cast the spell and add +20 (if the spell does not have an attack roll) to by-pass the SR?
Ah, okay, seems my question was misunderstood. I wasn't asking whether anything besides SR worked "like armor class", I was asking whether "like armor class" had any ramifications besides failing on a 1/succeeding on a 20. Sorry for the confusion. Do you have an answer for that question?
I don't think so, which is kind of the point. Why say "Like Armor class" if it works like a skill check?
I can't think of anything else that would be different, which is why it is relevant they said it was like Armor against magic attacks rather than saying "This is the DC".
Why would true strike apply? Same for any buffs.
If it were just Spell resistance is the DC you need to beat on your caster level check, why reference AC? What is the difference between an AC roll and a Skill Check roll?
|
|
Ah, okay, seems my question was misunderstood. I wasn't asking whether anything besides SR worked "like armor class", I was asking whether "like armor class" had any ramifications besides failing on a 1/succeeding on a 20. Sorry for the confusion. Do you have an answer for that question?
I don't think so, which is kind of the point. Why say "Like Armor class" if it works like a skill check?
I can't think of anything else that would be different, which is why it is relevant they said it was like Armor against magic attacks rather than saying "This is the DC".
It's "like AC" because its a static defense that your opponent has to roll against to defeat. That's it.
Aren't caster level checks used for more than just spell resistance? If so, do they auto-succeed / auto-fail there as well?
Which is again my point. Caster level checks aren't generally against something "like armor class". It is generally a DC you make or don't like a skill check.
But spell resistance is specifically listed as "like armor" against magic attacks.
So what is the difference that would need the distinction. Why wouldn't you just say "Spell resistance is the save DC number"
What is the difference that needed to be clarified. As near as I can tell, the only difference is the autofail and auto succeed.
Otherwise, what difference would they be trying to point out by saying it is "Like AC" rather than it being a DC check?
Spell Resistance is like AC because it is a defense that your opponent has that you roll against and need to have a result equal to or greater than it. A DC is something that is not a static defense of a creature, it is more related to a situation. Being like AC does not make the roll against it like an attack roll.
|
|
Spell Resistance is like AC because it is a defense that your opponent has that you roll against and need to have a result equal to or greater than it. A DC is something that is not a static defense of a creature, it is more related to a situation. Being like AC does not make the roll against it like an attack roll.
Except it says
"The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks."So I ask again, if it is the DC, like a saving throw would be, why say "like an Armor Class"?
We will find out in the FAQ I suppose.
|
|
so, the caster can cast True Strike and then next round, cast the spell and add +20 (if the spell does not have an attack roll) to by-pass the SR?
Ah, okay, seems my question was misunderstood. I wasn't asking whether anything besides SR worked "like armor class", I was asking whether "like armor class" had any ramifications besides failing on a 1/succeeding on a 20. Sorry for the confusion. Do you have an answer for that question?
I don't think so, which is kind of the point. Why say "Like Armor class" if it works like a skill check?
I can't think of anything else that would be different, which is why it is relevant they said it was like Armor against magic attacks rather than saying "This is the DC".
Why would true strike apply? Same for any buffs.
If it were just Spell resistance is the DC you need to beat on your caster level check, why reference AC? What is the difference between an AC roll and a Skill Check roll?
What is an AC roll? There are attack rolls, skill rolls, saving throw rolls, Caster-level check roll etc. But I have never heard of an AC roll.
From the Core Book:
Armor Class
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It's the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Your AC is equal to the following:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + other modifiers
So, there is no "AC Roll" there is an "Attack Roll". If you are saying that the caster level check needed to bypass Spell Resistance is like an attack roll for the 1/fail 20/succeed check, than, unless it states otherwise, it is like an attack roll for all other things. Including how it interacts with buffs, crits, etc. If that is the case, what happens when you crit on a caster level check?
|
|
So, there is no "AC Roll" there is an "Attack Roll". If you are saying that the caster level check needed to bypass Spell Resistance is like an attack roll for the 1/fail 20/succeed check, than, unless it states otherwise, it is like an attack roll for all other things. Including how it interacts with buffs, crits, etc.
Why? If something increases your armor bonus, does it increase your natural armor bonus? Your touch armor bonus?
Again, I ask what distinction are they making saying spell resistance acts like armor against magical attacks. Why would it not be a save DC?
The only distinction I can see is the 1 and 20. Maybe there is something else I'm not seeing, but that appears to be the only difference I can see?
Again, I ask what distinction are they making saying spell resistance acts like armor against magical attacks. Why would it not be a save DC?
First, if they called it a save DC, wouldn't you argue the 1/20 thing would apply because they also apply to saves?
Second, they're not making any distinction by saying it's like AC. They're just trying to describe the concept of Spell Resistance in general terms--it's a defense against magic, the same way AC is a defense again weapons. It's purely descriptive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
Ciretose pointed out that;-
"The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks."
But 'magical attacks' are not defined by an attack roll mechanic!
SR does not require the caster to make a 'magical attack' roll, it requires a caster level check, and that is fully defined in it's own section.
Every roll which auto-fails/succeeds is called out as such within the rules, and rolls which do not auto-fail/succeed have absolutely no need to say what does not apply, just the rules that do apply!
It is nonsense to pretend that the prose intended to teach the first time reader how SR works, by saying that it's 'like' AC, somehow means that CL checks are, or are 'like', attack rolls.
Further, it is even worse to then cherry-pick which parts of the rules for attack rolls apply to CL checks, and which parts don't! And then to pretend that rules which simply do not exist are somehow 'unclear', so need a FAQ!
|
|
Again, I ask what distinction are they making saying spell resistance acts like armor against magical attacks. Why would it not be a save DC?First, if they called it a save DC, wouldn't you argue the 1/20 thing would apply because they also apply to saves?
Second, they're not making any distinction by saying it's like AC. They're just trying to describe the concept of Spell Resistance in general terms--it's a defense against magic, the same way AC is a defense again weapons. It's purely descriptive.
Then a skill check, if you prefer and think that is what they were going for. Or just leave it at "If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature." without adding "The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. Include any adjustments to your caster level to this caster level check."
What is the purpose of the last two sentences?
so, the caster can cast True Strike and then next round, cast the spell and add +20 (if the spell does not have an attack roll) to by-pass the SR?
Ah, okay, seems my question was misunderstood. I wasn't asking whether anything besides SR worked "like armor class", I was asking whether "like armor class" had any ramifications besides failing on a 1/succeeding on a 20. Sorry for the confusion. Do you have an answer for that question?
I don't think so, which is kind of the point. Why say "Like Armor class" if it works like a skill check?
I can't think of anything else that would be different, which is why it is relevant they said it was like Armor against magic attacks rather than saying "This is the DC".
Why would true strike apply? Same for any buffs.
If it were just Spell resistance is the DC you need to beat on your caster level check, why reference AC? What is the difference between an AC roll and a Skill Check roll?
You are trying to treat a caster level check as an attack roll, SR = AC. Therefore anything that would affect an attack roll should affect a Caster Level Check. Again you can't have it both ways, either they are the same or they are different.
Why?
Because.
|
|
Why?Because.
Because why?
It isn't what is listed that any of those things buff. Would you ask me if something that increased caster level could be used to increase attack bonus? Nope.
So why would something that increases attack bonus increase caster level for the purpose of overcoming spell resistance?
The question is why does it say it acts like Armor Class, if there is nothing about Armor Class that is different than any other check?
The problem with this is that it is clear to everyone but you. It had been explained, classified, clarified and documented by multiple people, although some of those sources could have been more polite about it, but you still insist on the devs giving a ruling on something that is clear to everyone else. It's not going to happen because there is no need for it to happen. Sorry if that annoys you, but it won't change the way the world works.I've played the part of lone rules lawyer before, only to have designers come in and tell everyone that they were wrong and I was right.
It happens.
Could you perhaps give a link to it? I would like to see it.
p.s. fan of your work
It was a genuine question because I couldn't tell if you were suggesting people were house ruling skill checks so that they failed on a 1 or so that they didn't.Seriously? Seriously?I think a lot of people house rule skill checks, but as far as I know there is no rules citation on that.Are you saying you think skill checks auto-fail on a 1 and auto-succeed on a 20?I literally used the words 'house rule' in the quote you cited.
Literally.
I would love for someone to show me a rule saying skill checks are run as 1 fails and 20 succeeds as most GMs I play with (with circumstantial exceptions) run that way.
But as far as I know, that is pure house rule territory. Which is exactly what I said.
In most games I've been in or heard of, they generally rule that natural 20 on a skill check pushes it to 30 and natural 1 pushes it down to -10. Solid question on the SR issue though. It is a bit of a grey area.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
ciretose, what's the difference between:
"SR is like AC, therefore the CL check follows the 1/20 rule of attack rolls"
and
"SR is like AC, therefore the CL check follows the other rules of attack rolls"?
You've made it quite clear that you believe the former to be true. You appear to be denying that the latter is true when people give examples. So, what's the difference between them? Why does a relation to AC make the check follow one rule of attacks and not the rest?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Staff response: No reply required.
/thread?
SR being like AC, has nothing to do with CL being equivalent to attack rolls.
The nat 20 and 1 rules applies to rolls to two specific rolls to overcome something. One of of them is saves, and the other is attacks.
CL checks are also rolls to overcome something, but it is not compared to an attack roll anywhere in the book so no a 1 is not a fail, and a nat 20 is not a success automatically.
|
|
ciretose, what's the difference between:
"SR is like AC, therefore the CL check follows the 1/20 rule of attack rolls"
and
"SR is like AC, therefore the CL check follows the other rules of attack rolls"?
You've made it quite clear that you believe the former to be true. You appear to be denying that the latter is true when people give examples. So, what's the difference between them? Why does a relation to AC make the check follow one rule of attacks and not the rest?
Because an "attack" is a specific term, in the same way "save" or "armor" are a specific term.
When a spell or ability says it modifies a specific thing, why would you assume it would modify something else because they use the same mechanic?
|
|
SR being like AC, has nothing to do with CL being equivalent to attack rolls.
The nat 20 and 1 rules applies to rolls to two specific rolls to overcome something. One of of them is saves, and the other is attacks.
CL checks are also rolls to overcome something, but it is not compared to an attack roll anywhere in the book so no a 1 is not a fail, and a nat 20 is not a success automatically.
Then in what way is it similar to AC? If it is just a skill check, there is no need for the two additional sentences.
If it is just fluff, it seems rather strange to reference mechanics. If it isn't fluff, what is the distinction they are trying to get at? The only difference I can see is that there is an auto-fail and auto-succeed component.
Which makes sense if SR is in fact armor against magic. And what describe them as "magic attacks?"
|
|
I think you misunderstood my question again, because that isn't an answer to it.
But it's a moot point now, as the devs have spoken: no response required.
I understood your question, I don't agree with the premise behind it.
And attack is a specific term describing a specific thing. The caster level check would just be a standard check, except for the description of it being against something "like armor class" against "magical attack"
Magical Attack isn't Attack anymore than Natural Armor is Armor. So something modifying "Attack" has as much relevance to "Magical Attack" as something modifying "Armor" would have on "Natural Armor"
I think you misunderstood my question again, because that isn't an answer to it.
But it's a moot point now, as the devs have spoken: no response required.
Oh, if only that would be the end of it. I'm pretty sure Shallowsoul will find some way to spin this as the Devs agreeing with him.
I'll toss in another vote for "like AC" not meaning the same thing as "follows all of the exactly same rules as an attack role vs. Armor Class." Like a couple folks have pointed out, if we assume the 1/20 rule comes in, that raises the question of whether any other rules apply as well.