I guess this is both a rules question and a GM question. Historically I've always rolled SR in secret for the PC's. My thought was that they wouldn't know if a creature/NPC has spell resistance, but now I'm starting to question that. Certainly you could argue that after the first failed SR that the PC's would know that the spell failed because it was resisted, or would they? Would they automatically know, or is a Spellcraft check in order, and if so, what would be the DC?
Should SR checks be done by the GM when PC's try to cast a spell on a SR creature, or should the PC's roll this?
Thanks!
If a spell fails due to spell resistance I've always assumed it was completely obvious. So no reason to roll in secret.
It's not adequately described, but is analogous to armor. You can see when your sword hit armor instead of flesh, thus causing no damage. You can see when your spell hit spell resistance, and fizzled out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always let my players roll.
I am a fan of my players make more roles than me because it keeps them engaged and then it's their successes and failures.
By the end of my last campaign one of the key bits of knowledge everyone wanted to know was if something had SR.
If they didn't have the knowledge they would normally just declare the spell, ask if they needed and SR check (to which I said yes/no) then roll for the SR and I roll the save.
I can understand the thought process behind hiding the information as to why a spell didn't work but generally I find it frustrates my players if they don't know why their actions are not working, they're fine with failures or failed attacks but hate the "you don't know why you can't hurt it"
Also lastly it generally speeds up combat for them to just know and roll, which after running an AP to level 17 combat get vert slow towards the end.
Well you roll against SR so the PCs would do it and know of it when the spell failed.
Figuring out if the creature had SR beforehand would be a Knowledge check, or Spellcraft if they are getting it from an item.
I guess that's my conundrum. If I say make a SR after they cast a spell, then they would automatically know the creature has SR, so no Knowledge check would be needed.
If a spell fails due to spell resistance I've always assumed it was completely obvious. So no reason to roll in secret.
It's not adequately described, but is analogous to armor. You can see when your sword hit armor instead of flesh, thus causing no damage. You can see when your spell hit spell resistance, and fizzled out.
For spells that have obvious physical spell effects, that is true. But what about spells that don't have a phyical/visual/audible effect?
|
Well you roll against SR so the PCs would do it and know of it when the spell failed.
Figuring out if the creature had SR beforehand would be a Knowledge check, or Spellcraft if they are getting it from an item.
I guess that's my conundrum. If I say make a SR after they cast a spell, then they would automatically know the creature has SR, so no Knowledge check would be needed.
Which they can plan around, but I don't really see it as a problem, no more than the players knowing the creature has an AC.
|
|
If a spell fails due to spell resistance I've always assumed it was completely obvious. So no reason to roll in secret.
It's not adequately described, but is analogous to armor. You can see when your sword hit armor instead of flesh, thus causing no damage. You can see when your spell hit spell resistance, and fizzled out.
For spells that have obvious physical spell effects, that is true. But what about spells that don't have a phyical/visual/audible effect?
You wouldn't, but then you also wouldn't know if the creature passed their save either in this case.
|
Well you roll against SR so the PCs would do it and know of it when the spell failed.
Figuring out if the creature had SR beforehand would be a Knowledge check, or Spellcraft if they are getting it from an item.
I guess that's my conundrum. If I say make a SR after they cast a spell, then they would automatically know the creature has SR, so no Knowledge check would be needed.
The way I see it, that worry is not a big deal. Players will know a monster has DR upon striking it w/o the "correct" damage without benefit of a successful knowledge check... so what's the harm in learning about SR in an analagous way?
However, with respect to the OP, there's nothing wrong with rolling SR checks for the players. Honestly, there's nothing saying the players are entitled to make their own d20 rolls to hit, to save, etc. If you want to take the burden on yourself to roll something on the player's behalf, bully for you. Just keep in mind that having to ask "do you have spell penetration?" renders moot any obfuscation you're trying to achieve. If you want to roll in secret on behalf of the players, you need exceptional familiarity with the PCs.
I've always let my players roll.
I am a fan of my players make more roles than me because it keeps them engaged and then it's their successes and failures.
By the end of my last campaign one of the key bits of knowledge everyone wanted to know was if something had SR.
If they didn't have the knowledge they would normally just declare the spell, ask if they needed and SR check (to which I said yes/no) then roll for the SR and I roll the save.
I can understand the thought process behind hiding the information as to why a spell didn't work but generally I find it frustrates my players if they don't know why their actions are not working, they're fine with failures or failed attacks but hate the "you don't know why you can't hurt it"
Also lastly it generally speeds up combat for them to just know and roll, which after running an AP to level 17 combat get vert slow towards the end.
I agree, Turelus, and more often than not allow my players to make most of their own rolls, even in some cases where technically I should be making the rolls for a lot of the same reasons you mention, but I also think having some mystery is important too to help with story telling/plot devices, and also discourages players from the whole min/max mentality (not an issue with my current group) or the whole sperating player knowledge vs. PC knowledge aspect.
I'm leaning towards still doing the initial SR roll in secret for the fist spell cast, then once they know that the creature has SR they start making the rolls themselves.
Well you roll against SR so the PCs would do it and know of it when the spell failed.
Figuring out if the creature had SR beforehand would be a Knowledge check, or Spellcraft if they are getting it from an item.
I guess that's my conundrum. If I say make a SR after they cast a spell, then they would automatically know the creature has SR, so no Knowledge check would be needed.
The way I see it, that worry is not a big deal. Players will know a monster has DR upon striking it w/o the "correct" damage without benefit of a successful knowledge check... so what's the harm in learning about SR in an analagous way?
However, with respect to the OP, there's nothing wrong with rolling SR checks for the players. Honestly, there's nothing saying the players are entitled to make their own d20 rolls to hit, to save, etc. If you want to take the burden on yourself to roll something on the player's behalf, bully for you. Just keep in mind that having to ask "do you have spell penetration?" renders moot any obfuscation you're trying to achieve. If you want to roll in secret on behalf of the players, you need exceptional familiarity with the PCs.
I definitely want to make as few dice rolls as possible. As a GM you have more than enough die rolls to make, especially during combat in this system.
I'm not wanting to take control of their characters in any way. My thought process is strictly coming from an angle of maintaining some level of mystery, intrigue, story telling, and plot device.
My first experience with RPG's as a player came when I was in high school, and our GM made all die rolls in secret for us. Not having any experience with RPG's to compare with, it really wasn't an issue, but once I got more experience with RPG's, as a player I definitely prefer leaving fate into my own hands.
Now for online/PbP games, it makes more sense for the GM to make all the rolls, unless you are playing it live.
Ultimately I want my players to have fun and feel like they have full control of their characters, but I also want to maintain some aire of mystery and suspense in certain situations.
If a spell fails due to spell resistance I've always assumed it was completely obvious. So no reason to roll in secret.
It's not adequately described, but is analogous to armor. You can see when your sword hit armor instead of flesh, thus causing no damage. You can see when your spell hit spell resistance, and fizzled out.
For spells that have obvious physical spell effects, that is true. But what about spells that don't have a phyical/visual/audible effect?
You may have missed the FAQ, but all spells has some sort of manifestation. There was an FAQ about it that still rustles some jimmies.
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
Both campaigns I run have skill monkeys that typically beat knowledge checks to identify creatures by 15 or more, so they nearly always know about SR. Granted, in both cases, they are mid-level (10 and 11), so SR is not very common yet.
If a spell fails due to spell resistance I've always assumed it was completely obvious. So no reason to roll in secret.
It's not adequately described, but is analogous to armor. You can see when your sword hit armor instead of flesh, thus causing no damage. You can see when your spell hit spell resistance, and fizzled out.
For spells that have obvious physical spell effects, that is true. But what about spells that don't have a phyical/visual/audible effect?
You may have missed the FAQ, but all spells has some sort of manifestation. There was an FAQ about it that still rustles some jimmies.
...What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically
Good to know. Thanks Claxon!
If a spell fails due to spell resistance I've always assumed it was completely obvious. So no reason to roll in secret.
It's not adequately described, but is analogous to armor. You can see when your sword hit armor instead of flesh, thus causing no damage. You can see when your spell hit spell resistance, and fizzled out.
For spells that have obvious physical spell effects, that is true. But what about spells that don't have a phyical/visual/audible effect?
You may have missed the FAQ, but all spells has some sort of manifestation. There was an FAQ about it that still rustles some jimmies.
He's not talking about manifestations on the caster, the subject of the FAQ, but at the target. So if magic missile fizzles due to SR you could decide to see it in the way the missiles wink out or bounce off, but there's not a similar option for a Suggestion unless you want to invent a rainbow distortion effect or something similar. Since either result is a house rule I don't personally see much issue.
GMs need to decide if they want a Scorching Ray that fails to penetrate a devil's SR to look different than a ray that fails to do damage because of fire immunity.
Thank you for everyone's feedback on this. It's both informational and much appreciated.
If a spell fails due to spell resistance I've always assumed it was completely obvious. So no reason to roll in secret.
It's not adequately described, but is analogous to armor. You can see when your sword hit armor instead of flesh, thus causing no damage. You can see when your spell hit spell resistance, and fizzled out.
For spells that have obvious physical spell effects, that is true. But what about spells that don't have a phyical/visual/audible effect?
You may have missed the FAQ, but all spells has some sort of manifestation. There was an FAQ about it that still rustles some jimmies.
He's not talking about manifestations on the caster, the subject of the FAQ, but at the target. So if magic missile fizzles due to SR you could decide to see it in the way the missiles wink out or bounce off, but there's not a similar option for a Suggestion unless you want to invent a rainbow distortion effect or something similar. Since either result is a house rule I don't personally see much issue.
GMs need to decide if they want a Scorching Ray that fails to penetrate a devil's SR to look different than a ray that fails to do damage because of fire immunity.
The FAQ never specifies that the manifestations are specifically on the caster, it specifies only that the spell has manifestations. That could be on the target of the spell (which makes sense to me) and on the caster as well. It's never specified how exactly it appears.
Unfortunately Spell Resistance doesn't have much of a description to go off of in game rules.
But again, I fall back to "spell resistance is analogous to armor". You can see a weapon hit armor and fail to damage, you can see a spell hit SR and fail to penetrate.
It's worth noting that spell casters know when someone has succeeded on a save against their (targeted) spell.
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
It's also worth noting that knowledge arcana tells you what spell effects are affecting someone. (DC 20+spell level).
So, if you know they didn't succeed on the save by virtue or not sensing it. And you can identify with know arcana that your spell isn't on them. You can deduce that SR (being the only reasonable option) protected them.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I roll SR when it is not obvious the creature has SR. This is followed by a player rolled Spellcraft check to realize what happened. Once they know there is SR involved, the players make the roll.
It's worth noting that spell casters know when someone has succeeded on a save against their (targeted) spell.
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.It's also worth noting that knowledge arcana tells you what spell effects are affecting someone. (DC 20+spell level).
So, if you know they didn't succeed on the save by virtue or not sensing it. And you can identify with know arcana that your spell isn't on them. You can deduce that SR (being the only reasonable option) protected them.
I think most people only apply Knowledge Arcana to spell effects they can see, detect or independently know about. You can use it to tell a statue is subject to a Flesh to Stone, but not a dormant Magic Mouth. I'd definitely require a successful Sense Motive before I allow K:A to determine the difference between a charm, compulsion, or Suggestion.
The way you apply K:A would make it trump Detect Magic, Greater Arcsne Sight, etc.
A digression on this - when a spell fails because the target was immune do you have the player roll the dice as though it were SR but unbeatable or do you tell them they're immune? Personally I have them roll.
What about if the target isn't a valid target? For example, charm person against an aasimar? I tend to just tell them it has no effect.
A digression on this - when a spell fails because the target was immune do you have the player roll the dice as though it were SR but unbeatable or do you tell them they're immune? Personally I have them roll.
Neither. Immunity isn't spell resistance - I just tell them that the spell seemed to hit the creature but it ignored it, and doesn't seem affected.
What about if the target isn't a valid target? For example, charm person against an aasimar? I tend to just tell them it has no effect.
Same.
wrong target or immune, spell fails
SR, spell fizzles
There are a number of places that describe immunity as unbeatable spell resistance (the spell, for example). Do you feel differently for those? Or is the comparison limited to which spells it can affect?
I think most people only apply Knowledge Arcana to spell effects they can see, detect or independently know about. You can use it to tell a statue is subject to a Flesh to Stone, but not a dormant Magic Mouth. I'd definitely require a successful Sense Motive before I allow K:A to determine the difference between a charm, compulsion, or Suggestion.
The way you apply K:A would make it trump Detect Magic, Greater Arcsne Sight, etc.
That's not what the rules say though.
The rules say "Identify a spell effect that is in place".
There are a number of places that describe immunity as unbeatable spell resistance (the spell, for example). Do you feel differently for those? Or is the comparison limited to which spells it can affect?
The only thing I can think of that does this is the spell Spell Immunity.
Other immunities sources, like racial or class based wouldn't at all be like spell resistance.
I guess that's my conundrum. If I say make a SR after they cast a spell, then they would automatically know the creature has SR, so no Knowledge check would be needed.Well you roll against SR so the PCs would do it and know of it when the spell failed.
Figuring out if the creature had SR beforehand would be a Knowledge check, or Spellcraft if they are getting it from an item.
Which is harmless.
Optional abilities that boost CL versus SR are very rare and burning the party's first spell of the encounter is a decent price to pay for "knowing" to use such an ability.
Shifting to spells that don't allow SR is the only other approach, but again, having burned their first (likely most powerful spell) to learn a creature has SR is a reasonable cost.
Either way, SR is doing its job; either spells that it works against aren't getting used, or resources that PCs have invested in are getting consumed. To force your players to go through a whole combat without knowing if the monster is just really lucky with its saves or has SR is... a waste, I think.
I think most people only apply Knowledge Arcana to spell effects they can see, detect or independently know about. You can use it to tell a statue is subject to a Flesh to Stone, but not a dormant Magic Mouth. I'd definitely require a successful Sense Motive before I allow K:A to determine the difference between a charm, compulsion, or Suggestion.
The way you apply K:A would make it trump Detect Magic, Greater Arcsne Sight, etc.
That's not what the rules say though.
The rules say "Identify a spell effect that is in place".
Does invisibility prevent a knowledge check to identify a monster? Then a lack of a visible spell effect prevents you from identifying that effect.
Does invisibility prevent a knowledge check to identify a monster? Then a lack of a visible spell effect prevents you from identifying that effect.
Nope and nope.
An invisible elephant trumpets, odds are good you'll identify it. Some creatures can have distinctive smells or sounds. But generally you don't ask for Knowledge checks for invisible creatures because you don't know they're around. Once you do, it's up to the GM to decide what penalty - if any - applies because you can't see it.
There are a number of places that describe immunity as unbeatable spell resistance (the spell, for example). Do you feel differently for those? Or is the comparison limited to which spells it can affect?
In general I try not to make my players feel useless - if they don't roll to know the creature at the first sight of it (or it's unique and they can't know) I figure a single spell is enough to know if it has resistance - I imagine it like the caster encounters a 'wall of jello' that impedes the spell - and they can attempt to overcome the resistance (with a roll). Once they do this one time - they know it's there and can work around it or live with it (a choice).
With Immunity there is no chance they can succeed. SR isn''t like an attack roll - you can't 'crit' and even if you roll a 20 and have a +45 to overcome SR (enough to overcome even a major demon lords resistance for example) it won't overcome immunity.
Telling players to roll and not letting them know it's futile isn't fun - it's letting them waste actions and resources for no reason. That's why I make it different - you can do what you'd like in your game - however I think thematically letting them know the spell worked but seems to have no effect gives players the information to make better choices - sometimes your only good option is 'aid another' - in many cases a wizards school powers become useful in these situations - where in almost every other situation they are a worse choice than any spell a caster can use.
TLDR: It's more of a GM style choice I think.
Does invisibility prevent a knowledge check to identify a monster? Then a lack of a visible spell effect prevents you from identifying that effect.Nope and nope.
An invisible elephant trumpets, odds are good you'll identify it. Some creatures can have distinctive smells or sounds. But generally you don't ask for Knowledge checks for invisible creatures because you don't know they're around. Once you do, it's up to the GM to decide what penalty - if any - applies because you can't see it.
I don't think we actually agree. I certainly thing if you can sense or infer a spell effect from some form of observation you can make a Knowledge Arcana check. What you can't do that Claxon seemed to imply is use Knowledge Arcana as the basis for knowing an per wise unobserved spell effect is present.
I think spell resistance should be at least as obvious as a successful saving throw, so you would know if something targeted by you resisted the spell because of resistance. I would also let the player know if something seems completely immune for reasons Ckorik explained, even if the rules are silent on that issue.
So far it hasn't come up, but following the saving throw example it might be harder with area spells, where you explicitely do not know whether they made their save or not. Due to this I think the caster wouldn't feel if the target resisted due to spell resistance either, but in most cases it would be very perceivable. I would let the party notice if somebody isn't even singed by their fireball. They wouldn't know if its resistance was merely high enough or if it was completely immune however.
If you can't percieve the result of an area spell (could be the case with some invisible creatures or spells that simply don't generate perceivable effects), you wouldn't be able to tell if it worked.
We use Roll20 to play, so the casterlevel check is already part of the spellcasting macro and doesn't need to be rolled seperately.
Does invisibility prevent a knowledge check to identify a monster? Then a lack of a visible spell effect prevents you from identifying that effect.I think most people only apply Knowledge Arcana to spell effects they can see, detect or independently know about. You can use it to tell a statue is subject to a Flesh to Stone, but not a dormant Magic Mouth. I'd definitely require a successful Sense Motive before I allow K:A to determine the difference between a charm, compulsion, or Suggestion.
The way you apply K:A would make it trump Detect Magic, Greater Arcsne Sight, etc.
That's not what the rules say though.
The rules say "Identify a spell effect that is in place".
That's the point though all spells have some sort of observable phenomena, though not necessarily visual (could be auditory or olfactory).
I think he point of the FAQ is that spell CASTING has some sort of manifestation, not the spells themselves. Casting Charm Person is detectable by anyone and identifiable with Spellcraft. Walking around subject to charm effect is only detectable (magic aside) by a Sense Motive roll (not some magical flickering that the charmed person has to explain away).
I guess that's my conundrum. If I say make a SR after they cast a spell, then they would automatically know the creature has SR, so no Knowledge check would be needed.
While this is true, the same thing happens when they attack a creature with DR and you say "not all of it seems to go through." You get information from fighting a creature as you see the fight unfold.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I roll SR when it is not obvious the creature has SR. This is followed by a player rolled Spellcraft check to realize what happened. Once they know there is SR involved, the players make the roll.
This is how I've been doin it too. Makes sense. Thanks!