|
After seeing this topic over on the 4th Ed. boards, I thought I'd ask the people in my gaming group about SR. Most of them agreed that if it was up to them SR would be gone, as it seems unfair to them to let the monster have two chances to avoid the spell.
What do you guys think? Here's the orgingal post:
One issue that's come up during our games is how unfair it is for monsters to have SR and have multiple chances to avoid a spell being cast on them, while we the players get just one.
We cast a spell, we need to make a touch attack roll.
Then, another roll to overcome SR.
Then, if we manage to succeed in both those rolls, the monster gets a saving throw on top of it.Meanwhile, the monster casts a spell, makes one roll, and since we don't have spell resistance, we go right to the saving throw.
How is it fair to have so many rolls just to see if a spell goes off or not? Shouldn't it be just one roll? SR or save? It seems to me the spell resistance IS the saving throw's chance to avoid a magical effect. So why do creatures get both?
I think the example given is misleading.
Spells that hit automatically do tend to have spell resistance apply. Things like Magic Missile for example.
Many that require a touch (or ranged touch) attack don't. The various Orb of .... spells for example.
And the creatures that have spell resistance do tend to be extraplanar and/or powerful like demons, devils and dragons.
They should be more resistant in my opinion.
|
when I consider all the many unfair factors of D&D I rarely get the chance to make it to the SR of a monster before I am weeping. Trolls are born able to regenerate and my characters can't. Ogres, hill giants and even orcs tend to be stronger than my guys. Those guys, who WotC owns the name of with the tentacled mouths, get to control other people's brains. Doesn't work for my characters. They sit in the corner all day staring at the innkeeper, trying to shape his thoughts, but he still charges them for their rooms (sometimes double after being stared at all day). Even stupid birds get to fly and my characters have to wait till they achieve a high enough level or can pay a wizard in order to fly. The whole game us unfair, stacked against the PCs who must fight and claw their way to the top. If my PC can't do it, why should a monster have the ability?
p.s. I'm kidding of course. Demons, dragons and such should be more immune to magic.
After seeing this topic over on the 4th Ed. boards, I thought I'd ask the people in my gaming group about SR. Most of them agreed that if it was up to them SR would be gone, as it seems unfair to them to let the monster have two chances to avoid the spell.
What do you guys think? Here's the orgingal post:
One issue that's come up during our games is how unfair it is for monsters to have SR and have multiple chances to avoid a spell being cast on them, while we the players get just one.
We cast a spell, we need to make a touch attack roll.
Then, another roll to overcome SR.
Then, if we manage to succeed in both those rolls, the monster gets a saving throw on top of it.Meanwhile, the monster casts a spell, makes one roll, and since we don't have spell resistance, we go right to the saving throw.
How is it fair to have so many rolls just to see if a spell goes off or not? Shouldn't it be just one roll? SR or save? It seems to me the spell resistance IS the saving throw's chance to avoid a magical effect. So why do creatures get both?
What the original writer might want to consider is that certain critters live in worlds far more magical than the Material Plane. Others are manifestations of fundamental forces. To me, there probably should be a few more critters with SR.
When you look at SR, you might consider it the equivalent of improved evasion. There's a chance that the spell will do nothing (you made a save vs. a fireball). The difference is that you then get a normal save that might let you still take full damage (caster beat your SR, you blow save=full damage; half-damage if you make it; no damage if he couldn't bypass your SR).
In addition, SR sets up some dramatic moments. When the BBEG walks out of the conflagration the PC sorcerer created unharmed, you start to wonder if the magistrate is really what he seems . . . .
The SR rule evolved from older D&D rules regarding monsters being immune to low level spells. I can check my old monster manual but I'm certain that a few of them were listed or described as being "Immune to all 1st level spells." or "Immune to spells lower then thrid level."
This was changed either in AD&D2 or D&D3.x. Mostly because players didn't like fighting monsters that were immune to magic (or power-tripping DMs who tossed monsters out there that were immune to the magic-users highest level spells.) The solution: SR!
Now SR is the problem ... some people are so picky (whiney).
The SR rule evolved from older D&D rules regarding monsters being immune to low level spells. I can check my old monster manual but I'm certain that a few of them were listed or described as being "Immune to all 1st level spells." or "Immune to spells lower then thrid level."
This was changed either in AD&D2 or D&D3.x. Mostly because players didn't like fighting monsters that were immune to magic (or power-tripping DMs who tossed monsters out there that were immune to the magic-users highest level spells.) The solution: SR!
Now SR is the problem ... some people are so picky (whiney).
1e/2e had magic resistance (as x%), so that the DM rolled to see if a spell overcame the creature's magic resistance. 3E kept the philosophy, but gave PCs a means to improve the chances of beating the magic resistance (with feats, items, etc.) and made the roll a player's check rather than a DM's roll.
Some creatures had immunity to spells under a certain level (rakshasa comes to mind), but these were the exception, not the rule.
There were some items and spells (globe of invuln.) that would let PCs protect themselves a bit. I never thought the SR in 3rd was an issue, since the PCs could do similar things - however, I tried to limit how often the PCs would have to go up against SR creatures so it didn't get repetitive or lose its shock value.
In my many adventures, I have encountered several monsters which have spell resistance. It should be known that we too have a spell resistance spell at our fingertips. That aside, every creature should not be equal, it is that very challenge that requires several adventures to take down just one demon. Should the playing field be leveled more evenly, we could go toe to toe, one on one with such vile creatures. Now where would the fun in that be?
I can't breathe fire (well maybe if I'm in a particularly bad mood) but I wouldn't reccomend taking a dragon's breath weapon away either.
Be careful what your players complain about....pretty soon the monsters will catch on and be complaining that they don't have the lock picking skill, or cannot cast an arcane spell, smite good, turn undead...etc. then where would we be? Spell resistance, like many other abilities are challenges intended to make the game just that...a challenge. Tell your players to accept the challenge, either that or let them stay in the tavern while someone else cleans out all the dungeons. By the time they build up enough courage all the monsters with spell resistance will be gone.
The rules fair, enjoy the game!
As they seem intent on removing as many dice rolls as possible, I am guessing that Incorporeal creatures will be next on the hit list.
That 50% miss chance vs spells and magic weapons will have to go!
As they seem intent on removing as many dice rolls as possible, I am guessing that Incorporeal creatures will be next on the hit list.
That 50% miss chance vs spells and magic weapons will have to go!
That would really be a shame...for the first time, I have finely felt good about incorporal undead and the challenges they present.
Now SR is the problem ... some people are so picky (whiney).
Things like this, I just don't get. Are they playing to have fun, or to win? I like a good challenge. Yesterday I went up against a creature with SR (a night hag) and my character (a necromancer) did just fine. I used Assay Spell Resistance to give him a +10 to beating her spell resistance, but that's my spell resistance counter-tactic.
If they're going to remove all the stuff that is "unfun," then they're going to make satisfaction of victory over tough opponents "unfun."
No one, I quess. I think the question was what people think about SR.
Who said that 4E would not have SR?
Can someone confirm this since the original post was just a discussion topic from another board.
I think it was an off hand comment..a poke at WOTC for the fun of it. No actual rumor or fact behind it.
Who said that 4E would not have SR?
Can someone confirm this since the original post was just a discussion topic from another board.
At this point, I'd call it a fair guess that ANYTHING they discuss in a negative light is either going to be wildly changed gets the chopping block treatment. YMMV
Really? Can you give a reason why else someone from the Red Wizards of Thay (I mean Wizards of the Coast) would speak poorly about something in 3.5 if they're NOT going to at minimum fiddle with it and at most get rid of it entirely?
Hey! New Nickname for WotC: .
Now SR is the problem ... some people are so picky (whiney).Things like this, I just don't get. Are they playing to have fun, or to win? I like a good challenge. Yesterday I went up against a creature with SR (a night hag) and my character (a necromancer) did just fine. I used Assay Spell Resistance to give him a +10 to beating her spell resistance, but that's my spell resistance counter-tactic.
If they're going to remove all the stuff that is "unfun," then they're going to make satisfaction of victory over tough opponents "unfun."
I think that WotC is really just trying to appeal to it's target audience, and that is the young people who've been raised on games in which if you die you respawn in a few seconds and where there are many chances to overcome the opponents.
Since this is what most of their target audience is used to, they want to have their game function like this so as to make it appealing enough to buy.Their target audience equates having fun with winning and they won't play if they aren't having fun, therefore the game designers have to make it easy enough to win that potential players don't get frustrated say "Screw this, I'm going to go play Halo.".
Then there are people like us who equate having fun with being challenged and not necassarily outright winning. For us we prefer the game to be harder, since thats when its fun for us. I think WotC in particular and most gamers in general have lost touch with the fact that you can't 'win' a D&D game. You play a D&D game, not win it. You can succeed, you can finish an adventure successfully, your character can survive but you can never do something so final and indefinable as 'win'.
My two coppers.
|
Who said that 4E would not have SR?
Can someone confirm this since the original post was just a discussion topic from another board.
At this point, I'd call it a fair guess that ANYTHING they discuss in a negative light is either going to be wildly changed gets the chopping block treatment. YMMV
Really? Can you give a reason why else someone from the Red Wizards of Thay (I mean Wizards of the Coast) would speak poorly about something in 3.5 if they're NOT going to at minimum fiddle with it and at most get rid of it entirely?
Hey! New Nickname for WotC: .
But THEY did not say it - it was some guy or gal on a board.
But THEY did not say it - it was some guy or gal on a board.
My bad, you are correct. Wizo_Paradox is a Moderator for gleemax, not a RWoT employee.
|
Now SR is the problem ... some people are so picky (whiney).Things like this, I just don't get. Are they playing to have fun, or to win? I like a good challenge. Yesterday I went up against a creature with SR (a night hag) and my character (a necromancer) did just fine. I used Assay Spell Resistance to give him a +10 to beating her spell resistance, but that's my spell resistance counter-tactic.
If they're going to remove all the stuff that is "unfun," then they're going to make satisfaction of victory over tough opponents "unfun."
I think that WotC is really just trying to appeal to it's target audience, and that is the young people who've been raised on games in which if you die you respawn in a few seconds and where there are many chances to overcome the opponents.
Since this is what most of their target audience is used to, they want to have their game function like this so as to make it appealing enough to buy.
Their target audience equates having fun with winning and they won't play if they aren't having fun, therefore the game designers have to make it easy enough to win that potential players don't get frustrated say "Screw this, I'm going to go play Halo.".
Then there are people like us who equate having fun with being challenged and not necassarily outright winning. For us we prefer the game to be harder, since thats when its fun for us. I think WotC in particular and most gamers in general have lost touch with the fact that you can't 'win' a D&D game. You play a D&D game, not win it. You can succeed, you can finish an adventure successfully, your character can survive but you can never do something so final and indefinable as 'win'.
My two coppers.
Inserting sarcasm:
I am so waiting for the day when WotC says; "You can save your game at any inn or church so when you fight that CR 20 Red Dragon and die, you can restart at that point."
:)
|
|
1e/2e had magic resistance (as x%), so that the DM rolled to see if a spell overcame the creature's magic resistance. 3E kept the philosophy, but gave PCs a means to improve the chances of beating the magic resistance (with feats, items, etc.) and made the roll a player's check rather than a DM's roll.Some creatures had immunity to spells under a certain level (rakshasa comes to mind), but these were the exception, not the rule.
Man, its been a while, but I am pretty sure that while Magic Resistance was listed as "static", you compared level/HD and adjusted by 5% accordingly:
Creature with MR 50%
5th level mage: Needs to overcome 75% MR
10th level mage: Needs to overcome 50% MR
15th level mage: Needs to overcome 25% MR
etc.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That was first edition, Stedd,
2e was a step backwards making it fixed (IIRC)
3.x changed it to a d20 roll, but essentially the same as the original mechanic.
I like Spell Resistance, both as a player and a DM. My fighters don't whine (much) when something has DR, so we just adjust tactics when something has SR.
I look at SR as Borg shielding. It is constantly changing and adapting. Spells that are vulnerable to SR might be of the right 'frequency' to get through, but the SR could adapt to that frequency.
Example:
Player: Scortching Ray on the Ice demon
DM: *rolls SR* It seems un affected.
Player: Crap! Scortching Ray!
DM *rolls SR* Ok it got through, it takes oodles of damage and looks upset.
In Game:
Wizard: An Ice monster. *fires scortching ray* zounds! It is un affected, let me emphasize the second inflection more.
*scortching ray blows a hole in it* Yes, now lets see if it can adapt to that!
See OotS for the latest example of how to counter SR. It's Evasion, but the thought's the same.
Basic set: very rare, I believe it only showed up at the Masters/Immortal levels. Flat % IIRC.
1st ed MR: base %, plus/minus 5% per caster level under/over 11th level. Daemons had an additional -5% MR per spell level over 1st.
2nd ed: flat %
3rd ed: you know how that goes.
A few creatures had outright immunities to spells of certain levels or less throughout earlier editions. The rakshasa comes to mind immediately.
In the editions where SR was a flat %, the problem became ugly when you fought creatures with high levels of SR. The mage was useless unless he had access to some spell that penetrated SR or helped him do so. In 2nd edition, there was one spell in the Tome of Magic for that purpose. So the most powerful class suddenly became useless. And if he got through SR, the mage could then worry about the target's resistances and immunities and saves.
When SR had a variable based on caster level, the question becomes something else. If the SR is too low, then high level casters ignore it. Too many additional methods of bypassing SR can also have this effect (3.0 Spell Penetration tree, for example). Yet there seems to be a definite desire to let the skill of the spellcaster matter in terms of ability to penetrate an opponent's defenses. I prefer the 3.x version as it is, since a character may have some prestige class or multiclass combination that doesn't let him have full casting and may need to penetrate SR anyway. That's just me, though. I've lived through it all at some point and learned that one more die roll doesn't really matter that much in the course of a round. Just my two coppers.
Basic set: very rare, I believe it only showed up at the Masters/Immortal levels. Flat % IIRC.
Naw, it showed up in the Expert box set. Helion and Hydrax were immune to all first and second level spells. A few others were, too. Efreet,Lesser (when on the plane of fire) and any variety of Drake.
When I first got that set I took it to basically mean "if it is a spell in the red box it won't hurt this monster" kind of thing. Because the red box only went up to 2nd level magic-user spells.Edit: Actually the Hydrax was Companion set. Whoopsey.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Now SR is the problem ... some people are so picky (whiney).Things like this, I just don't get. Are they playing to have fun, or to win? I like a good challenge. Yesterday I went up against a creature with SR (a night hag) and my character (a necromancer) did just fine. I used Assay Spell Resistance to give him a +10 to beating her spell resistance, but that's my spell resistance counter-tactic.
If they're going to remove all the stuff that is "unfun," then they're going to make satisfaction of victory over tough opponents "unfun."
I think that WotC is really just trying to appeal to it's target audience, and that is the young people who've been raised on games in which if you die you respawn in a few seconds and where there are many chances to overcome the opponents.
Since this is what most of their target audience is used to, they want to have their game function like this so as to make it appealing enough to buy.
Their target audience equates having fun with winning and they won't play if they aren't having fun, therefore the game designers have to make it easy enough to win that potential players don't get frustrated say "Screw this, I'm going to go play Halo.".
Then there are people like us who equate having fun with being challenged and not necassarily outright winning. For us we prefer the game to be harder, since thats when its fun for us. I think WotC in particular and most gamers in general have lost touch with the fact that you can't 'win' a D&D game. You play a D&D game, not win it. You can succeed, you can finish an adventure successfully, your character can survive but you can never do something so final and indefinable as 'win'.
My two coppers.
Will 4E have cheat codes, too?
Will 4E have cheat codes, too?
Are you suggesting that there will be 'hacks' for a hack and slash game?
Heroic death with dramatic impact?
Where's the fun in that?
Part of the fun of being DM is watching a 'hero' die due to some abysmal dice roll at a dramatically inappropriate moment.
Will 4E have cheat codes, too?
Lets see what I get if I do: Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, Start to 4E!
Doubtless there will be rumours of 'nude code' for the virtual desktop.
Either that or someone will hack it.
Basic set: very rare, I believe it only showed up at the Masters/Immortal levels. Flat % IIRC.Naw, it showed up in the Expert box set. Helion and Hydrax were immune to all first and second level spells. A few others were, too. Efreet,Lesser (when on the plane of fire) and any variety of Drake.
When I first got that set I took it to basically mean "if it is a spell in the red box it won't hurt this monster" kind of thing. Because the red box only went up to 2nd level magic-user spells.
Edit: Actually the Hydrax was Companion set. Whoopsey.
Oops. Ah well, it's been like 15 years since I played from the Basic rules. Not sure where I buried my copies anyway. Thanks for the correction. And those fall more into the Rakshasa category.
I'm expecting SR to dissapear and creatures with SR to get bonuses to saves (or whatever they're called now that they work like AC) vs spells. Sure they won't get protection from spells with no save, but at least it will be simpler.
I think SR is fine from a "fair" point of view. But every time it comes up it means relooking up all the spells to check the SR field which you normally just gloss over. Sure the SR affected spells are pretty intuitive - buy you have to check... just to be sure. Think how many trees it will save not having the "SR: Yes"! ;P
Oops. Ah well, it's been like 15 years since I played from the Basic rules. Not sure where I buried my copies anyway. Thanks for the correction. And those fall more into the Rakshasa category.Basic set: very rare, I believe it only showed up at the Masters/Immortal levels. Flat % IIRC.Naw, it showed up in the Expert box set. Helion and Hydrax were immune to all first and second level spells. A few others were, too. Efreet,Lesser (when on the plane of fire) and any variety of Drake.
When I first got that set I took it to basically mean "if it is a spell in the red box it won't hurt this monster" kind of thing. Because the red box only went up to 2nd level magic-user spells.
Edit: Actually the Hydrax was Companion set. Whoopsey.
No kidding. It's been about 18 years for me. LoL
I only remembered because I wasn't DMing at the time, but the Expert set came with only one book so instead of giving the DM book to my friend I kept it and ... read the monster manual chapter. If you're not cheating, your not trying. =)
I still have all my basic stuff! Yes, the old "generic immune" thing was to make an easy way to do a spell resistance of sorts. Later, the % came into play. The SR in 3rd is an improvement IMO because it gives more powerful casters better chances to get past a creature's SR and really make 'em sweat.
I still have all my basic stuff!
Your lucky. Mine got pitched in the trash when my wicked evil step-mom decided it was satanic and she didn't want it corrupting her son/my step-brother. I was in basic training at the time she chucked them.
I got the Rules Cyclopedia from Paizo here (pdf). It's not the same, but pretty nifty resource.
I was still planning on running one last basic campaign because my brother never played it, and wanted to try to run the table all the way through immortal. I have an immortal - be nice to dust him off someday too. I miss Basic sometimes.