| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do people do this? I've never really had a clear mental image in my head of how spell resistance "looks" when it comes into play. Does the spell function as normal, but the creature just isn't effected (emerges from the conflagration of a fireball unexplainably unsinged), or is there some kind of lightshow that goes off, as is typically assumed for any effect dealing with magic in the modern game (or modern splatbook, at least)? I'm a very visual person and have trouble really getting into the game if I can't conjure a mental image of an action or effect, and spell resistance has therefore always bothered me because of the utter lack of fluff or description about it anywhere.
I've always gone with "Depends on the spell" for a wish, banishment or similar spell there might very well be some "visual mystical fireworks" as the two opposing 'energies' go at it... with fireball though it'll probably be more like you said -- the monster is simply and inexplicably unharmed. Charm and the like might just flub the wizard knows it didn't work but beyond that he's not necessarily sure why (depending on wording of rules in the magic section, can't properly recall if a spellcaster is alert to the reason a spell fails).
|
I've always pictured it this way, if the spell targets the individual it just kinda fizzles out 6-7 inches away. If it targets an area instead it would look like your fireball example above. Spells with no visible effect (charm person, etc) would leave the caster unaware that anythiing had happened. Just my 2 cp.
I've got a certain tingling in my brain that tells me a wizard generally knows when a spell fails, I just can't remember (or care to look up) if he knows why. For spells with visual effects yeah have them end just before they connect (disintegrate for example) if they are AOE just have the monster ignore it, if it doesn't have a visual effect the wizard will (if I'm correct above about wizards knowing when their spells fail) simply know it didn't work.
|
|
Abraham is probably right on that one, I picked a bad example.
Let us go with Poison instead, I'd say that the spellcaster would have no way of knowing his target wasn't effected, but in my earlier example (charm person) chances are he'd notice the lack of control, unless he was like me and wasn't fireing on all 8 cylinders. ;p
Even on poison I would say he probably could figure out it didn't work... (i.e. the monster doesn't shrivel up and die, or fall over the next time the fighter hit it) however he wouldn't have a clue as to why it didn't work -- It could be Spell Resistance, the monster made the Save Throw, or a straight out Immunity to poison (heck spell immunity to the spell!), in each case the wizard can simply figure out "Yup that didn't work".
In the end I would go with whatever fluff description makes the most sense at the time, and offers both the most fun and most evocative visual for you and your players...
As long as the "bones" (aka mechanics) stay the same the visuals only really matter as far as everyone has an idea what is going on, and enjoys the experience.
Thanks! For my part, I would tend to think the caster knows whether a spell didn't work because the target made its saving throw, or the target had spell resistance. The reason is rooted in the mechanics, particularly the feat spell penetration. I firmly believe that spell penetration (along with spell resistance, in general) was created just as a balancing factor, without much attention to fluff. That won't stop me from trying to add said fluff in, however! I figure someone with spell penetration has researched mystical rites or the like which allow them to punch through the supernatural shield which protects certain creatures from spells. This means they must know that spell resistance exists, and I figure thus that they know when it blocks their spells. I apply similar reasoning to spell focus and saving throws.
Although I feel I should also mention I'd probably rule the same way even if spell focus and spell penetration didn't exist, for a reason pointed out sometime in the past on these boards. You see, I actually prefer most magic without any visual effects whatsoever, outside of the neccessary ones (such as with magic missile or fireball). However, one then has to decide just which effecst are visual and which are not. That can be a hassle, and if you don't lock the result into your games forever, it might open up inconsistencies. Further, there is a matter of balance. If some magic can be cast without producing a visual effect, and other spells can't, then in many situations those spells which are invisible become more powerful than those that are visible. It gets into questions of how much the DM describes the world to the players, what information the DM gives them, which vitally influences the way the players make decisions within the game. Plus, as I mentioned above, it's a hassle to decide which spells do and don't produce visual effects.
The result I landed upon is to decide all spells put on a lightshow, like most splatbooks assume these days and most computer RPGs portray. What it looks like is up to me (for NPCs) or the players (for PCs). I may change from time to time, though once I find a description I like, I tend to stick with it. Even if that description alters (perhaps if, say, an aberration such as a naga casts a spell rather than a "normal" spellcaster, such as an elven wizard or dwarven cleric or the like); a spellcraft check will reveal the truth, and the spell will always produce the same effects, of course. However, there will be a lightshow, there will be indicators that a spell is being cast, even if it's a spell-like-ability without verbal or somatic or material components. I favor a more transparent approach with my group, where the fluff matches but also reveals the mechanics, so that they can make accurate decisions on how to respond to the world. I figure that if I want to play with descriptions to deprive them of information, as a DM, that just becomes fiat; something I try to avoid.
Which is what led me to my querries about the appearance of spell resistance in the first place, since I want to be able to tell my players when spell resistance is in effect more "fluffily" than to just say "Spell resistance is in effect."