Houserule: All Evocation spells are not effected by SR.
What issues/effects does this have?
I don't think it makes them any more popular since the low damage is the issue. I understand you can make blasters that do a lot of damage, but it takes a very focused casters.
I don't think it breaks anything though.
Some creatures might have their CR tweaked a bit with this rule.
It might be serious matter with Golems and similar creatures whose Magic Immunity works like inifinite SR - either you should change magic immunity to work independently of SR in case of evocatoions or think about golem's CR in evocation heavy combats.
Personally I would prefer SR to go away in 2nd edition.
Until the DM has him meet an energy immune fiend. :)That's what magic missiles and the various hand spells are for!
Backhand Slap The Demon is my favorite spell. I wish they would increase the damage dice on it.
On topic: An interesting idea, and if I were an evoker, I'd try my hardest to find no-save Evo spells that had a rider effect.
Or invest in a lot of metamagic rods that added a rider effect.
As others have said, it'll make little to no difference to the game, go for it.
Houserule: All Evocation spells are not effected by SR.
What issues/effects does this have?
It will remove a line of defense between a school of spells and powerful creatures which means, among other things, that there will be one less dice roll to make.
Personally I'm all for it for various reasons, but removing a (IMO) superfluous dice roll is chief among them.
I don't think it will impact fireball throwing much. It may have an impact on some force-type spells that do allow spell resistance (most, if not all, don't allow SR already). This might require a more careful study of the spells I'm less familiar with, but I really believe that the benefit of a more streamlined system would be greater than its possible resulting issues.
I'd keep SR for magical effects that affect a creature directly; not against effects that affect a creatures via its environment.
'findel
I just might gank that for the Aviona houserules, TOZ.
The direction I'd been headed (better evocation metamagic) seems a bit clunky.
Personally I think we could just get rid of SR as a mechanic entirely.
I think if something is going to be resistant to magic it should have a bonus to its saves vs. magic, like dwarves. SR is really hazardous for a PC as a double-edged sword, and on baddies well, it just makes casters focus on Conjuration and other things that have no SR.
Personally I think we could just get rid of SR as a mechanic entirely.
I think if something is going to be resistant to magic it should have a bonus to its saves vs. magic, like dwarves. SR is really hazardous for a PC as a double-edged sword, and on baddies well, it just makes casters focus on Conjuration and other things that have no SR.
While we rarely agree or see eye to eye. This is one of those times.
While we rarely agree or see eye to eye. This is one of those times.Personally I think we could just get rid of SR as a mechanic entirely.
I think if something is going to be resistant to magic it should have a bonus to its saves vs. magic, like dwarves. SR is really hazardous for a PC as a double-edged sword, and on baddies well, it just makes casters focus on Conjuration and other things that have no SR.
I'm inclined to agree. I don't much care for this holdover of bad design.
...but within the context of using Spell Resistance as written and in response to the OP...
While I am one of the bigger fans of Evocation on this forum, (hey, even Treantmonk says Evocation is far better than its reputation) I think dropping SR for all evocations would cause a few issues that I don't much care for. Namely, the devaluing Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Elves' built in Spell Penetration, and Piercing Spell. Every caster would skip over these feats. Why devote precious feats to overcoming spell resistance when you can just prepare a few evocation spells or carry a few evocation scrolls? I just don't much care for getting something for nothing. (I would prefer dropping/reworking the SR mechanic as opposed to this arbitrary power-up for evocation)
However, this may be a more reasonable solution, a la Augment Summoning:
Piercing Evocation
Your evocations pierce through magical defenses.
Prerequisite: Spell Focus (evocation).
Benefit: Your evocations are unaffected by Spell Resistance.
...even at that, I would probably do it differently, more like a +4 bonus against SR and, whenever you apply metamagic, add +1 to the DC. *shrugs* Do what you will, but I think a feat would be more fitting. It would represent the power of a masterful evoker, not just anyone who can manage to cast Magic Missiles.
To Paizo folks: Get rid of SR as written. I only hear bad things about it wherever I go. I know you guys can come up with something better, or at the very least revamp it. (One more thing for your PF 2nd edition to do list!)
Namely, the devaluing Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Elves' built in Spell Penetration, and Piercing Spell. Every caster would skip over these feats. Why devote precious feats to overcoming spell resistance when you can just prepare a few evocation spells or carry a few evocation scrolls? I just don't much care for getting something for nothing. (I would prefer dropping/reworking the SR mechanic as opposed to this arbitrary power-up for evocation)
Kind of the point though. Typically the only people who take spell pen and greater spell pen are people who heavily use evocation or maybe offensive enchantment effects. It's an indirect feat tax on the least powerful schools.
I really liked what Pathfinder did with incorporeal (miss chance into % damage reduction).
Do you think Spell Resistance could be changed into a bonus on saves and/or maybe a % reduction on the damage taken by spells? Something similar to incorporealness.
Or maybe some kind of magic damage reduction?
Houserule: All Evocation spells are not effected by SR.
What issues/effects does this have?
I've expressed my approval for it in the past, at least as far as energy spells go. Maybe I'd keep it for force spells (since mostly I dislike the double whammy of energy resistance + spell resistance), but I don't think it makes a big difference either way.
I really liked what Pathfinder did with incorporeal (miss chance into % damage reduction).
Do you think Spell Resistance could be changed into a bonus on saves and/or maybe a % reduction on the damage taken by spells? Something similar to incorporealness.
Or maybe some kind of magic damage reduction?
Most casters don't use damage dealing spells though if these boards are an indication of spell selection.
Most casters don't use damage dealing spells though if these boards are an indication of spell selection.
Perhaps simply a bonus on saves and more monsters with evasion and stalwart like abilities.
Most casters don't use damage dealing spells though if these boards are an indication of spell selection.Perhaps simply a bonus on saves and more monsters with evasion and stalwart like abilities.
I am not understanding what you are trying to say.
To explain a bit better:
Magic Resistance that functions like Damage Reduction or Energy Resistance may sound good at first, but as wraithstrike says, this has no effect on non-damaging spells.
So how do we model a system where creatures are resilient to magic without Spell Resistance?
Giving monsters a bonus on saves vs. spells (like the Dwarven racial ability) is a simple solution, but still somewhat lacking. Also, how big of a bonus?
I was suggesting an idea that monsters be made with abilities similar to Evasion and Stalwart. If they fail a save, they get hit full on with the magic, but if they succeed, they negate the effect. Probably wouldn't want to have bonuses to saves on top of this or they'd evade out of everything.
To explain a bit better:
Magic Resistance that functions like Damage Reduction or Energy Resistance may sound good at first, but as wraithstrike says, this has no effect on non-damaging spells.So how do we model a system where creatures are resilient to magic without Spell Resistance?
Giving monsters a bonus on saves vs. spells (like the Dwarven racial ability) is a simple solution, but still somewhat lacking. Also, how big of a bonus?
I was suggesting an idea that monsters be made with abilities similar to Evasion and Stalwart. If they fail a save, they get hit full on with the magic, but if they succeed, they negate the effect. Probably wouldn't want to have bonuses to saves on top of this or they'd evade out of everything.
Many spells are not made with partial affects so those with SR would lose out on this design.
How would this work for with hold monster as an example which is already all or nothing.
I have no idea. I'm just kicking around ideas, hoping more creative people can pick them up and run with them.
I think I'd keep SR and just alter the way it works a bit. Damage dealing spells get reduced depending on what the caster would need to roll on a SR check. For example, if McWizard needs a 15 or higher to beat the SR of DR. Pit Fiend, he instead reduces the damage dealt by his Intensified Maximized Lightning Bolt by 75%. If he throws a Hold Monster at it, SR works normally... or maybe has its duration reduced by 75%.
Kinda works like the incorporeal trait, only with variable percentages.
I really liked what Pathfinder did with incorporeal (miss chance into % damage reduction).
Do you think Spell Resistance could be changed into a bonus on saves and/or maybe a % reduction on the damage taken by spells? Something similar to incorporealness.
Or maybe some kind of magic damage reduction?.
Bonus on saves would devaluate evocation even more. It will also increase the gap with weaker and stronger spells. Creatures from bestiary are already very resilient to necromancy spells that are affected by fortitude saves for example. Removing SR and increasing saves instead will make it nearly impossible to use save dependent necromancy spells in combat.
How about something like this?
Spell Resistance : A creature that has this special ability is especially resistant to hostile magic. It takes several forms.
Damage Resistance : Spells that cause HP or Stat damage receive a 5% reduction in damage per 2 hit dice of the creature, up to a maximum of 75% reduction in damage. This stacks with any reductions the spell allows for successful saving throws. Thus if a creature had 20 hit dice and therefore a 50% reduction in spell damage, and saved successfully for a spell that allowed for half damage, they would take half of the half damage (or 25% of the damage rolled).
Non-Damaging Spells with saves : If a spell does not do HP or stat damage, then the caster is treated as if he were one caster level lower per 4 hit die possessed by the target with SR for purposes of affecting the SR.
Non-Damaging Spells without saves : If a spell has no save, and just affects the creature or an area the creature is inside of, such as Daylight, then the spell works normally, and SR doesn't come into play.
You'd then modify Spell Penetration and etc so that they reduced the target's effective Hit Dice by a given amount (say 4 hit dice). Now you've gotten rid of the roll. Evocations still do less damage against SR, but they now do SOME damage every time you hit. So you aren't wasting the spell (unless you don't hit in the first place). Non damaging spells are harder to get into an SR creature, but still possible if he fails his save.
Honestly, I never liked 3rd edition's approach to Spell Resistance; I much preferred the 1E/2E AD&D approach of % miss chance.
In late 3.5, I was using a houserule that harmonized SR with concealment.
Spell resistance came in two increments: minor (20% miss chance) and major (50% miss chance) rolled by the defender. Spell penetration would bring a 50% SR down to a 20% SR (and negate a 20% SR), and greater spell penetration would negate SR altogether.
'findel
Honestly, I never liked 3rd edition's approach to Spell Resistance; I much preferred the 1E/2E AD&D approach of % miss chance.
The 1E AD&D version of spell resistance was very similar to the 3E version (essentially a caster level check).
Honestly, I never liked 3rd edition's approach to Spell Resistance; I much preferred the 1E/2E AD&D approach of % miss chance.The 1E AD&D version of spell resistance was very similar to the 3E version (essentially a caster level check).
Ha! True...
A different potential formulation: Any elemental damage bypasses SR.
Not limited to one school, but it certainly favors evocation. Efficiently addresses the overlap of elemental resistance and SR, but leaves spells like magic missile as they are.
It makes theoretical sense to me that the "magic" in elemental spells works like the conjuration grease. The magic produces the elemental energy, but once created it is not magic and therefore not subject to SR.
Goodbye redundancy.
Since SR already exists in monster stat blocks wouldn't it be easier to use a system based on that info?
For example, you could grant a SR monster a bonus to their saves vs spells equal to 1 per 5 points of SR listed [or per 3 or 4 etc.].
A different potential formulation: Any elemental damage bypasses SR.
Not limited to one school, but it certainly favors evocation. Efficiently addresses the overlap of elemental resistance and SR, but leaves spells like magic missile as they are.
It makes theoretical sense to me that the "magic" in elemental spells works like the conjuration grease. The magic produces the elemental energy, but once created it is not magic and therefore not subject to SR.
Goodbye redundancy.
Actually yes, that would make *take deep breath* more sense.
I like that
'findel
A different potential formulation: Any elemental damage bypasses SR.
Not limited to one school, but it certainly favors evocation. Efficiently addresses the overlap of elemental resistance and SR, but leaves spells like magic missile as they are.
It makes theoretical sense to me that the "magic" in elemental spells works like the conjuration grease. The magic produces the elemental energy, but once created it is not magic and therefore not subject to SR.
Goodbye redundancy.
+1 much like 'findel this seems, to me, to be cogent and easy to insert.
I too like the elemental damage rule.