This is an actual question rather than a proposition.
Percieved Problem: Spell resistance adds yet another roll, yet another "AC" to consider, yet another line of defence in addition to saving throw, energy resisatnce and immunities.
However, the concept that certain races/individuals can withstand magic is interesting in its own. Spell Resistance as a concept is not a percieved problem in my case, but its implementation is (to a certain extent).
In the light of this, what should Spell Resistance be:
Opinions?
'findel
Let's see:
Spell resistance should exist as a re-test on a failed save.
That's another roll isn'it?
Spell resistance should exist as a bonus to saving throws vs magic.
Maybe, but isn't the draw to use some spells the fact that they aren't affected by SR? And some characters already have bonuses against certain types of magic. Imagine an elf monk, he would have will X against spells that don't have SR and aren't enchantment, will X+Y against most spells, X+Y+2 against most enchantment spells AND X+2 against enchantment spells that aren't resisted by SR (Is there one of those? I don't know) That get's complicated fast.
As above but successful saves automatically negate any partial effects
Maybe, but then not all spells have partial effects, so that would cut SR effctiveness down a notch. If you mean SR as a bonus against spells + this ummm.... might have a workable idea, but I guess I would rather roll a ten or more as mage to bypass SR than have my opponent be able to pass the saving throw with anything better than a one.
Spell resistance should be a static % miss chance like in AD&D made by the defender.
Now you're just changing the extra roll from the mage to the defender. And abilities that improve caster level against SR would have to be reworded as 'your opponents SR is considered to be 10% less than it is when rolling miss chance aginst your spells' or something like that. Too clunky and takes a roll from the player to the GM (it's easier for monster to have SR than players).
Spell resistance should be divided in sets of total immunities: it either affects you or it doesn't.
Like, you're immune to this school or these three subschools? I don't know I would think immunity against entire schools of magic would be a little to much.
Spell resistance should negate spells up to a certain level (SR 1 should make immune to 1st level spells, SR 2 immune to 1st and 2nd level spells etc).
Too much. Right now all you need is some luck maybe a feat or an ability to increase spell penetration and you can still use fourth level spells against a dragon, but a seventh level spell might not pass. In that mode a dragon would be immune to anything but what, sixth level, seventh? but he would be completely without defenses to the higher level spells. Would make it impossible to lower level characters to have lucky shot and make high level caster even more overpower since there's not even a chance to stop their most powerfull spells.
Spell Resistance is fine as is, just play the darn game!
Sorry, but I'm gonna have to go with this option.
I use spell resistance as an active ability, instead of passive.
In my mind it is like a "super save" versus magic, so the defender should make the roll himself.
In that condition, the roll and DC are reversed:
The defender rolls 1d20 + level versus DC10 + caster level of the attacker.
Example: The defender is a 5th level character, supposed to have SR10 + level (SR15) and the attacker is a 5th level caster.
The defender rolls 1d20+5 versus DC15.
I don't know about you, but the real question is, why was spell resistance invented in the first place? Wasn't a save vs the spell good enough? wasn't energy immunities/resistances enough as it is? Are spellcasters too good if SR never existed in the first place?
I don't know about you, but the real question is, why was spell resistance invented in the first place? Wasn't a save vs the spell good enough?
Back then, I can understand that save alone might have not been enough; HPs prior to 3rd edition where about 1/10th of what a BBEG have now.
Whether SR is concept that is still necesary to preserve game balance is questionable, but it is encountered enough in fantasy litterature to be worth being represented in a role-playing game IMO.
'findel
Spell resistance should negate spells up to a certain level (SR 1 should make immune to 1st level spells, SR 2 immune to 1st and 2nd level spells etc).
Too much. Right now all you need is some luck maybe a feat or an ability to increase spell penetration and you can still use fourth level spells against a dragon, but a seventh level spell might not pass. In that mode a dragon would be immune to anything but what, sixth level, seventh? but he would be completely without defenses to the higher level spells. Would make it impossible to lower level characters to have lucky shot and make high level caster even more overpower since there's not even a chance to stop their most powerfull spells.
Not all spells allow SR, so the dragon could very well be the (usually indirect) target of a 1st level spell.
Besides, a 1st level spell could be heightened to 6th level spell if the dragon have SR5. Pitching a SR5 monster against a group of 3rd level character would just as "dicky" as pitching a SR25 against the same group.
I'm not trying to defend any of these options (which i'm sure are just a few of many more that could simplify SR), but your arguments against that one were less solid than the others you had.
'findel
Our group has lately been using the variant rule that SR/2 (rounded up) reduces direct spell damage instead of adding another roll. Working pretty good, even though it does boost the power of spells that doesn't cause HP-damage.
Another option is to convert the spell resistance into a bonus to saves versus magic, like half the SR or just half the level of the creature, but then grant a save to the creature against all spells (unless they state no SR) and suffer no effect if the save is made (like no damage from a fireball).
This way you remove the extra rolling and save time.
Spell resistance should be a static % miss chance like in AD&D made by the defender.
Now you're just changing the extra roll from the mage to the defender. And abilities that improve caster level against SR would have to be reworded as 'your opponents SR is considered to be 10% less than it is when rolling miss chance aginst your spells' or something like that. Too clunky and takes a roll from the player to the GM (it's easier for monster to have SR than players).
Note also that I used the word static deliberatly. At the moment, my houserule works that Spell Resistance comes in minor (20%) and major (50%), no 'per level' adjustment, and basically works like concealment (3.5). Spell penetration negate 20% SR alltogether and reduce 50% down to 20%. Greater Spell Penetration negates all SR.
It is more intuitive, quicker and alltogether simpler to use than the RAW sub-system; which I consider an improvement. Re-rolling the same save would also be quicker, more intuitive and simpler than RaW but as you mentioned, both solutions still involves yet another roll.
Without knowing where this is going to take me, I want to explore avenues that are not involving extra rolls.
'findel
The point to Spell Resistance is providing a form of threat that casters have a harder time dealing with - casters tend to be the swiss army knives of parties, and they tend to become massive death-dealers as they gain in levels. Nothing scares a caster like an enemy that their spells don't work against... and it gives the non-casters a chance to really shine.
If you want to do away with the rolling but still keep a similar level of power for SR, just change it to the following:
Subtract 10 from a creatures SR (meaning creatures with a SR of less than 11 have no real resistance) and compare that to the caster level of the spell (adjusted by penetration). If the creature's SR is higher than they are considered to have automatically made their saving throw against the spell... otherwise, they have to make a save as normal.
For spells that allow SR, but have no save, just add "save negates" to them and you're set.
Spell Resistance is fine as-is to me. The only change I make to it is that it automatically recognizes beneficial spells and lets them through, so no one, monk or monster, need lower their spell resistance to get healed.