I'll start by saying that I, as a player or DM have no issue with Spell Resistance. But in the almost 10 years of playing with my current group of friends in 3.0, 3.5 and soon to start Pathfinder, there has been a general complaint about Spell Resistance. They get frustrated with it, make arguments for why it shouldn't exist in the first place and generally think it should just be removed.
I try to make arguments defending Spell Resistance, both from a thematic perspective (creatures developing a resistance to magic due to their natures) and from a balance/mechanics perspective (its an important part of a creatures Challenge Rating ... removing it would lower the CR, which some of my players dismiss and that it should retain its CR).
In any case, I could just say "No, we're sticking with Spell Resistance as is..." but we're just about to start our first Pathfinder campaign and I'd like to find a happy medium so the complaints at table do not distract from the fun (and my group is exceptionally fun, so its not a matter of not liking them or going with the suggestion of getting rid of them).
So here is my proposal:
* Retain any NPCs or PCs Spell Resistance that is listed or it receives, do not change the Challenge Rating
* When a spell is cast at someone with Spell Resistance, whether the check to overcome the SR succeeds or not, the target's SR is reduced by the level of the spell
FOR EXAMPLE: A PC Wizard lvl 6 is fighting a Drow NPC with a Spell Resistance of 20. They cast a Fireball at the Drow thus requiring a SR check. They roll d20 and get a 10 for a total of 16 (presuming there is no Spell Penetration feat). The Fireball does not effect the Drow, however its Spell Resistance is reduced to 17 (-3 from the 3rd level spell). If the PC Wizard has succeeded on his SR check it would also reduce the SR in the same way.
* This allows for players to widdle away at a NPC's Spell Resistance over the course of the fight.
So the question is ... am I compromising/conceding too much? Does this seem like a well balanced house rule to apply?
Thank you ahead of time to any input!
|
Not a bad idea, but I think it would work better if it was lowered for 1 round. That way the only way to overcome the spell resistance via force is to really hammer them (quicken + normal, or have a partner help). After all, dropping it entirely (a standard action for the possessor) still causes it to come back in 1 round whether desired or not.
Also, since SR scales more like CL/BAB than Damage/HP I would say it should be a flat minus (or flatter at least, -9 is ludicrously good). Maybe -0 for cantrips. -1 for 1st-3rd, -2 for 4th-6th and -3 for 7th-9th.
If you let the -spell level thing fly you'd probably see spell resistance being relatively useless against even one caster (if they have quicken or a swift spell). Keep in mind that SR is generally 10 + CRish, meaning that they should have an almost even chance of penetrating it without any modifiers involved.
I'm always hesitant to introduce a house-rule for something that is both balanced and thematically appropriate. If the my players had a problem with it I'd probably just introduce interesting ways to get around it (possibly even creature specific). Or just point them to a list of spells that say SR: No.
Yeah I wasn't actually calculating the Drow's SR based on anything really, just threw an even number out there, 20, for simplicities sake :)
I do agree that SR is both balanced and thematically appropriate, so I'm hesistant to do anything with it really. I just know its a "point of contention" with my group. Granted the main "complainer" was a blaster-type sorcerer (3.5 rules). Ultimately he got around it by having Spell Penetration (and Greater) and using a lot of Orb spells. But he felt that being pidgeon-holed into use those Orb spells was silly. And it is ... but I personally feel that that was more indicative of an unwillingness to move away from the blaster-type model of the sorcerer than anything else.
Also if SR is based on 10 + CR ... and beating a SR is based on 1d20 + CL + Wis/Int/Cha modifier ... it should balanced out just fine.
I do like the idea of having the SR reduced for a short term, like one round, as an addendum. Thank you for the suggestion.
you are making thinigs quite complicated, I would just make a pact with the players that they never get SR and you'll remove SR from almost every monster, except the most powerful and golems.
This is because SR is what helps CR 40 monsters to not get killed by a save or die 1 time in 20.
"most powerful monsters" could be defined by CR 3 higher than the group or something like that.
Anyhow your idea is a good one and should work, but it will make your job even more complicated.
I love this idea. It adds slightly to my bookkeeping, but it also adds a whole new layer of spell casting strategy into the mix. "Do we have time to whittle away his SR with some lower level spells to make sure the high level one gets through?" or "Do I need to get his SR down as quickly as possible with a high level spell right out of the gate?"
Consider this idea stolen!
I might also include a house rule feat that lets spells lower the target's SR by the spell level + 2, and then by spell level +4 @ Caster Level 10.
Again - Very nice idea.
EDIT: Another idea - the target of the spell can spend a standard action to bring the SR back up to full power.
A couple ideas.
1) You could add this sentence to Spell Penetration: "Your spells also reduce a target's Spell Resistance; for each spell you cast at a target (whether the spell is blocked by Spell Resistance or not), reduce that target's SR by the spell level. Then add this sentence to the definition of Spell Resistance: "If a creature's Spell Resistance is temporarily lowered as a consequence of the Spell Penetration feat, then that creature's Spell Resistance increases by 1 point per 5 HD of the creature at the beginning of each of its turns (up to its maximum)."
2) You could change Spell Resistance into something more like DR and have different types for different kinds of critters. A creature that's tough and robust might take 5 less damage from every spell that does HP damage; a creature that's particularly resilient to elements of all kinds might take 5 less damage from any evocation spell; you could say that certain kinds of creatures are highly resilient to shadow-magic and take less damage from such spells. But then you could also say that a creature that's resilient to being charmed suffers from being charmed for 5 fewer rounds than normal, or gets an additional save every round, or whatever.
The second one would be a lot of work, but you'd write it in on a per-monster basis.
I don't think you should change anything. Spell casters are powerful as is and need nothing more. SR is important and makes sense in the world, and I gotta say, it's NOT the best thing in the world, Iplayed a character with it and I had a VERY dificult time to get buffs and healing most of the time.
If you absoluletelly MUST do something about it, I would do something around this:
Lower Resistance
Transmutation
Level: Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V,S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Short (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature
Duration: 1 round/level (see text)
Saving Throw: Will negates (see text)
Spell Resistance: No
This spell lowers the spell resistance of the target creature by 1d6 points +1 point per three caster levels (maximum +6) for the duration of the spell.
The spell is specifically designed to counter spell resistance, and is not affected by spell resistance itself (unlike most targeted transmutation spells, see p299 Dungeon Master’s Guide).
Lower resistance works against both natural spell resistance and that provided by spells or magic items. The spell has no effect on a creature’s immunities from a spell or spells (for example, a golem’s immunity to magic), and does not affect a creature’s saving throws against spells or spell-like abilities.
The target creature is entitled to a saving throw to avoid the spell’s effects. Further, an affected creature with natural spell resistance gets an additional saving throw every round, at the beginning of the caster’s turn. If it is successful it puts its spell resistance back up and the spell ends. Spell resistance from a spell or a magic item is lowered for the entire duration of lower resistance.
A lot of great ideas here! The only suggestion I might make which would let you keep spell resistance on the monsters as written and give the players a boost to overcome it would be to let them add their casting bonus stat (INT for wizards, CHA for sorcerers, etc) to their roll to overcome spell resistance. Thus, a 12th level wizard with 24 INT trying to disintegrate a Crag Linnorm (with SR of 25) would roll 1d20+12 (wizard level) +7 (INT bonus) + any bonuses from spell penetration, elf racial trait, etc.
It does gimp SR a lot, but as long as the players know it goes both ways, it could be fair. Just a thought!
Just coming back to the thread. I want to thank you all for the idea. I will discuss them with my players ... especially sharing the Lower Resistance Spell and the idea of adding the caster's main stat modifier as a bonus. You've all helped out a lot! :)
I would leave it alone. What are their arguments for it to be removed thematically?
I would leave it alone. What are their arguments for it to be removed thematically?
None really. That is the only reason why I'm tempted not to change it at all ... their arguments basically are ones of frustration. After they fail their SR check a couple of times, they just get miffed. I've tried every approach to help explain ways of defeating SR, why its there etc ... but even my argument that its about game balance and that removing it would seriously effect the CR of the creature is usually met with, "Game balance is not that important." But these are close, long-time friends and I'm mainly willing to find some compromise for the sake of enjoyment at the table ... obviously they don't enjoy it right now in those circumstances. And I think any of the suggestions above are reasonable without totally neutering the SR game mechanic. We'll see how it goes :)
I would leave it alone. What are their arguments for it to be removed thematically?None really. That is the only reason why I'm tempted not to change it at all ... their arguments basically are ones of frustration. After they fail their SR check a couple of times, they just get miffed. I've tried every approach to help explain ways of defeating SR, why its there etc ... but even my argument that its about game balance and that removing it would seriously effect the CR of the creature is usually met with, "Game balance is not that important." But these are close, long-time friends and I'm mainly willing to find some compromise for the sake of enjoyment at the table ... obviously they don't enjoy it right now in those circumstances. And I think any of the suggestions above are reasonable without totally neutering the SR game mechanic. We'll see how it goes :)
If game balance is not that important then ask them how they would feel if you put thing against monsters 10 levels above the party. Then again if balance is not important then why not just give the monster's immunity to magic altogether?
Of course I expect for them to give the answer of game balance does not matter as long as it is in the player's favor, but that making the game too easy kills the challenge.If they want to remove SR then tell them to come up with a suitable replacement since it is a large part of a monster's defense. If they can't think of anything the monsters get to ignore one failed saving throw and/or add 1/3 of their SR to all of their saving throws.
I would just let them know they are not going to get any freebies.
I would leave it alone. What are their arguments for it to be removed thematically?None really. That is the only reason why I'm tempted not to change it at all ... their arguments basically are ones of frustration. After they fail their SR check a couple of times, they just get miffed. I've tried every approach to help explain ways of defeating SR, why its there etc ... but even my argument that its about game balance and that removing it would seriously effect the CR of the creature is usually met with, "Game balance is not that important." But these are close, long-time friends and I'm mainly willing to find some compromise for the sake of enjoyment at the table ... obviously they don't enjoy it right now in those circumstances. And I think any of the suggestions above are reasonable without totally neutering the SR game mechanic. We'll see how it goes :)
Just to be clear, when a player can't pass SR it's like a fighter missing a hit, and it happens a lot. And they are not complaining about AC, are they?
SR is important, and I think it works fine, but if you think it's THAT important for your players to gimp it a little, I would go with the Spell, since it's a 2nd edition thing, and it helps out quite a lot.
Bear in mind one thing though, you are obviously willing to change for your players, but they are not willing to change to acomodate the game (casting buffs, summons and other non Spellresitable spells) or buying feats that help. So, you better think this through, cause this MAY be the begining of a long list of "this doesn't have to be balanced" like Wraithstrike said.
I thought about a diferent "rule" for SR. You could create a Metamagic feat that improves your CL roll regarding spell resistance by +2 for each level slot.
So, if you cast it 1 slot higher it's +2 to CL checks, +2 slot +4 CL checks, and so on, and so forth.
In the 10+ years I've been playing, I've never once encountered or used a creature with spell resistance. My PCs rarely go past level 5.
Please clarify something for me: if a caster succeeds the SR check, does the creature still get a saving throw?
In the 10+ years I've been playing, I've never once encountered or used a creature with spell resistance. My PCs rarely go past level 5.
Please clarify something for me: if a caster succeeds the SR check, does the creature still get a saving throw?
Yes.
So, what is a wizard supposed to do against a CR12 dragon?
The best I can figure, the party fighter can reliably hit it for about 30 dpr, while the wizard would have about a 50% chance to affect it with a spell (70% chance to beat SR with greater spell penetration x ~70% chance to beat saves).
So, what is a wizard supposed to do against a CR12 dragon?
The best I can figure, the party fighter can reliably hit it for about 30 dpr, while the wizard would have about a 50% chance to affect it with a spell (70% chance to beat SR with greater spell penetration x ~70% chance to beat saves).
50% chance is a very good chance.
And in NO WAY is the wizard gimped, he has several buff spells, several spells to cast that ignore SR. So, do that! I don't see the problem really, it's not like he is totally screwed and nothing he does makes a diference.
|
So, what is a wizard supposed to do against a CR12 dragon?
Use his brain ; be inventive ; control the field ; boost allies.
It's a wizard against a dragon, did he think it would just need a save-or-die spell to take him out easily in one round ?Spell resistance is just fine, there are ways to overcome it easier already, and if you can't, then there are always spells not requiring to beat any SR - because they don't directly hit the dragon, or because these are spells not allowing SR.
So, what is a wizard supposed to do against a CR12 dragon?
The best I can figure, the party fighter can reliably hit it for about 30 dpr, while the wizard would have about a 50% chance to affect it with a spell (70% chance to beat SR with greater spell penetration x ~70% chance to beat saves).
50% chance is a very good chance.
And in NO WAY is the wizard gimped, he has several buff spells, several spells to cast that ignore SR. So, do that! I don't see the problem really, it's not like he is totally screwed and nothing he does makes a diference.
Not when compared to the fighter's 95% hit rate.
Buffs are best cast right before combat. Obviously you can't always, but one should try. I'm not trying to argue the wizard is gimped. I'm looking for specific spells to use during combat, in the event the party is prepared.
So, image spells, wall of force, summon monster, rock to mud, displacement, cloud and fog spells (if you can avoid hitting your friends)... acid dart... Am I missing anything a level 12 wizard can cast?
True Seeing, Teleport, Beast shape (and others), Antimagic Field, Greater dispel magic, Acid Fog, greater invisibility, globe of invulnerability. those are FANTASTIC spells, not gimped by SR.
Thematically I don't think *any* spell that faces energy resistance should also face spell resistance. Either what hits the target is magical enough to be blocked by spell resistance and should therefore bypass energy resistance or it's just a bunch of ions/heat/vibrations/whatever and covering that with general resistance to magic is double dipping.
The two abilities are in no way identical. One has nothing to do with the other. Energy resistance is normally due to having a subtype which may mean you are elemental to a small extent. The other is generally ability to ignore magic.
Buff the party. The dragon's SR can't do anything about that.
So, what is a wizard supposed to do against a CR12 dragon?
The best I can figure, the party fighter can reliably hit it for about 30 dpr, while the wizard would have about a 50% chance to affect it with a spell (70% chance to beat SR with greater spell penetration x ~70% chance to beat saves).
50% chance is a very good chance.
And in NO WAY is the wizard gimped, he has several buff spells, several spells to cast that ignore SR. So, do that! I don't see the problem really, it's not like he is totally screwed and nothing he does makes a diference.
Not when compared to the fighter's 95% hit rate.
Buffs are best cast right before combat. Obviously you can't always, but one should try. I'm not trying to argue the wizard is gimped. I'm looking for specific spells to use during combat, in the event the party is prepared.
So, image spells, wall of force, summon monster, rock to mud, displacement, cloud and fog spells (if you can avoid hitting your friends)... acid dart... Am I missing anything a level 12 wizard can cast?
70% chance of a spell being blocked versus a 95% to hit by fighter seems off, 70% chance of spell resistance might be in an encounter CR 4 over the party level or so, but the fighter should not have that easy of a time hitting the dragon. Have the dragon cast a mage armor spell and use expertise maybe, the casters should take spell penetration if they want to affect foes directly.
It is also one reason why elves are still great as spellcasters. The Lower Resistance spell is a good suggestion, you might offer a metamagic rod lowering spell resistance by 5 against a single spell 3/day. In my opinion they should complain less and invest more into beating SR if it bothers them, or not play casters.
70% chance of a spell being blocked versus a 95% to hit by fighter seems off, 70% chance of spell resistance might be in an encounter CR 4 over the party level or so, but the fighter should not have that easy of a time hitting the dragon. Have the dragon cast a mage armor spell and use expertise maybe, the casters should take spell penetration if they want to affect foes directly.
It is also one reason why elves are still great as spellcasters. The Lower Resistance spell is a good suggestion, you might offer a metamagic rod lowering spell resistance by 5 against a single spell 3/day. In my opinion they should complain less and invest more into beating SR if it bothers them, or not play casters.
70% chance to beat SR.
Good points about dragon spells and feats, I didn't consider those. That would bring the fighter's hit down to a comparable rate.
On a related note, if the dragon wanted to spend its turn dispelling the party's buffs, the caster would have to buff during combat.
All of this aside, I'm confused why SR exists in the first place. Why not just give a creature better saves if you want to reduce spell hit?
you could always use SR as DR toward spells. SR 20= -20 damage from a fireball.