I'm thinking of getting rid of the SR and spell immunity mechanics from my game and would like some advice.
First off, the reasons I want to get rid of them.
In the case of SR it seems a bit unfair that a magic user has to deal with the SR and saving throws of a creature in order for a spell to work against it. Where as a martial character only has to get past the AC of the same opponent. This is of course discounting any DR the opponent might have.
As for magic immunity, I think total immunity flys right in the face of the systems internal logic.
Total immunity is most often seen in magically created or active monsters. How can a creature whose very existence is only possible through magic be imune to it?
So my first thought is to give a damage reduction equal to the spell resistance number or 1/2 of the number or something along those lines.
I would like to keep things simple so as to not slow down my game.
Any other thoughts, opinions or suggestions?
Thanks
-Erich
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DR doesn't apply against spelldamage, so switching SR against DR would be very unfair towards the martials. On top of that, there are spells that ignore SR and immunity to magic, your casters will just have to be creative.
If you put in a second DR that works against magiacal damage, your players will simply stop using damage spells and use condition-inflicting ones. While using monsters with SR/Immunity to magic should be considered carefully so the magic players don't get annoyed, I think they are quite OK as a means to allow the martials to shine in combat other than using multiple encounters to drain the spells of the casters...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this thread: the game is unfair to wizards and too easy for fighters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a discussion about this with a friend, specifically about Golems, which I think are the most oft-encountered creatures with flat-out immunity to magic.
I like it because it requires preparation and creativity on the part of the player. The yare immune to all magic *that does nto ignore spell resistance* with the EXCEPTION of a handful of spells that affect it differently as a unique weakness. A wizard that doesn't prepare any fire spells to deal with the Ice Golem is like a Fighter that doesn't carry a bow, he should be penalized for not preparing for all contingencies.
Alright, I guess I can see where the SR and spell immunity rules have their place but that just creates other problems for me.
Hmmmm,
Let me see if I can say this right....
Putting aside my own objections to SR and Immunity for now, I do have some players who are getting a little annoyed by these rules.
My magic using players tend to go with Sorcerers instead of Wizards, that means a fixed set of spells.
The whole SR/Immunity thing is not that big of a deal for the Rouge/Destined Sorcerer, she is more of a buff/support type. Even so, if she wants to cast a spell into combat these rules can get in her way.
However, the Elemental Sorcerer is getting hit pretty hard. The Elemental blood line kind of lends itself to evocation magic. And most (if not all) evocation magic can be resisted with SR, which also means that immunity stops them cold.
I guess what I am looking for here is advice on how to tone things down to the point where my magic users can be useful in direct damage combat without totally rewriting the rules.
To be honest, if I were writing my own adventures I would probably just not use the monsters that can create this problem. I am however, running an adventure path because I currently do not have a lot of time to prep for games.
Maybe what I need to do is find a list of spells that can cause damage and not allow for SR. I mean, there have to be some. Right?
-Erich
Conjuration spells.
Summon monster/nature's ally
Black Tentacles (Shudder...)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could also houserule that Evocation magic isn't subject to SR, which seems to be your principal issue.
I thinks you could defend this houserule easily at any case. Resisting dominatation, paralyisis or polymorph is one thing, resisting magcal fire when you are not resistant to natural fire is another...
'findel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe what I need to do is find a list of spells that can cause damage and not allow for SR. I mean, there have to be some. Right?-Erich
Acid Arrow, Pit line of spells, Acid Fog, Cloudkill, Incindiary Cloud, Summoning Spells. In general look at Conjuration spells for ways to bypass SR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could also houserule that Evocation magic isn't subject to SR, which seems to be your principal issue.
I thinks you could defend this houserule easily at any case. Resisting dominatation, paralyisis or polymorph is one thing, resisting magcal fire when you are not resistant to natural fire is another...
'findel
This, and don't make the lives of the martial characters any harder.
Beside, the casters should accept that once in a rare while, they will be the one playing support. (unless the party is full of casters, but this is another problem.)
|
What's stopping the elemental sorcerer from learning a spell or two that doesn't allow SR, or picking up a few scrolls with such spells, or keeping one or two in a Ring of Spell Knowledge? Sure he doesn't get a power boost from the bloodline, but it's better than twiddling his thumbs. I am all for tweaking the rules if someone isn't having fun, but I don't think you need a new houserule to enable the sorcerer to keep casting evocation spells against every enemy. Sometimes the enemy is resistant against your main tactic. Smart PCs have a backup plan. Would you give special treatment to a melee fighter who insists on trying to hit a bee swarm with his sword, or an archer who fires arrows into a wind wall, or a maneuver specialist fighting a dragon, or to an enchantment specialist who complains about having to use lower-DC spells against undead?
Spell Penetration, Piercing Spell, and Dweomer's Essence can help with getting through SR that isn't immunity.
You could also houserule that Evocation magic isn't subject to SR, which seems to be your principal issue.
I thinks you could defend this houserule easily at any case. Resisting dominatation, paralyisis or polymorph is one thing, resisting magcal fire when you are not resistant to natural fire is another...
'findel
Thanks for the idea 'findel
That is a very elegant solution and definitely easier than coming up with a new feat.It also has the advantage of satisfying my sense of internal game logic.
I am however, going to make it clear that there will be the occasional monster that is immune to most spells, or who spells work differently on. Golems come to mind.
-Erich
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could also houserule that Evocation magic isn't subject to SR, which seems to be your principal issue.
I thinks you could defend this houserule easily at any case. Resisting dominatation, paralyisis or polymorph is one thing, resisting magcal fire when you are not resistant to natural fire is another...
'findel
Thanks for the idea 'findel
That is a very elegant solution and definitely easier than coming up with a new feat.
It also has the advantage of satisfying my sense of internal game logic.I am however, going to make it clear that there will be the occasional monster that is immune to most spells, or who spells work differently on. Golems come to mind.
-Erich
Golems are supposed to be the time for someone else to shine (especially if there are a lot of incorporeal creatures around.)
I do agree that SR is a bum-wrap for spell-casters since it is all-or-nothing. Combat types can brute-fore the issue if they hit hard enough.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Remember too that most golems have one or two spells (or energy types) that have an effect on them regardless of magic immunity. You might not be blasting the golems to pieces, but hitting a melee monster with a no-save slow effect can make or break a fight.
Edit: And, since those spell effects on golems are generally 'no-save', they're great fodder for scrolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what you're saying is, because people chose certain classes that limited their viability, you want to throw out the rules to compensate?
Because what I'm hearing is this:
My magic using players tend to go with Sorcerers instead of Wizards, that means a fixed set of spells.
the Elemental Sorcerer is getting hit pretty hard. The Elemental blood line kind of lends itself to evocation magic. And most (if not all) evocation magic can be resisted with SR, which also means that immunity stops them cold.
"tend to go with Sorcerers" and "kind of lends itself to Evocation", to me, translates into "The magic users want to have all the strengths of using sorcerers and none of the weaknesses. The rogue only took spells to help buff the party, but if she so chose to cast offensive magic, SR gets in the way. The elemental evoker is pissed because they are a one-trick pony that gets shut off with a perfectly normal game mechanic."
They can't have their cake and eat it, too. But here are a few recommendations if it's seriously impacting their fun level.
Suggestions:
1) Give the Sorcerers free Spell Penetration Feats, but balance it by making all the fighters' weapons Adamantine to bypass DR.
2) Get rid of SR and spell immunity, but balance that by getting rid of DR and immunity to sneak attack/critical.
Without the balance, as above, you get this:
In this thread: the game is unfair to wizards and too easy for fighters.
How about an alternative system?
Spelldampening:
A creature with spell dampening reduces the casterlevel of an incoming spell by this amount.
For damage spells it means you just reduce the number of dice accordingly.
Fireball:
7th level caster, Monster has spell dampening 4. Monster takes 3d6 damage.
15th level caster, Monster has spell dampening 6. Monster takes 9d6 damage.
For other spells (like hold Monster), if the casterlevel is reduced so low the spell could not be cast anymore (level 9 for Hold Monster) then the spell fails.
This removes the random element. You are either strong enough to affect the creature or not. And if your high level spells don't get through you can use lower level spells.
You could also houserule that Evocation magic isn't subject to SR, which seems to be your principal issue.
I thinks you could defend this houserule easily at any case. Resisting dominatation, paralyisis or polymorph is one thing, resisting magcal fire when you are not resistant to natural fire is another...
'findel
I think this. Spell Resistance shouldn't apply to elemental damage (fire, cold, eletricity or acid)... casters already have to overcome saving throws and elemental resistance - two layers of protection are enough. I understand (maybe) the need for Spell Resistance as a second layer of protection against things like save or suck, but to be fair, aren't Will saves pretty dang high in the mid to late game anyway?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We had a wizard once who:
- Refused to buff party members (he actually charged them to: learn the spell, and to cast it)
- Yelled and pitched fits about SR and SI to no end
- Refused to take any Spell Pen feat
- Refused to take any Spell Pen item, despite having Craft Wonderous, and unlimited downtime
- Complained bitterly about the fighters "stealing his thunder"
- Demanded any melee type stand in front of him to protect him anyway
So when I see threads like this, it triggers those memories...
|
I agree that SR and spell immunity suck, not because they get in the way of players, but because they do so in a very "all or nothing" way. DR reduces damage, but you can power past it or bypass it if you're clever. There is no "immune to physical damage" outside of incorporeal creatures, and even those aren't immune to magic weapons (and any self-respecting martial type has a magical weapon). So why then is SR all-or nothing? Why then does spell immunity get to say "No. Go home."?
Spells are powerful, and they definitely need a counter, but the current mechanic for SR/Immunity has always left a bad taste in my mouth. You must either bypass it, or go home. You can't overpower it by dealing more damage the way you can with DR.
I'm not sure how I'd "fix" this, but I do like Karuth's suggestion to some extent (and not just because of his snazzy avatar). It would make SR a thing you could overpower, but is still a huge problem. It would, however, result in the awkward situation of having your lower level spells be more useful than your higher ones. Because of this I'm not sure I would use it.
The easiest thing to do would be to make the change Laurefindel suggests and remove some spells from being subject to SR. I would recommend the AoE energy damage spells rather than evocation as a whole. This would allow rays to be resisted, but not fireballs and cones of cold. It would also keep them from sneaking in some spells obviously meant for their status effects, such as Ear-Piercing Scream. It never made sense to me that AoE damage would be resisted by SR anyway. Damage is hardly the scariest thing a caster can do, so I don't think this would reduce the viability of SR-bearing opponents by much.
So are you getting rid of special melee Damage Reduction as well?
|
|
So are you getting rid of special melee Damage Reduction as well?
I don't believe it's fair to compare SR to DR. DR is often easily bypassed (especially at high levels) and is designed to be low enough that a decent martial character will be able to overpower it even if they can't bypass it (while still being effective). SR, on the other hand, makes any form of direct assault via spells a bad idea. You can't reliably bypass it, and there's no way to use a spell that can "overpower" it. Your only good choice is to pick some other way of being useful. SR is one of the reasons why being an offensive caster is deemed severely sub-optimal compared to buffing and terrain control.
I agree that SR and spell immunity suck, not because they get in the way of players, but because they do so in a very "all or nothing" way. DR reduces damage, but you can power past it or bypass it if you're clever. There is no "immune to physical damage" outside of incorporeal creatures, and even those aren't immune to magic weapons (and any self-respecting martial type has a magical weapon). So why then is SR all-or nothing? Why then does spell immunity get to say "No. Go home."?
Bypassing DR and Incorporealness depends on stats, level, wealth, DM/GM letting the players use their wealth, etc...
Golems with DR 20/Adamantine can be a bane to both casters and non-casters at the same time.
But I agree that too many monsters get SR, DR or both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it's usually possible to power through DR is that martials don't really have options that aren't "hit it with a big stick and kill it". The same is not true of wizards.
|
|
The reason it's usually possible to power through DR is that martials don't really have options that aren't "hit it with a big stick and kill it". The same is not true of wizards.
Not necessarily true. A martial can still do various combat maneuvers like trip, disarm and grapple, class abilities notwithstanding. Sure, they aren't likely to be effective, but neither is whatever the Evoker prepared that doesn't allow SR. Unlike the martial, the Evoker has % chance to fail *in addition* to what amounts to DR (energy resistances/immunities), and of course sometimes spell-immune creatures.
Unless a martial character is relatively poorly built they'll be able to either bypass or overpower the DR of any given creature. Even the mighty Tarrasque only reduces damage by 15 points, and even the off-hand strike of a high level martial character does more than that.
Now, I'm not arguing that martial characters are "better" than casters (because they're not), but if you have a caster focused on damage dealing next to a martial character focused on damage dealing, the caster has a lot more problems to deal with. At best the caster either steps outside their shtick (which isn't all that hard) or invests a lot in knowledge so that they can always throw the exact right damaging spell to throw at the opponent (e.g. should it attack will, fort, reflex or touch AC and which damage type should it be).
SR is just a symptom of a huge imbalance between casters and martials, not in overall power, but in approach. Caster can do a good bit of damage with relatively little investment, but also get to have a lot of utility while they're at it. Martial characters get very little in the way of utility abilities in comparison, and often have to invest a lot to keep their damage up. This means that mechanics that counter casters are strong and arbitrary in order to keep down their overall effectiveness compared to a martial character.
If you wanted to get very deep into the system and make the "right" fix, you would force casters to invest to get good at damage, buff, control, etc separately so that they can't have all of it in one build, then create (Su) ways that martial characters can get such utility and buff abilities as well (and grant some small amount without costing effectiveness in their main shtick!). That way both sides can invest in some balance of utility, damage, etc and "lol you fail" mechanics like SR can be removed or scaled back as they are no longer necessary as balance mechanisms.
The caster and martial side don't have to work the same, but they should get a small percentage of effectiveness out of any given area (buff, damage, control, etc) without investment (versus almost no pre-investment effectiveness for martial and nearly all of it for caster as we have now). In addition, each should have to invest heavily to get the full effectiveness out of any given one of those (again, casters get most of their effectiveness with no expenditure). As an aside, the cost I'm referring to is feats, selectable class abilities, ability score distribution, etc.
In the case the OP has, however, he simply has an evoker (well, sorcerer, but with that pattern) that wants to be able to toss out fireballs and expect them to work and do at least some non-zero damage against those not immune to fire (and who don't have evasion, I suppose). Fixing their situation, for their one game, only requires removing the SR for AoE energy damage spells. Such a change should cause little to no imbalance and make their game much more fun for that player.
PS: As an unfortunate consequence, which Elamdri notes, some casters are punished much more heavily by SR than others. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this is why very few casters prepare/know much in the way of direct offensive magic. It is simply not worth the risk to have to deal with energy resistance, energy immunity, SR, spell immunity, and saves (especially with evasion being so easy to get and applying to so much), compared to buffers or indirect casters who deal with literally no obstacles except a save, and usually not even that. Or to put it another way: Why cast Slow when you can cast Haste?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree SR is a generally clunky mechanic; Casters are incredibly powerful at higher levels, even "evokers" and SR is one of the few defenses against them.
As the DM of this group, you control how many creatures with SR or Spell Immunity they face. You control how many of these creatures they fight in a day. Sure, fighting a creature with SR sucks when it's the end of the dungeon day and you're out of spells. But in a 15 minutes of adventuring a day type situation, a caster who has their full spell alotment available can just nova and end the whole encounter in a single turn. SR is meant to prevent that.
If it's becoming a problem for your game, don't get rid of it, just use it more sparringly. There are LOADS of monsters who don't get it. For the times they have to use it, your players have to be a bit more creative.
That golem has spell immunity and all I have is a few fireballs? Well perhaps I should blast the floor/ceiling; I might colapse the floor with a few well placed blasts. That demon has SR and all I have is Shocking Grasps? Well I'd prefer not to get close, but I can hit his equipment.
|
|
But you see the logical equivalent for SR is not DR it is AC, casters don't need to deal with AC but casters do and sufficiently high AC can shut down a melee fighter. So if you are making this change then to keep things balanced you should remove AC as well.
Many spells do have to hit AC as well. Whether this is an issue depends on the monster, but it's never a foregone conclusion. Often these spells *also* have to deal with SR, spell immunity, energy resistance, energy immunity and/or saves.
While I agree SR is a generally clunky mechanic; Casters are incredibly powerful at higher levels, even "evokers" and SR is one of the few defenses against them.
As I said earlier, I understand its use as a balancing mechanism for casting as it stands now. I just wish casting wasn't designed in such a way as to require SR as a balancing mechanism.
For the OP's game, removing it for a subset of spells would be fine. The right fix would be to redesign casting so that SR is not necessary to balance it out. There would probably need to be some amount of redesign of martial characters in there too. Not exactly in the scope of a simple house-rule.
That golem has spell immunity and all I have is a few fireballs? Well perhaps I should blast the floor/ceiling; I might colapse the floor with a few well placed blasts. That demon has SR and all I have is Shocking Grasps? Well I'd prefer not to get close, but I can hit his equipment.
SR is only one step of the problem. Martials have 2 steps: AC and DR, the latter of which is usually ineffective at doing more than slowing them down slightly (if it functions at all), and the former of which isn't a big deal in later levels. Casters have up to 4 steps: AC, energy resistance, spell resistance and saves. AC is slightly easier for a caster due to using touch AC, but energy resistance is often immunity rather than mere resistance and cannot be bypassed like DR can. Then you have SR and saves. With this many defenses at play, a caster is often best off not even thinking about the offensive option and instead go with buffing the allies or other forms of indirect combat.
My main gripes against SR are how it's very "on or off" and the fact that it's just another straw on the camel's back making offensive magic a relatively poor choice of specialty.
I'm with Stabbitty on this one,
Melee attacks have to beat AC, but you don't get a save vs melee attacks.
Some spells also have to beat AC, but those that don't allow for a saving throw instead.
Melee attacks can be thwarted by DR. Many magical attacks can be thwarted by resistance to [energy] instead.
That leaves a whole category of spells without an equivalent to DR, mainly mind-affecting spells (like charm and dominate) and body-affecting spells (like flesh to stone and baleful polymorph). I see the niche for a line of defense equivalent to AC or DR for such spells, and I understand where SR comes from (older editions and all), but I too am getting frustrated with SR.
A significant bonus on the save, or a re-roll, would do the trick to illustrate supernatural resistance to magic IMO.
'findel
|
How about an alternative system?
Spelldampening:
A creature with spell dampening reduces the casterlevel of an incoming spell by this amount.For damage spells it means you just reduce the number of dice accordingly.
Fireball:
7th level caster, Monster has spell dampening 4. Monster takes 3d6 damage.
15th level caster, Monster has spell dampening 6. Monster takes 9d6 damage.For other spells (like hold Monster), if the casterlevel is reduced so low the spell could not be cast anymore (level 9 for Hold Monster) then the spell fails.
This removes the random element. You are either strong enough to affect the creature or not. And if your high level spells don't get through you can use lower level spells.
this is a neat concept. dotting.
this is a neat concept. dotting.How about an alternative system?
Spelldampening:
A creature with spell dampening reduces the casterlevel of an incoming spell by this amount.For damage spells it means you just reduce the number of dice accordingly.
Fireball:
7th level caster, Monster has spell dampening 4. Monster takes 3d6 damage.
15th level caster, Monster has spell dampening 6. Monster takes 9d6 damage.For other spells (like hold Monster), if the casterlevel is reduced so low the spell could not be cast anymore (level 9 for Hold Monster) then the spell fails.
This removes the random element. You are either strong enough to affect the creature or not. And if your high level spells don't get through you can use lower level spells.
Likewise, and speaking as someone who likes SR and LOVES magic-immune Golems and Wisps.
So a monster with spell dampening might be immune to Mage's Disjunction but vulnerable to Dispel Magic?
The idea with the spell dampening is, that when you cast a low level spell you have a lot juice left over (for example a Fireball caps at 10 dice... every caster level above is more or less useless).
When encountering a creature with SD you can use the extra juice to pierce through the enemy's resistance. This means SD protects you from higher level magic (unless it is direct damage or otherwise directly level dependent)
If you do not like the instant fail option for spells like Flesh to Stone or Dominate Monster you can adjust it slightly.
You just give a 5% fail chance for each spell level you are below the minimum to cast the spell.
Lets say a level 20 Wizard wants to use "Dominate Monster" on a Pit Fiend.
Usually it would be that the Wizard has to roll 11 or higher (SR = 31) which is a 50% Chance.
With Spell dampening the value would have to be significantly lower (even half would be a lot). So lets say 12 (which should be the highest SD you would ever encounter outside of Epic gameplay).
Wizard needs to be level 17 to cast Dominate, so he is 9 levels below the minimum. This gives him a 45% failure chance for his spell. Slightly better than the other version.
Of course feats that help penetrate spell resistance work normally by simply raising your casterlevel for this purpose.
@Roberta: Disjunction does not allow SR.
Additional Note:
Thanks for the nice words, but I did not come up with this. My brother did.
And I like the idea of low level spells still seeing use at higher levels. Because unless its long lasting buffs or when the battle is so long the big spell slots run out, most casters won't bother with their low level spells in endgame.
However I can see the reason that the most powerful magic should also be the most devastating even to other casters/magic resistant creatures.
So you have player that refuse to learn ways around SR and spell imunity.... and will not change their spell selection and play style.
So they keep walking in to door and falling in te same trap over and over again.
This show that either do not know the game or can not think.
So you as the DM tell the player that cast spell pick new spell or new tatics. I they fail to do so kill them and do not allow them to make new spell caster. Cause they are not smart enought to play one.
So you have player that refuse to learn ways around SR and spell imunity.... and will not change their spell selection and play style.
So they keep walking in to door and falling in te same trap over and over again.
This show that either do not know the game or can not think.
So you as the DM tell the player that cast spell pick new spell or new tatics. I they fail to do so kill them and do not allow them to make new spell caster. Cause they are not smart enought to play one.
One sin/vice: Pride.
It's called Spell Penetration. Getting past SR isn't even hard as long as you spend a few resources to ensure your magic will work. By the time 10+ comes around you should have something altering your ability to pierce SR. If you don't it's your own fault.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with those that think it's all the player's fault. SR is a definitely one of the clunkier mechanics of the game, and a big reason that evocation spells tend to be treated as secondary; figuring out how to adjust it to be a bit more user friendly is certainly a worthy goal. As it is, magic users face a lot of situations where they have to get past multiple dice rolls and/or resistances/immunities in order for their spells to have any kind of effect at all, and that can be very discouraging for a lot of players, as well as adding a layer of complexity to NPC casters that many DMs don't want or need. To say that the system as it currently stands is fine is to take a very lenient view of the system's many flaws, something some people are perfectly comfortable doing and others aren't.
That being said, simply getting rid of SR causes a lot of problems of it's own, and is probably not the best solution. The spell dampening idea above is a good start, but probably more complex than what many people are looking for. I like the simpler idea of saying that if it resistance or immunity applies, SR does not; it maintains a check on the raw power of spells while removing what many consider to to be an unnecessary, and unwieldy, hurdle to playing magic users.
I personally think SR should be an exceptional ability that only few monsters have. So a battle with a monster like this should be similar to a battle with a Troll. It is something different for which you have to be prepared.
SR is kinda like Dark Vision in the sense that a lot of creatures have access to it. You can hardly can use any tactics with putting out lights since everyone will be able to see regardless.
____________________________
And if the Spell Dampening is too complicated then how about this version?
Magic Resistant: Some creatures are more resistant to magical effects than others. A magic resistant creature has the following effects.
Against a spell that deals direct damage, the creature subtracts its resistance value from the damage dealt. This ability not only applies to the 5 elemental effects, but also to force, negative and positive energy damage. If a creature is naturally resistant against a certain element, both resistances stack. Resistance gained from magic items or spells does not stack (use the higher value).
If a creature is subject to a spell effect that has a duration, subtract its resistance value from the duration of the effect. The duration subtracted is the same used as basis for the spell. So a spell that lasts rounds/lvl subtracts rounds, spells with minutes/lvl subtract minutes etc...
This spell effect always lasts at least one round though.
If a creature is subject to a permanent spell effect, it has one more chance to make its save on the following round with an enhancement bonus to the save equal to its magic resistance. This is a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity. The creature is allowed a save even if the original spell did not.
If it fails the 2nd save the effect is permanent.
I hate SR as it's a mechanic that just adds more die rolling that slows down combat and is is usually beaten anyway. Seriously, I think I've seen an SR check failed maybe once, and it was by an unoptimized multiclassed caster versus a very high CR creature. And if you want to run a game at higher levels, it is especially useless and serves no purpose other than slowing the game down as we go, "wait, roll spell resistance" for the umpteenth time.
I haven't had a chance to test out alternatives, but most of my thoughts have been revolving around giving creatures with SR limited magical immunities instead. So instead of "SR 19", they are "immune to spells of the charm subschool" or "they take only half damage from evocation spells" or stuff like that. It would be molded to fit the flavor of the individual creature.
Alternately, saves could be circumstantially boosted. My experience is often monster saves are too low anyway (as much as some of my players would claim otherwise, because ONCE a high CR monster actually made a saving throw against their spell in the last ten years of our playing together, and obviously if it's POSSIBLE for them to make a saving throw then their saves are too high). Giving them a boost (+4 to saves vs poison, etc.) would also help reflect the flavor of their being resistant to certain things without adding extra die rolls.
Now, I don't mind golems' spell immunity because unlike SR it's easier to manage and adjudicate and it requires no extra die rolling. And all it means is that the players need to find spells that are "SR NO" and use them. Clever players who plan ahead can do all kinds of things to golems regardless of spell immunity. Heck, I've seen plain old grease used to great effect against iron golems. I'd actually like to see MORE creatures with spell immunity than have SR (but still have it be very rare--very high ranking outsiders and the like).
I'm okay with the flavor that golems are spell resistant because it's easy enough to imagine their creators put in strong anti-spell wards to protect their golems from being destroyed. If golems weren't spell immune, you could do things like just try to dispel/disjunct them and make them fall apart, and I don't really like that idea. I think of golems kind of working in layers--they have the magic in their core that operates them, and then there's a different layer of magic that is the protective ward that defends them from all other magic.
|
Honestly, if your casters have a problem with spell resistance and saves they shouldn't be playing a caster. If they're complaining that a monster is immune to all they spells THEY have, not magic in it's entirety, then that's their fault (or yours if you threw the monster at them on a whim and they had no prep time) and it's part of the game.
There are countless solutions for a caster to overcome SR, and many of them have been listed already. Any caster worth their spells is going to have scrolls of uncommonly or rarely cast, but essential, spells as a contingency plan. If the elemental bloodline sorcerer complains that they're centralized around evocation and they've nothing to get around SR or immunity, shrug your shoulders and say "so sorry". They should at least have a few buff spells and a crossbow.
To put things in a bit of perspective for you, I'm running Skull and Shackles right now. One of the group is playing a Wayang Rogue, focused primarily on ranged damage, an 8 str, and no ranks in his swim skill. When they were told they were going to have to fight in flooded underground caverns he exclaimed "But my character is going to be completely useless". *Shrugs* Not my fault. I didn't build the character.
There are tools in the game already for them to overcome these mechanics. Instead of handing them an ezmode game, refer them to such rules. There are feats that give them bonuses when overcoming SR, increase the DCs of their saves, scrolls of spells they don't have on their spell list can be invaluable, and even if all they have are evocation spells against a high SR monster nothing is preventing them from attacking the environment. Drop a tree limb on the monster, or a chandelier, corrode the stairs the enemy is on with acid spells, etc. There are always options...
Edit: It's also fair to point out that, while many people have been making the point that melee have to overcome AC and deal with DR (maybe) and casters have to deal with AC with some spells, Resistances, and then SR on top of it all, you also have to consider the power behind a spellcaster. Melee characters generally just do damage or perform some type of action that facilitates damage (trip, grapple, etc.) As a caster you can change the entire battlefield. Polymorph spells can reduce an opponent to a non-threat, disintegrate can change the terrain of the environment to your advantage, wall spells can both hinder foes and help allies at the same time. Casters need to get out of the "Lol boom headshot" mindset and really take a look at their spell lists. There are SO many things you can do to make fights trivial because of the boon you bring to the party in forms other than damage.
However, the Elemental Sorcerer is getting hit pretty hard. The Elemental blood line kind of lends itself to evocation magic. And most (if not all) evocation magic can be resisted with SR, which also means that immunity stops them cold.I guess what I am looking for here is advice on how to tone things down to the point where my magic users can be useful in direct damage combat without totally rewriting the rules.
To be honest, if I were writing my own adventures I would probably just not use the monsters that can create this problem. I am however, running an adventure path because I currently do not have a lot of time to prep for games.
As others have pointed out, exempting evocation spells from SR can work pretty well, particularly since evocation spell damage generally hasn't kept up with increases in monster hit points over the editions (and into PF). I would suggest, perhaps, replacing some of the creature's SR with energy resistance (if they don't already have it) to retain some element of the creature's resistance to magic if you feel that's important.
SR has always kind of been a red-headed stepchild of a rule. It is definitely there to act as a foil for spellcasters whose spells are otherwise pretty potent compared to individual attacks by martial characters. But it can be a challenge to get right. If the PC invests the feats, SR isn't much more than a speed bump, but without the feats it can be pretty formidable and frustrating, particularly since they must beat the SR AND then the target must miss the save. That said, I think I still prefer a game with some element of it frustrating the spellcasters.
If anything, one of 3e's and PF's biggest weaknesses compared to 1e and 2e is the perception that it's an extremely caster-friendly edition - friendly to the point of being heavily in caster favor. Much of that stems from the frustrations and uncertainties of casting from previous editions being alleviated because they were "unfun". With cyclical initiative and short casting actions, it's a lot harder to interrupt a caster in 3e/PF than in 1e/2e. Adverse casting conditions can be overcome whereas they couldn't in earlier editions. Save DCs are no longer solely dependent on the target's might but can be raised in the caster's favor quite easily. It's generally easier and cheaper to get spells into your repertoire. Crafting spell-use items is easier and, in the case of scrolls, dirt cheap enabling a caster to expand his utility. So, as I see it, getting rid of one of the last elements to stymie a spellcaster might be a bad idea.
|
|
Magic Resistant: Some creatures are more resistant to magical effects than others. A magic resistant creature has the following effects.
Against a spell that deals direct damage, the creature subtracts its resistance value from the damage dealt. This ability not only applies to the 5 elemental effects, but also to force, negative and positive energy damage. If a creature is naturally resistant against a certain element, both resistances stack. Resistance gained from magic items or spells does not stack (use the higher value).
If a creature is subject to a spell effect that has a duration, subtract its resistance value from the duration of the effect. The duration subtracted is the same used as basis for the spell. So a spell that lasts rounds/lvl subtracts rounds, spells with minutes/lvl subtract minutes etc...
This spell effect always lasts at least one round though.If a creature is subject to a permanent spell effect, it has one more chance to make its save on the following round with an enhancement bonus to the save equal to its magic resistance. This is a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity. The creature is allowed a save even if the original spell did not.
If it fails the 2nd save the effect is permanent.
This could work, though since spells generally do more than 1 point of damage per caster level and duration is almost always 1 unit per caster level, this will have a greater proportional effect on reducing spell duration than spell damage. And the bonus to the save vs the permanent effect is likely to be even more significant proportionally. Maybe double the resistance to magical damage and halve the saving throw bonus? You'd also have to set the value equal to SR-10, since SR opposes d20+CL while this system generally directly opposes CL.
Also it leaves out the category of instantaneous spells that don't deal damage. Not sure if that's a significant category.
I haven't had a chance to test out alternatives, but most of my thoughts have been revolving around giving creatures with SR limited magical immunities instead. So instead of "SR 19", they are "immune to spells of the charm subschool" or "they take only half damage from evocation spells" or stuff like that. It would be molded to fit the flavor of the individual creature.
Alternately, saves could be circumstantially boosted. My experience is often monster saves are too low anyway (as much as some of my players would claim otherwise, because ONCE a high CR monster actually made a saving throw against their spell in the last ten years of our playing together, and obviously if it's POSSIBLE for them to make a saving throw then their saves are too high). Giving them a boost (+4 to saves vs poison, etc.) would also help reflect the flavor of their being resistant to certain things without adding extra die rolls.
That could also work, though it's a lot more complex to implement.
+X on saves vs spells could also be a quick and dirty way to represent a more general magic resistance and reduce dice rolling, though that would mean that spells that allow SR but not a saving throw would suddenly become more effective.
Magic Damage Reduction? Save-or-suck and energy resistance are already some kind of Spell/magic resistance.
Something not much different that could be really fun...
Spell Reflect:
Monsters with a spell reflect score duplicate the effects of any spell that targets them that is affected by spell reflection. The caster functions as the target of the duplicated spell, which functions in all ways as the original spell. A successful caster level check (DC equal to Spell Reflect score) overcomes spell reflection.