Spell Resistance and rolling a "1".


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

I think you misunderstood my question again, because that isn't an answer to it.

But it's a moot point now, as the devs have spoken: no response required.

I understood your question, I don't agree with the premise behind it.

And attack is a specific term describing a specific thing. The caster level check would just be a standard check, except for the description of it being against something "like armor class" against "magical attack"

Magical Attack isn't Attack anymore than Natural Armor is Armor. So something modifying "Attack" has as much relevance to "Magical Attack" as something modifying "Armor" would have on "Natural Armor"

If you know it's not an attack and X, Y, and Z doesn't apply, why do you think the rule of 1/20 applies?


Why is this even still being discussed, the official response was already given, and - to the surprise of exactly two people - caster level checks are not attack rolls.

Liberty's Edge

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

I think you misunderstood my question again, because that isn't an answer to it.

But it's a moot point now, as the devs have spoken: no response required.

Oh, if only that would be the end of it. I'm pretty sure Shallowsoul will find some way to spin this as the Devs agreeing with him.

I'll toss in another vote for "like AC" not meaning the same thing as "follows all of the exactly same rules as an attack role vs. Armor Class." Like a couple folks have pointed out, if we assume the 1/20 rule comes in, that raises the question of whether any other rules apply as well.

Why would it raise that question? It isn't an "attack" any more than it is a "save". It is a description of a spell that is effected by spell resistence.

The key sentence is

"The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks."

"Magical attacks" being, presumably any spell that doesn't go through spell resistance.

Again, what is the reason to add the "Like Armor Class" sentences? If you remove that sentence, what you describe is exactly as written. If it is flavor, why say "Armor Class" rather than "Armor",

The only difference that something that is "like Armor Class" has from any other check is the auto-succeed and auto-fail, at least as far as I can tell.

So if you assume it works "like armor class against magical attacks" you assume that it follows the rules for armor class.

Magical attacks are a description of types of spells. You don't roll a "Magical Attack", you roll a caster level check. An "Attack" is against Armor Class, not things "Like" Armor Class.

What is the purpose of the sentence "The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks."?

It isn't reinforcing the mechanics the other side is arguing for, as if those are the intended mechanics, it is clearer without the sentence.

If it is fluff, it is horribly written fluff containing game mechanics rather than descriptions. Removing the word "Class" would mean it was flavor descriptive, but including the word "Class" indicates mechanical intents.

And so if it isn't fluff, and it isn't clarification, it is either a mistake or it has intent. And if it has intent, what is the difference between something acting "like Armor Class" and something not acting "like Armor Class?"

As far as I can tell, it is that Armor Class is subject to the Auto fail/Auto succeed.

Why would they do this? Well if the intent is to have Spell Resistance function as an Armor Class equivalent for spells, the better question it seems to me is why wouldn't they?


So, the argument is apparently:

SR is subject to auto-failure on a 1 because ciretose thinks it is more likely that some words were chosen to convey a hidden rules meaning (why would the 1/20 thing not be mentioned specifically, then?) rather than just being clumsy language.

Since no answer was needed, can you accept now that it was just poorly written?

Liberty's Edge

mplindustries wrote:

So, the argument is apparently:

SR is subject to auto-failure on a 1 because ciretose thinks it is more likely that some words were chosen to convey a hidden rules meaning (why would the 1/20 thing not be mentioned specifically, then?) rather than just being clumsy language.

Since no answer was needed, can you accept now that it was just poorly written?

It was either poorly written with a sentence that serves no purpose, or it was well written and is misunderstood.

I don't think it is a hidden rule, I've never had this be unclear to any group I've played with. We all know how Armor Class works, so if something works like armor class, that has always been very clear to us.

If, by design, it is supposed to be like Armor Class against spells, I again ask why wouldn't it work that way? Why would it be designed to work like Armor Class, but not work like Armor Class?

What issue or problem is everyone concerned about if Spell Resistance works like Armor Class, therefore failing on a 1 and auto succeeding on a 20?

It seems like the argument on the other side is that it is throw away language. That is possible I guess, and if that is the case take out that sentence in the next printing, as I can't see any purpose it serves.

As to why it isn't answered, I think the staff is getting sick of Shallowsoul's questions. I think this was a good one, I commend him for asking, but boy who cried wolf and all that.


It does not work that way for the reasons I already mentioned. The nat 1/nat 20 rule is not based on AC, but on the attack roll and the save roll.

The defending number does not determine when it comes into play. The actual roll does.

Otherwise attack rolls against CMD would not matter, since CMD is not AC. It just uses some of the same modifiers. However the common point is that both CMD, and AC have to deal with the attack roll, and that is where the nat 1 or 20 rules come into play.

Silver Crusade

@ Ciretose:

So 'SR is like AC'?

But AC does not have an auto-fail/succeed mechanic; it is not rolled. So you cannot, by 'understanding' SR as like AC (which is a static number), conclude that therefore CL is like an attack roll for one specific mechanic that you pulled out of your arse!

So, what is the offending sentence there for?

The CRB is not only a reference document for the rules, like a good DM's screen should be; the CRB also is read by people learning the game!

So, instead of starting a 'd20 mechanic vs DC' explanation from scratch, it refers to the best known, most easily understood and most common use of the d20 mechanic as a short way of saying 'roll 1d20, add CL+mods vs SR', to re-inforce that mechanic which had just been explained.

When us experienced players look at that section of the CRB now, the 'is like AC' part is superfluous; but it's not there for us, it's there for people new to the concept so that they can get their heads round it more easily.

You've been accused of being a 'troll' before, and I can see why, but I don't think you are. I just think your mind works in a very different way from the rest of us. It's not just this thread, it's many, many threads where you have demonstrated this tendancy.

This doesn't make you a bad person, but it obviously impairs your ability to empathise with the rest of us. This is why you get the response you do.

It would benefit you to come to terms with this, so that you can understand that the rest of us don't experience logic in the way you so often demonstrate.

I wish you the best of luck in meeting this challenge.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not every word in the CRB need have purely mechanical intent. Sometimes it's there to help the reader get in the proper mindset. "Oh hey, these are spell defenses that are different than saves!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm waiting for the dead horse to post, but in his absence, I have two points to toss out:

1: Spell penetration is a check. It is called out as a check. Attack rolls are attack rolls, listed as such. Combat maneuvers, despite many calling them combat maneuver checks (a holdover from 3.5's grapple check verbiage, I imagine), are explicitly called out as being attacks (2nd paragraph under "Performing a combat maneuver).

Saving throws are mentioned as being "like" attacks, but the following wording makes that it is only meant in relation to how the total bonus is assembled. Saving throws later have an entry stating the Automatic Hit and Miss (labeled appropriately Success and Failure in the case of Saves) rules apply to them.

Spell penetration is not an attack roll or a saving throw, they are a check, like a skill, ability, or level check. None of these contain the bolded entry denoting them as adhering to the Automatic Hit and Miss / Success or Failure.

2: The Core Rules are written with the intent that entry level players, with minimal to zero RPG knowledge, will be able to easily and quickly learn the basic aspects of the game to facilitate play and interest. They were and are not designed for veteran gamers with the playtime equivalent of a doctorate to disassemble and reassemble like some sort of Lego kit. Use of comparison and exception is a predictable and expected method for achieving the goal of "entry level friendly". This is like this, except it doesn't do this. The majority of the Pathfinder ruleset, of most RPG rulesets in existence, operate on this method of explanation.

tldr: +1 Spell Pen isn't an attack roll.


ciretose wrote:
It was either poorly written with a sentence that serves no purpose, or it was well written and is misunderstood.

If the majority were misunderstanding it the devs wouldn't have said it needed no clarification. "Needs no clarification" means that the consensus interpretation is right.

Silver Crusade

Since there are two sides of the coin which side does the "no response required" favor?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The side that more than two people are arguing for.

Silver Crusade

For the Devs: How come Armor Class was specifically mentioned in the entry?

If it is meant to be a skill like check then how come AC was mentioned? Why bother?


In regards to "magical attacks," how about this for logic?

If you cast a Fireball (not attack roll) against a target without SR, is it a magical attack?

Does it only become a magical attack when the target has SR?

Attack rolls against AC don't work this way--EVERYONE has AC, and you always make an attack roll when trying to hit someone.

The problem here is that "like AC" and "magical attacks" are being used descriptively and not as game terms. What's an "attack"? It's a readily understood offensive action.

If somewhere a line was printed about a room that read: "...the water level has increased," would you be trying to figure out whether the water had class levels or racial HD, whether it gained BAB, saves and skill points?

If somewhere a line was printed about a political debate in which two opposed politicians were arguing, and one politician was described as "...attacking his character," would you be trying to figure out which weapon he used to do so? What his attack bonus was? Whether the other politician was flat-footed or not, and what his AC would be?

We're still working within the bounds of the English (or translated to other) language, and the developers have stated many times that, in addition to trying to write coherent rules text, they are ALSO trying to write in a way that flows and isn't repetitive, and this is generally understandable. That means using synonyms and language that even someone new to gaming can understand.

Earlier in the book, Armor Class is described as being a static defense number possessed by your foe against which you roll an attack. If you meet or exceed the AC value, your attack lands. SR is compared to AC to convey that notion: that it is a static defense against which you must roll and meet or exceed.

They ALSO specifically call out the auto-fail/auto-succeed on 1/20 for attack rolls, saves, and CMB rolls in the areas in which THOSE are described. Don't you think that they'd have done the same in the SR section if it was relevant? Specific trumps general: generally, you roll against a static DC (in the case of AC, SR, ability checks and skills), but specifically, you auto-fail/succeed when doing so against AC. Since it isn't mentioned that this rule applies to skill checks or caster level checks, the rule doesn't apply here.

Where else in the rules is the only way of identifying the proper way to adjudicate a VERY COMMON game experience achieved by reading 3 or more sections of the book dozens of pages apart from each other? You have to read the SR section, then flip BACK to the AC section, then flip to the attack rolls section in order to come to this conclusion, while virtually everything else in the books either explain themselves where they appear, or point you explicitly to where the further explanation can be found, and nowhere, other than in one line of explanatory flavor text is SR likened to AC, and nowhere is it ever likened to an attack ROLL.


Further, does casting Create Pit at a creature count as a magical attack, even though it requires no attack roll, and doesn't check SR?

Invisibility would think so:

Quote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

So why would they use "attack" here if they don't intend for it to use the rules that govern attacks?

Answer: Because the word "attack" has connotations outside of the game rules that make sense to the reader, and is therefore useful in describing such an action.


shallowsoul wrote:

For the Devs: How come Armor Class was specifically mentioned in the entry?

If it is meant to be a skill like check then how come AC was mentioned? Why bother?

Maybe because 'skill like' checks aren't typically used in combat to resolve combat actions, where as a similar but very different 'check,' like rolling equal to or over a number in combat (AC) regularly is?

That or they could compare it to something it isn't like (or is less like at least), a skill check for example, and make it more confusing for the rest of us...

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Serum wrote:
Not every word in the CRB need have purely mechanical intent. Sometimes it's there to help the reader get in the proper mindset. "Oh hey, these are spell defenses that are different than saves!"

Serum had a really good post here, so I thought I'd quote it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like - Often a stand in for the subordinating conjunction as if.

He is flailing around like he were drowning
He is flailing around as if he were drowning

The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks.
The defender's spell resistance is as if an arm...uh oh! That doesn't make sense?!?!?

BUT WAIT!! HOPE IS NOT LOST!!

He looks like a fish <---simile
He looks as if a fish <---not coherent because it was a simile and not a stand in for a subordinating conjunction

spell resistance is like an Armor Class <----simile
spell resistance is as if an Armor Class <---not coherent because it was a simile and not a stand in for a subordinating conjunction

TL;DR
Similes

EDIT: Removed a joke that may have come across as overly belligerent.


WPharolin wrote:

Like - Often a stand in for the subordinating conjunction as if.

He is flailing around like he were drowning
He is flailing around as if he were drowning

The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks.
The defender's spell resistance is as if an arm...uh oh! That doesn't make sense?!?!?

BUT WAIT!! HOPE IS NOT LOST!!

He looks like a fish <---simile
He looks as if a fish <---not coherent because it was a simile and not a stand in for a subordinating conjunction

spell resistance is like an Armor Class <----simile
spell resistance is as if an Armor Class <---not coherent because it was a simile and not a stand in for a subordinating conjunction

TL;DR
Similes

EDIT: Removed a joke that may have come across as overly belligerent.

Your avatar is very appropriate!

Silver Crusade

Since so many are commenting in this, I'd like to comment too.

I have marked multiple posts in this topic as favorites. Amusing stuff over such an obvious case!

Liberty's Edge

If it said "like armor" I would agree it was for flavor and descriptive purposes.

It doesn't. It says "Armor Class" which is a mechanic, not a visualization.

If it didn't include the sentence at all I would agree.

It does.

For all the claims of me not answering questions, to this point no one has answered what the point of the sentence "The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks." would be if it is not intended to be read as Spell Resistance is mechanically like armor class against magical attacks.

And the only difference I can see between a check and armor class.

I know it is much easier to try to personalize the discussion, rather than answer it directly, but I have responded to the questions that have been asked of me thus far.

So does anyone have an answer other than "poor writing" or it the argument of the other side just that it's a typo?

Liberty's Edge

An example of like

"Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance."

So we know that spell-llke abilities are "like" spells, and work just "like" spells, with the exceptions listed.

Is that also a simile for flavor?

EDIT: Is fast healing "like" natural healing, or is that also flavor? Are they actually similar or metaphorical?

If it were like "armor" then it would be a simile to something that actually exists and can be comparatively visualized.

It is like "Armor Class" which is a mechanic in a role playing game.


ciretose wrote:

An example of like

"Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance."

So we know that spell-llke abilities are "like" spells, and work just "like" spells, with the exceptions listed.

Is that also a simile for flavor?

Now you're just being obtuse. The above quote goes to great pains to demonstrate what sort of parallel is being drawn there. For one, it says, "just like," to indicate that it is asking you to use spells as a basis for how spell-like abilities work, and then it ALSO goes on to delineate how they are similar and how they differ.

Quote:


EDIT: Is fast healing "like" natural healing, or is that also flavor? Are they actually similar or metaphorical?

In this case it's irrelevant, unless you think there is some confusion there as well. It's like natural healing in that it occurs naturally, and I presume could be turned off by some...curse or whatever that disallows natural healing, but it's clear that fast healing's similarity ends there.

Liberty's Edge

Again, I ask if it was a simile to armor, why say Armor.

If it is like "Armor Class" in what way is it like Armor Class. Armor Class is a game mechanic, not a descriptive. In the examples above it goes on to dilinate how they differ, not how they are similar.

Because the word "like" indicates they are similar, and then you separate out the ways they are different.

A spell-like ability works just like a spell 'except' in these ways.

Fast healing work just like 'natural healing' except in these ways.

If spell resitance is 'like' Armor Class, in what ways is it like Armor Class. Again, not armor (a descriptive) but armor class (a game mechanic).

As far as I can tell, the only way Armor Class is different from another check is the auto-fail/auto-succeed rules.

If it is treated like any other check, the sentance isn't needed. The sentance before it covers that. It says "If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature."

Which is what a normal check is. You can end there, there is no need for the part about armor class if that is all there is to it.

So again I'll ask, what is the purpose of the sentence "The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks."?

If it were a simile for flavor comparison to armor, it would say Armor, not armor class. So in what way is Armor Class different so that saying Spell Resistance similar to Armor Class against magical attack means anything? The only difference I can see is that rolls against armor class are subject to autofail and autosucceed. Are there other differences I'm missing that this sentence is alluding to or is your argument is that the sentence has no purpose? They just threw it in for fun?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

shallowsoul wrote:
If the devs rule nay then so be it,

And yet, when the devs made their ruling by marking the thread "no response required" (presumably due to the majority being correct, otherwise such a marking makes no sense), do we get a "so be it" response? No, we get argument:

shallowsoul wrote:

For the Devs: How come Armor Class was specifically mentioned in the entry?

If it is meant to be a skill like check then how come AC was mentioned? Why bother?

It's okay to be wrong; that's the path to becoming more right. Accept it with grace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fact that you cannot effectively respond to the queries about why other aspects of an attack roll do not apply means you are either just trying to be obtuse, or are incapable of using logic.

We can get very rudimentary about logic here if we need to.

What you are stating is:

If A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C. That's logical (your case is not clearly this, as most people agree, but let's say it was).

However if B implies C and D and E and F (all of the rules which apply to an attack roll), then A has to also imply all of the associated cases.

So if the SR check is an attack roll, then every roll which applies to attack rolls applies to SR checks. You cannot cherry pick one association among many if that is your line of reasoning.

Thus is, as you argue, the SR check works like an attack roll and can fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20, then all other implications of it being an attack roll must apply. It must take a -4 if the target is in melee, it must be buffed by attack buffs, it must be subject to concealment, etc. You cannot separate this baby from the bathwater.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Among other things, ciretose wrote:
If it is like "Armor Class" in what way is it like Armor Class. Armor Class is a game mechanic, not a descriptive.

It is like AC in that SR is a static target number.

Quote:
As far as I can tell, the only way Armor Class is different from another check is the auto-fail/auto-succeed rules.

AC is not 'another check! It is not a check at all!

Quote:
So again I'll ask, what is the purpose of the sentence "The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks."?

I'm astonished that you have the unmitigated temerity to willfully ignore all the above posts that answer this very question! The offending sentence is there so that first time readers can quickly learn the mechanic, be referring to the similar mechanic that they learned reading the part about attacks vs AC.

Quote:
The only difference I can see is that rolls against armor class are subject to autofail and autosucceed.

'There are none so blind as those who will not see!'

There are many differences between attack rolls and CL checks! What the rest of us find impossible to understand is that you can only see one!

If the 'offending sentence' had said, 'CL checks are like attack rolls' then you would have had at least one leg to stand on, because attack rolls do have the auto-fail/succeed mechanic! But the 'offending sentence' does not refer to the attack roll mechanic at all! The only mechanic it references is the AC mechanic, which is a static number with no roll or auto-anything!

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Among other things, ciretose wrote:
If it is like "Armor Class" in what way is it like Armor Class. Armor Class is a game mechanic, not a descriptive.

It is like AC in that SR is a static target number.

I stopped here, because of what should be the obvious flaw in this statement.

If AC is a static number, why is it overcome by a 20, regardless, and ignored by a 1, regardless.

If I am a Level 20 fighter and I roll a 1 against AC, I miss.

If I am a level 1 Commoner and I roll a 20 against AC, I hit.

Liberty's Edge

drbuzzard wrote:

The fact that you cannot effectively respond to the queries about why other aspects of an attack roll do not apply means you are either just trying to be obtuse, or are incapable of using logic.

There is no attack roll. There is a caster level check for the magical attack, but there is no attack roll.

Since there is no attack roll, what exactly would be modified?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
drbuzzard wrote:

The fact that you cannot effectively respond to the queries about why other aspects of an attack roll do not apply means you are either just trying to be obtuse, or are incapable of using logic.

There is no attack roll. There is a caster level check for the magical attack, but there is no attack roll.

Since there is no attack roll, what exactly would be modified?

Good, you appear to be learning. There is no attack roll. Hence there is no auto fail on a 1 and auto succeed on a 20. Now we're getting somewhere.

See that was easy.

Liberty's Edge

Still no answer on the purpose of the sentance. I'm pretty sure if I was dodging a question like that, I would be called out on it since I was called out early for dodging a question I answered.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
Still no answer on the purpose of the sentance.

Multiple people answered it. The answer was "to put the reader in a helpful mindset".


ciretose wrote:
Still no answer on the purpose of the sentance. I'm pretty sure if I was dodging a question like that, I would be called out on it since I was called out early for dodging a question I answered.

The purpose of the sentence, whatever it might be, in no way creates the logical foundation you imply it does. Given that, as well as the fact that your logical construct ignores the rest of its implications, I really don't understand why you would persist other than plain mule stubbornness.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Still no answer on the purpose of the sentance.

Multiple people answered it. The answer was "to put the reader in a helpful mindset".

Please answer this honestly.

If I ever responded to you that a line that refuted my argument was included "to put the reader in a helpful mindset", what would you say to me.

And again, be honest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just walk away people, its obvious that Ciretose and Shallowsoul are trolling. This thread has gone to absurd lengths to explain the obvious and even after the FAQ request went against them they still will not give it up, because they are trolls. Any new players that come here please ignore their posts about this subject the majority have the right ruling in this case.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Still no answer on the purpose of the sentance.

Multiple people answered it. The answer was "to put the reader in a helpful mindset".

Please answer this honestly.

If I ever responded to you that a line that refuted my argument was included "to put the reader in a helpful mindset", what would you say to me.

And again, be honest.

What would I say? Depends on the line in question, but it would be something other than accusing people of purposefully evading my question.


ciretose wrote:
As to why it isn't answered, I think the staff is getting sick of Shallowsoul's questions. I think this was a good one, I commend him for asking, but boy who cried wolf and all that.

When your argument is "This isn't a garbage question that isn't even worth asking, they're just ignoring us because we ask so many other garbage questions that aren't even worth answering", it's probably time to give up.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Among other things, ciretose wrote:
If it is like "Armor Class" in what way is it like Armor Class. Armor Class is a game mechanic, not a descriptive.

It is like AC in that SR is a static target number.

I stopped here, because of what should be the obvious flaw in this statement.

If AC is a static number, why is it overcome by a 20, regardless, and ignored by a 1, regardless.

If I am a Level 20 fighter and I roll a 1 against AC, I miss.

If I am a level 1 Commoner and I roll a 20 against AC, I hit.

I really wish you'd stop 'stopping here'! This might explain a lot!

AC being 'overcome by a 20 and ignored by a 1' is not a function of the AC mechanic, but of the attack roll mechanic.

Just like the auto-fail/succeed mechanic is a function of the saving throw, not a function of the DC mechanic used as the target for that save!

If we were to follow your logic ad absurdium (because that's where it leads), if 'SR is like AC' becomes 'since the roll against the AC mechanic has auto-fail/succeed, so must the roll against SR, then 'since the roll against the DC of a saving throw has the auto-fail/succeed mechanic, then so must the roll against any DC, because we can be certain that DC is 'like' DC!

But we know that some rolls against DC use the 'auto' mechanic (saving throws) and some don't (everything else).

Logic is like the rain; it falls on every rule alike. You cannot apply your 'logic' to some things of your choice then refuse to apply it consistantly.

Now, read the rest of my above post, without stopping at the hard to answer bits, and answer them if you can!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The sentence could have just as easily said "SR is like a save DC" or "SR is like a skill or ability check DC". The way that SR is like AC is that failure to overcome this target DC results in no effect to the target. Save DCs often result in partial results. That would be a bad example. Skill checks often don't care about a DC, instead the result provides a degree of success (Craft checks are a good example of this). That would be a poor example to use, for that very reason.

So, the question then, is what numerical DC exists in the game that is always absolute success or absolute failure?

I leave the reader to guess the answer.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Still no answer on the purpose of the sentance.

Multiple people answered it. The answer was "to put the reader in a helpful mindset".

Please answer this honestly.

If I ever responded to you that a line that refuted my argument was included "to put the reader in a helpful mindset", what would you say to me.

And again, be honest.

What would I say? Depends on the line in question, but it would be something other than accusing people of purposefully evading my question.

Really? Isn't that what you accused me of doing upthread when I actually answered your question?

At this point, I am not accusing you of evading my question. I'm pointing out that I don't believe if roles were reversed the answer you provided would be accepted by you, despite the fact it is the answer you are providing.

If I said something was only included "to put the reader in a helpful mindset", you would tear me apart. And rightfully so.

And yet, that is exactly what you are saying.

Liberty's Edge

Chemlak wrote:

The sentence could have just as easily said "SR is like a save DC" or "SR is like a skill or ability check DC". The way that SR is like AC is that failure to overcome this target DC results in no effect to the target. Save DCs often result in partial results. That would be a bad example. Skill checks often don't care about a DC, instead the result provides a degree of success (Craft checks are a good example of this). That would be a poor example to use, for that very reason.

So, the question then, is what numerical DC exists in the game that is always absolute success or absolute failure?

I leave the reader to guess the answer.

If it said SR is like a save DC, wouldn't everyone agree that it would fail on a 1 and succeed on a 20?

If it said SR is like a Skill or Ability, check, I would certainly agree it would not auto-fail or auto-succeed.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
What would I say? Depends on the line in question, but it would be something other than accusing people of purposefully evading my question.
Really? Isn't that what you accused me of doing upthread when I actually answered your question?

No. I mentioned no one had answered my question, then when you said it had been answered, I simply asked where and by whom, so I could go back and read it. Then you quoted the answer, and my reply was a simple "Oh, I guess you misunderstood my question; let me rephrase". There was no accusation from me. A couple of other people accused you of dodging, but I didn't.

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Stuff

What is the only thing the attack roll is against.

What is AC defending against?

There are many things you can roll a caster level check against.

There is only one I can think of for an attack roll.

The mechanics of how an Attack Roll interacts with AC are a closed circuit. Attack roles don't effect other things.

Base attack bonus does, factors that go into attack roles do, but the attack roll is always against AC (unless I'm missing something) and AC is against attack rolls always (again, unless I am missing something).

Is there another roll against AC other than "attack"?

Is there another think "attack" is rolled against other than AC?

I'm honestly asking.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
At this point, I am not accusing you of evading my question.

Earlier, you were accusing people of evading your question: "I know it is much easier to try to personalize the discussion, rather than answer it directly" and later "Still no answer on the purpose of the sentance. I'm pretty sure if I was dodging a question like that..."

Your accusations were "personalize rather than answer" and "dodging".

What part of "At this point" is unclear?

It's like when someone upthread asked me if I thought something I said was a house rule was a rule.

I was (and am currently, in the present tense) saying that the answer you provided as to why the sentence was included would not be sufficient if roles were reversed and I said it to you.

And I am also saying others are dodging the question. You at least answered it. I give you credit for putting a position on the record.


I believe the overwhelming consensus of the "like an armor class" in the description means that spell resistance is an attribute of the target that has to be overcome by the spell caster. The only purpose of that clause is to help the player visualize how the developers viewed how spell resistance worked. There was no intent to imply that the use of spell resistance exactly reproduced the weapon attack roll vs an armored opponent. It was simply a means to help visualize what spell resistance was in an attempt to distinguish it from saving throws.

That's all. That appears absolutely clear and obvious to the overwhelming majority of players who read the rule. This contortion of logic to repeatedly insist that the simple appearance of the words "like armor class" and "attack" in the description force the mechanic to reproduce the standard attack rules because those rules also contain the words "armor class" and "attack" is seen, by most of us, as an argument that is entirely based on an incorrect parsing of the semantics of the rule.

As others have said, I think the casual reader by now should realize that the general consensus is clear, and the developers have not weighed in because they believe it is clear.


Attack rolls can be applied to things other than AC, such as CMD (via maneuvers) or other attack rolls (via Duelist Parry).

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:


Is there another think "attack" is rolled against other than AC?

I'm honestly asking.

Yes. It's been pointed out several times already that Combat Maneuver checks are also attack rolls, and can auto-succeed/fail even though they aren't rolled against AC, because that is a property of attack rolls, not a property of AC.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I believe the overwhelming consensus of the "like an armor class" in the description means that spell resistance is an attribute of the target that has to be overcome by the spell caster. The only purpose of that clause is to help the player visualize how the developers viewed how spell resistance worked. There was no intent to imply that the use of spell resistance exactly reproduced the weapon attack roll vs an armored opponent. It was simply a means to help visualize what spell resistance was in an attempt to distinguish it from saving throws.

That's all. That appears absolutely clear and obvious to the overwhelming majority of players who read the rule. This contortion of logic to repeatedly insist that the simple appearance of the words "like armor class" and "attack" in the description force the mechanic to reproduce the standard attack rules because those rules also contain the words "armor class" and "attack" is seen, by most of us, as an argument that is entirely based on an incorrect parsing of the semantics of the rule.

As others have said, I think the casual reader by now should realize that the general consensus is clear, and the developers have not weighed in because they believe it is clear.

And I respectfully disagree, but I appreciate the well thought out and clearly written rebuttal.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
What part of "At this point" is unclear?

Note that I edited out that part of my post, upon further consideration.

Quote:
I was (and am currently, in the present tense) saying that the answer you provided as to why the sentence was included would not be sufficient if roles were reversed and I said it to you.

You make a lot of claims about what other people "would" say. That, combined with how you react whenever you think someone does the same to you, is probably a big part of why people aren't responding to you very positively.

Quote:
And I am also saying others are dodging the question. You at least answered it. I give you credit for putting a position on the record.

Now this is interesting. I point out what other people have said in answer to your question, without answering the question myself, and then you say that the people whose answer I was repeating for you are dodging the question, and give me credit for answering when I actually didn't.

This would be the other main reason people don't respond very positively to you: it's quite clear that you're not reading people's posts very carefully, yet you get belligerent when you feel other people aren't reading yours.

If you chose to be more thoughtful and less assuming toward others, you might find yourself more satisfied with future discussions.

Liberty's Edge

Roberta Yang wrote:
Attack rolls can be applied to things other than AC, such as CMD (via maneuvers) or other attack rolls (via Duelist Parry).

Attack bonuses (such as Base Attack Bonuses, Dex, etc...) are applied to CMD, but those aren't attack rolls. It specifically says the maneuvers are "place of a melee attack". But if there is a specific maneuver, let me know.

Parry I'll give you, although that is a special class ability used to turn "attacking" into "defending", so in my opinion that is like referencing exceptions an inquisitor gets when using bane.

The attack roll is going against AC, and AC is the counter to the attack roll, except with a specific class skill.

101 to 150 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spell Resistance and rolling a "1". All Messageboards