At the very least, if spell resistance is still in the game, can we have it be friendly-caster friendly? Saving throws aren’t, by default, mandatory, even against your party Cleric trying to heal your butt. You don’t have to spend an action per round, every round, to let your allies buff you without you saving against their spells. The best Monk archetypes, IMO, were the ones that traded SR out for literally anything else. Not because of the concept, but its execution in the game.
Aside, it was never a flat %. The old SR was Vs a level 11 caster, and you added or subtracted 5% for each level you were from that. /Obscure ancient ruleWas it? Huh. (I didn't get to play much 2e before 3e came along.)
I did. Had a lot of fun back then! First started DMing my own games really frequently with 2E. Ahh, I loved reading that Monster Manual for fun, really. Reading about the various monsters and what they did gave me so many ideas.
They are referring to 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. I think 2nd Edition also had the percentage, but I don't recall, its been nearly 20 years.Aside, it was never a flat %. The old SR was Vs a level 11 caster, and you added or subtracted 5% for each level you were from that. /Obscure ancient ruleWas that a 1e rule? I don't see it in my 2e PHB or DMG (I could be just missing it, though).
1e is AD&D First Edition. And was long before Pathfinder existed.
From the First Edition (Orange Spine) DMG, page 228:
Magic Resistance - The percentage chance of any spell absolutely failing in the monster’s presence. It is based on the spell being cast by an 11th level magic-user, and must be adjusted upwards by 5% for each level the caster is below 11th or downwards by 5% for each level the caster is above 11th. Thus a magic resistance of 95% means that a 10th level magic-user has no possibility of affecting the monster with a spell, while a 12th level MU has a 10% chance. Even if a spell does take effect on a magic-resistant creature, the creature is then entitled to normal saving throws
The 2nd ed DMG doesn't mention anything about it scaling, so it must have been forgotten or intentionally excluded (maybe as bogging down gameplay?).
SR is definitely like that 11-th level thingie. Modernized, like how THAC0 became to-hit (which is also the same math, just optimized to human-friendly stuffs).
Well one of the philosophies we seem to be seeing for PF2 is only 1d20 rolled per attack so if that is the case then odds are Spell resistance would be changed.
It could be a flat boost to saves
Could work like evasion IE: Spells are all or Nothing
Could drop the Caster level of incoming spells
or any number of ideas and combinations
|
Could also go with the old school version of it: flat percent chance to simply ignore your spell, whatever it is.
Creatures with 100% resistance were the bane of wizards everywhere. :)
Thumbs up!
The change to SR in 3.0 basically made it pointless for anything to have after the first few levels...anything that is remotely CR-appropriate, it's spell resistance is going to be low enough that spellcasters are going to blow through it like it doesn't exist.
I don't know why you would request why it would go away, when it's such an extreme non-factor in Pathfinder 1.0.
|
|
Aside, it was never a flat %. The old SR was Vs a level 11 caster, and you added or subtracted 5% for each level you were from that. /Obscure ancient rule
I believe that only came with 2nd edition, although I'm not positive. Edit: Guess I had that backwards, 1st edition had that rule, while 2nd went back to the flat percentage.
So your Aversion to SR... is that it does what its supposed to?
We already have saving throws and/or attack rolls. We don't need ANOTHER resistance mechanic for magic, if they actually make magic balanced.
I'm sure SR came along because the devs at the time realized magic was too powerful, but rather than tone down the magic, they added a 'neener-neener' mechanic.
Don't make magic overpowered, and SR isn't necessary, it's as simple as that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is pretty much exactly the kind of thing I worry about with simplifying or streamlining. Spell Resistance needs to stay.
Let me explain why I think so.
First reason...
Let's imagine you roll the concept of SR into saving throws. Monsters who should be resistant to spells simply get higher saves. Great, right?
Sure, until you realize that you've just lost the ability to have characters who are better against monsters with SR. Sure, sure, you can have characters who just have higher spell DCs in general, but then you've screwed the monsters who shouldn't get SR.
What you've done is removed some richness from the system. There's one less thing someone can be good at. Two, really; resisting spells and penetrating that resistance.
Second reason...
Anyone who suggests rolling SR into saves is missing the point. The OP didn't like the extra chance to fail. If that chance is rolled into saves, then there's no change. Math is math. If you were going to fail due to SR 30% of the time and you increase saves so you fail 30% more often, it's the exact same result.
Third reason...
Anyone advocating "it's one less roll" as a benefit is also missing the point. We roll dice in this game to cause emotion. The random element in RPGs is there to make us feel things. We feel jubilant when we roll a critical hit. We feel sad when we fail to stabilize our dying PC. We feel frustrated when we roll a dozen d20s in a row and none of them are higher than a 5. We feel ecstatic when we roll an unlikely SR successfully and shove a save-or-die spell up the BBEG's behind, and we feel euphoric when the DM rolls a natural 1 to save against it. An infinite number of rolls isn't panacea, but neither are only a few. I believe we're around Just Right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is pretty much exactly the kind of thing I worry about with simplifying or streamlining. Spell Resistance needs to stay.
Let me explain why I think so.
First reason...
Let's imagine you roll the concept of SR into saving throws. Monsters who should be resistant to spells simply get higher saves. Great, right?Sure, until you realize that you've just lost the ability to have characters who are better against monsters with SR. Sure, sure, you can have characters who just have higher spell DCs in general, but then you've screwed the monsters who shouldn't get SR.
What you've done is removed some richness from the system. There's one less thing someone can be good at. Two, really; resisting spells and penetrating that resistance.
This is a good point. This is however one of the things I would personally be most willing to loose. I never much liked SR as a mechanic.
Second reason...
Anyone who suggests rolling SR into saves is missing the point. The OP didn't like the extra chance to fail. If that chance is rolled into saves, then there's no change. Math is math. If you were going to fail due to SR 30% of the time and you increase saves so you fail 30% more often, it's the exact same result.Third reason...
Anyone advocating "it's one less roll" as a benefit is also missing the point. We roll dice in this game to cause emotion. The random element in RPGs is there to make us feel things. We feel jubilant when we roll a critical hit. We feel sad when we fail to stabilize our dying PC. We feel frustrated when we roll a dozen d20s in a row and none of them are higher than a 5. We feel ecstatic when we roll an unlikely SR successfully and shove a save-or-die spell up the BBEG's behind, and we feel euphoric when the DM rolls a natural 1 to save against it. An infinite number of rolls isn't panacea, but neither are only a few. I believe we're around Just Right.
The OP did later comment that they disliked the extra roll. Changing it into the same roll without changing the math is exactly what I would prefer we do. Rolling for drama is great. Rolling twice for the same thing adds complication without adding the benefit of more drama or excitement.
I think is a good feature, but I also think it has room for improvements/modifications.
- Use the new action ecomony and make it a 'reactive' evasion/AC against a spell.
- Add/change after effects involving SR. Like some kind of magic devourer creature that heals every time you fail the SR, or maybe a powerful creature being able to cast it back at you using the pertitent actions involved, or maybe lesser creatures just taking half damage.
I can live live with SR being as it is right now, except... I'd love to see gone the "you apply SR to any magic unless you turn down your SR or you are the caster of that spell". Spells and magic items that grant SR are still crying in a dark corner ever since that line was written.