Could we please get rid of spell resistance in PF2!!


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I HATE spell resistance! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.
Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where SR added fun to the game?
How many times have you cast a spell at a monster, successfully hit it, and then the DM says "roll for SR" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to magic, give them better saves, or make them immune to the type of magic your worried about.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So your Aversion to SR... is that it does what its supposed to?

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think making the game easier is not the right answer.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sorry that you didn't win.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I HATE armor class! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.
Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where AC added fun to the game?
How many times have you charged a monster, and then the DM says "roll to hit" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to attacks, give them better hit points, or make them immune to the type of damage your worried about.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

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. :)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually think immunity is more frustrating than needing to roll and having a chance at success.

Immunity means, I cast my uber-super-damage-kill-everything-in-one-shot-metamagiced-to-hell-and-back spell, and it just, doesn't work.

Or I swing my inspired-by-divine-spark-great-sword-of-awesome-critical-death-n-destructio n, and it just, doesn't work.


bookrat wrote:

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. :)

That's just evil.

Now, maybe i should explain better my previous, clearly mocking, post.
Spell Resistance is a "magical armor class", to ask to remove it because you have some bad experience with it is like asking to remove AC because you can't hit your target.


bookrat wrote:

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. :)

Hehehe, you beat me into mentioning that one.

Yeah, apply flat percentage SR, or Magic Resistance, then make previously underwhelming spell schools (like Evocation) either bypass or do partial effects upon contact, and you solved SoD spell supremacy and inter-school balance with one stone! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spell resistance is fine, i'd just like to see it rolled into saving throws or something, to reduce the number of dice rolled before the spell is resolved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Id rather SR give you a bonus to saves and a DR against AOE. Though it doesn't bother me anymore than a creature without SR making its save and nothing happening.

Sounds like they might have some levels to saves against spells in PF2. Instead of all or nothing, now you might still get something out of a spell, instead of turn over.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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

Silver Crusade Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

At least spell resistance can be interacted with, unlike the old "90% chance to ignore spells" version. Like, this version has your caster level affect your chance, you can take Spell Penetration, and so on. I like having SR on monsters, for reasons some have already given.

I do have some thoughts about how it hurts some schools/approaches to magic more than others, though; making blasting and debuffing inferior by comparison to summoning, or no-SR offense spells, or just straight-up buffing. Haste and slow may be opposites, but they're certainly not equal, and SR and saving throws play a part in that. That's as much the fault of saves as of SR, though.

I don't have an easy solution. But I don't think removing spell resistance is the best choice.

Silver Crusade Contributor

dragonhunterq wrote:
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

Was it? Huh. (I didn't get to play much 2e before 3e came along.)


I think it should stay in... :'(


dragonhunterq wrote:
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

Was that a 1e rule? I don't see it in my 2e PHB or DMG (I could be just missing it, though).

The Exchange

I would need toknow what spell casters and sr look like in pf2 before commenting.

In pf1 it should stay. Make casters put a feat and options into overcoming it. Or just use different spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spell resistance as it is and interacts with PCs probably shouldn’t make it into the game. Just like we’re probably getting rid of bonus-hunting for attacks, spell resistance should be balanced against no feats, and then offer no feats. Failed spell resistance might also do something like treat the save category as one higher, so a failed save still does whatever a successful save would do, and a crit-fail becomes merely failed.

Scarab Sages

bookrat wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
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
Was that a 1e rule? I don't see it in my 2e PHB or DMG (I could be just missing it, though).

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.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
theGlitch wrote:

I HATE armor class! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.

Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where AC added fun to the game?
How many times have you charged a monster, and then the DM says "roll to hit" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to attacks, give them better hit points, or make them immune to the type of damage your worried about.

Not the same. Saving throws are the AC vs. spells. If a sword gets through AC, the DM doesn't generally say " oh, sorry, you have to overcome its 'sword resistance'." Why should one have to make a second roll to succeed, when the first one already did? If you want the monster to be harder to affect with magic, give it better saves. Why add another unnecessary dice roll?

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aristophanes wrote:
theGlitch wrote:

I HATE armor class! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.

Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where AC added fun to the game?
How many times have you charged a monster, and then the DM says "roll to hit" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to attacks, give them better hit points, or make them immune to the type of damage your worried about.
Not the same. Saving throws are the AC vs. spells. If a sword gets through AC, the DM doesn't generally say " oh, sorry, you have to overcome its 'sword resistance'." Why should one have to make a second roll to succeed, when the first one already did? If you want the monster to be harder to affect with magic, give it better saves. Why add another unnecessary dice roll?

That's not entirely true. While its a different mechanic, Damage Reduction and Hardness are essentially "sword resistance".


Tallow wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
theGlitch wrote:

I HATE armor class! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.

Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where AC added fun to the game?
How many times have you charged a monster, and then the DM says "roll to hit" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to attacks, give them better hit points, or make them immune to the type of damage your worried about.
Not the same. Saving throws are the AC vs. spells. If a sword gets through AC, the DM doesn't generally say " oh, sorry, you have to overcome its 'sword resistance'." Why should one have to make a second roll to succeed, when the first one already did? If you want the monster to be harder to affect with magic, give it better saves. Why add another unnecessary dice roll?
That's not entirely true. While its a different mechanic, Damage Reduction and Hardness are essentially "sword resistance".

...and damage type immunity...and splitting...and spells that nullify certain attack types (Wind Wall, Repel Wood, etc.).

Spell Resistance also operates much more like an attack roll than saves do. Player rolls with a bonus based on their level sounds a lot more like an attack than target rolls to defend with a bonus based on non-attack attributes and base creature type/class.


Aristophanes wrote:
theGlitch wrote:

I HATE armor class! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.

Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where AC added fun to the game?
How many times have you charged a monster, and then the DM says "roll to hit" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to attacks, give them better hit points, or make them immune to the type of damage your worried about.
Not the same. Saving throws are the AC vs. spells. If a sword gets through AC, the DM doesn't generally say " oh, sorry, you have to overcome its 'sword resistance'." Why should one have to make a second roll to succeed, when the first one already did? If you want the monster to be harder to affect with magic, give it better saves. Why add another unnecessary dice roll?

Because the same saving throws are used against mundane hazards, such as poison and artillery fire.

If i was playing a full caster i would take all the feats necessary to overcome SR, the same way i would take Improved Critical and a couple of Critical feats if i was playing a swashbuckler. I don't see them as feat taxes but as "i'm not taking chances".


Tallow wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
theGlitch wrote:

I HATE armor class! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.

Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where AC added fun to the game?
How many times have you charged a monster, and then the DM says "roll to hit" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to attacks, give them better hit points, or make them immune to the type of damage your worried about.
Not the same. Saving throws are the AC vs. spells. If a sword gets through AC, the DM doesn't generally say " oh, sorry, you have to overcome its 'sword resistance'." Why should one have to make a second roll to succeed, when the first one already did? If you want the monster to be harder to affect with magic, give it better saves. Why add another unnecessary dice roll?
That's not entirely true. While its a different mechanic, Damage Reduction and Hardness are essentially "sword resistance".

And energy resistance?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I’d be in favor of removing SR.

At the very least, it’s an additional die roll you have to make (and do calculations for — what level is the spellcaster, what feats, traits and items that bear on SR do we need to add?, etc), which is one more thing that slows down the game.

Giving creatures a flat bonus to saves against spells (say) strikes me as a better option that would yield a similar results without slowing down the game as much.


I'd rather not have work as a trap to PCs, rather than get rid of it. If ways are there to get SR as a PC, and especially if they are as rare and/or expensive as they are, SR shouldn't affect beneficial spells at all (rather than useless-in-combat-standard-action-lowering-SR).


I wouldn't mind changes to spell resistance or some other mechanic for magical durability. Not because rolling CL checks annoys me as a player, but because they're one of the trickier things for me to remember as a GM. And harder to amend forgetting. If I forget to apply DR, then I can just say "hey guys, whoops, forgot to indicate this thing had DR against Thog's and Haley's attacks", add the extra 10 HP, done. That's more often not doable with SR because there've been three turns of whaling on a paralyzed guy or something.


Tallow wrote:
bookrat wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
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
Was that a 1e rule? I don't see it in my 2e PHB or DMG (I could be just missing it, though).
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.

yep, it was only in 1ead&d I did have to double check ... 2e had a flat%, but I don't recall any 100% or better MR on creatures in 2e (it's been many years though, so not going to swear to that :)).


Kalindlara wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
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
Was it? Huh. (I didn't get to play much 2e before 3e came along.)
The way I always understood it is that SR was a massive boost in that a lot of the creatures that had SR were just blanket immunities in previous editions.
Rysky wrote:
So your Aversion to SR... is that it does what its supposed to?

Well its more that we want meaningful choices and all SR and even DR does is just force you to make boring as a rock decisions.

Silver Crusade Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm also of the (undoubtedly much more controversial) opinion that you shouldn't always be able to bypass DR/SR. They should be meaningful barriers, though not permanently so. Otherwise they really are just a waste of page space. (This is why the "+X weapons automatically bypass unrelated DR" thing never sat well with me. It puts far too much benefit on the already advantageous strategy of increasing raw enhancement bonuses.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that Spell Resistance should still exist in some form, but I don't like the pass/fail nature of it. Since it's been confirmed that SoS/SoD effects are going to be based on the new degrees of success system, I think Spell Resistance is going to go this way as well.


I'm in the camp of hating blanket immunity, so I don't have much distaste for Spell Resistance as a mechanic. That said, there are a lot of options to bypass SR and similar mechanics in 1st edition. Heck, I frustrated a lot of GMs on my Psychic with Greater Object Possession since that was my first choice spell when I hit 12. You've got a golem opponent? Thanks for the new body. Let me hold still so my allies can CdG it.

I don't have that much of an issue with limited scope immunities, but I think there should be means to overcome them with sufficient investment. SR should be meaningfully difficult to overcome, but I also think it should be a bit more rare than it is.


I personally like the 5e approach -- SR = Advantage on saves vs. spells. It's elegant, it speeds things up, and its shifts the balance a bit towards blasting and away from SoD. Of course, this does limit the designers' ability to put no-save spells into the game (but in practice a high-level PF character can take steps to make SR a non-issue anyway).

One big problem with SR as currently implemented in 3e/PF is that it blocks friendly spells unless you spend a standard action to lower your SR for 1 round. In my experience most tables are either oblivious to this rule or they hate it and don't implement it. Which means that when a GM does enforce it against a PC, it starts arguments.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

For the "old school" magic resistance discussion, it depends on how old your school actually is. In 1e, magic resistance was caster level based, so as you gained levels, you got better at piercing it. Actually it was quite similar to how SR works now except a % rather than a d20 check. In 2e and BECMI, magic resistance was a flat % that didn't depend on caster level at all, which made things like mind flayers truly nasty with their 90%. Some things, like rakshasa, were just "immune to 1st-8th level spells" and other such fun.

Note the 1e system made having even a little magic resistance, like 5%, extremely effective at low levels. 1e Dragonlance draconians had like a 20% magic resistance but that meant low level casters fighting them had over a 50% chance of having their spells fizzle.


I could get behind the idea, purely for the sake of simplicity. For example, we could remove SR and have every spell target saving throws. Creatures that are innately resistant to magic have a bonus to save versus magic.

Grand Lodge

Tallow wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
theGlitch wrote:

I HATE armor class! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.

Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where AC added fun to the game?
How many times have you charged a monster, and then the DM says "roll to hit" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to attacks, give them better hit points, or make them immune to the type of damage your worried about.
Not the same. Saving throws are the AC vs. spells. If a sword gets through AC, the DM doesn't generally say " oh, sorry, you have to overcome its 'sword resistance'." Why should one have to make a second roll to succeed, when the first one already did? If you want the monster to be harder to affect with magic, give it better saves. Why add another unnecessary dice roll?
That's not entirely true. While its a different mechanic, Damage Reduction and Hardness are essentially "sword resistance".

And they just happen. You don't have to make an extra roll. And chances are, you are already aware of them, and expect them.

Same with energy resistance. It's just there, and is automatically applied.
I think it would be interesting to use the 10-/+ mechanic, and have certain types of monsters, outsiders for instance, have an effect happen with an exceptionally good or bad saving throw with certain types of spells. Maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, if a devil makes a great save on a Charm/Compulsion spell, it would seem to the caster to have succeeded, and the devil could bluff the caster.


Kalindlara wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
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
Was it? Huh. (I didn't get to play much 2e before 3e came along.)

The rule predates 2e.

It was around for AD&D.


I actually like spell resistance, making saves better for example actually would increase the chance of your spell failing than regular save + spell resistance.

It's also a better rules mechanic to depict creatures resistant to magic, because it's specific, making saves higher would love making creatures tougher against everything. You could try to argue that everything in Pathfinder isn't so much if discouting magic, but that only counts at higher levels, and they've already said they want to make hazards (traps, poisons, diseases, curses, and whatnot) more deadly.

There's another reason I like SR, which is stoopid golem get spell immunity, but I can still affect them with spells that bypass SR, so the existence of SR actually helps me in that way.


I think spell resistance should stay in, but it shouldn't be counted on as the primary means to keep spellcasters from running amok.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that there is a good opportunity to just roll SR into saves either as a flat bonus or maybe an alternative save. e.g. they can use their spell resistance bonus in place of their bad save(s). I think the second roll for spell resistance + save should be removed just as I think the crit confirmation roll should be removed.


Aristophanes wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
theGlitch wrote:

I HATE armor class! It adds nothing but frustration to the game.

Has anyone ever had a gaming experience where AC added fun to the game?
How many times have you charged a monster, and then the DM says "roll to hit" only to have failed?
If they want to make adversaries resistant to attacks, give them better hit points, or make them immune to the type of damage your worried about.
Not the same. Saving throws are the AC vs. spells. If a sword gets through AC, the DM doesn't generally say " oh, sorry, you have to overcome its 'sword resistance'." Why should one have to make a second roll to succeed, when the first one already did? If you want the monster to be harder to affect with magic, give it better saves. Why add another unnecessary dice roll?
That's not entirely true. While its a different mechanic, Damage Reduction and Hardness are essentially "sword resistance".

And they just happen. You don't have to make an extra roll. And chances are, you are already aware of them, and expect them.

Same with energy resistance. It's just there, and is automatically applied.
I think it would be interesting to use the 10-/+ mechanic, and have certain types of monsters, outsiders for instance, have an effect happen with an exceptionally good or bad saving throw with certain types of spells. Maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, if a devil makes a great save on a Charm/Compulsion spell, it would seem to the caster to have succeeded, and the devil could bluff the caster.

Sounds like an extra roll we need to worry about :P

But seriously...

My big problem with SR is that by its very mechanic, it's basically a monster-specific defense. Since it works automatically against both harmful and beneficial spells, most PC's won't bother with it, since it would suddenly become a huge problem if the Fighter who had SR needed an emergency heal but the Cleric failed to overcome the SR. Monsters, who are designed to die don't have that problem. I know you can lower your own SR, but that's something you need to do on your own turn, so any version of the above example is still a huge problem.

I wouldn't be shocked if SR had a major overhaul or was just completely removed in 2E, as Paizo has stated over and over how streamlined combat - and specifically monster stats - will be.

Grand Lodge

Bardarok wrote:

I agree that there is a good opportunity to just roll SR into saves either as a flat bonus or maybe an alternative save. e.g. they can use their spell resistance bonus in place of their bad save(s). I think the second roll for spell resistance + save should be removed just as I think the crit confirmation roll should be removed.

See, that would be fine with me. One roll. Whatever happens, happens.


How about we tie in SR to antimagic? Antimagic could scale SR, or force a second check, and so on. :3


About SR changes, I'd love to see SR not apply for pets from their master's spells. AND MAYBE having harmless spells get past, so you can buff fine but are resistant to enemy magic.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't imagine a game without Spell Resistance; it just belongs. AND makes sense and for better gaming and game balance.

Wizards at higher level are so much more powerful than non-casters that they should have to get past SR during the combats (and I'm for making it harder to bypass SR!).

.

But I never met anyone who had a problem with it or had been frustrated because of it. Um, maybe the newer Player didn't know that it existed so the first time he lost a spell to SR he was upset at what he perceived as shenanigans -- and then never learned that a massive number (maybe greater than 50%?) of high-CR monsters have SR, so you need the Feats Spell Pen (at 7th Lvl) and Gr Spell Pen (at 9th Lvl) on your arcane caster build. (And you can push back the need for those two Feats if you're an Elf (with your Racial +2).)

And there are many builds that focus on spells that don't allow SR such as most Touch-Attack spells.

In my game I allow a Trait for +1 Spell Pen.
.
.
.
.
All that said, I don't mind playtesting a world where monsters have % immunity or something. My Rakshasas are still immune to 8th level spells and lower and I'm sure I'm not the only one who got pissed at how Rakshasas got nerfed with lame-ass SR 27 when THEY'RE SUPPOSE TO BE IMMUNE.


I'm not really a fan of spell resistance either.
Sure a spellcaster can do great things with his spells, but the amount of spells you would want to throw against your opponents is pretty limited in many cases.

Another protective layer after saves is frustrating.
Having to take feats like spell penetration to get a small advantage isn't exactly fun, too.
And even if you take some of those feats there's only a 50% chance to get your spell through the sr of a big bad guy. And then there's a saving throw further reducing your chance to do anything useful with your actions.

It's only an issue if you want to cast spells on your opponents, though. But why does it have to me more frustrating to weaken your enemies compared to strengthen your allies?


Cuup wrote:


My big problem with SR is that by its very mechanic, it's basically a monster-specific defense. Since it works automatically against both harmful and beneficial spells, most PC's won't bother with it, since it would suddenly become a huge problem if the Fighter who had SR needed an emergency heal but the Cleric failed to overcome the SR....

I actually have a PFS character that intends to take Focused Disbelief because he is a PROUD MAN OF RAHADOUM. I know it's incredibly dangerous for the character to do so and the character already has Self-Made Fate, Rahadoumi Disbeliever, Godless Healing and Divine Defiance (I'm headed for Pure Legion Enforcer). Tables with divine casters have been hilarious. Negotiations for an enemy's surrender have always included a requirement to renounce any deity they worship.

Mechanically, yes, SR is almost always better for monsters than PCs, in part because SR values tend to be low for PCs. When I get Focused Disbelief, it will only give me SR 16. When this character ends his career (lvl 12), it will be up to 23. Since enemy casters tend to outlevel PCs by a fair bit, this will by and large be a trivial bonus with a major drawback, but I really wanted the full theme. Appropriately CR'd monsters could have SR values in the high 20s at that point. That's a significant difference.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm okay with the /concept/ of spell resistance but not how it's been represented /in practice/ in previous editions. I would much prefer Spell Resistance as a flat bonus to AC, Fortitude, Reflex and Will against magical attacks. So the traditional dwarf "magic resistance" would actually be called Spell Resistance 2.

So you wouldn't actually see Spell Resistance 20 or whatever, except on exceptional and rare creatures like the Tarrasque. It'd be a lower number but would interact more directly with the rolls that characters and creatures are making in combat anyway.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Tallow wrote:
bookrat wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
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
Was that a 1e rule? I don't see it in my 2e PHB or DMG (I could be just missing it, though).
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.
yep, it was only in 1ead&d I did have to double check ... 2e had a flat%, but I don't recall any 100% or better MR on creatures in 2e (it's been many years though, so not going to swear to that :)).

It was flat % in Second Ed. As a 'balancing factor' creatures with 100% magic resistance could not use any sort of magic. That's why most of the powerful creatures had between 70~90% MR and the clever drow with their 50+5%/level had it capped at 90%.


Fuzzypaws wrote:

I'm okay with the /concept/ of spell resistance but not how it's been represented /in practice/ in previous editions. I would much prefer Spell Resistance as a flat bonus to AC, Fortitude, Reflex and Will against magical attacks. So the traditional dwarf "magic resistance" would actually be called Spell Resistance 2.

So you wouldn't actually see Spell Resistance 20 or whatever, except on exceptional and rare creatures like the Tarrasque. It'd be a lower number but would interact more directly with the rolls that characters and creatures are making in combat anyway.

I like this though I would add at least for some creatures a sort of Magic Evasion where if they make their save the spell has no effect.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Could we please get rid of spell resistance in PF2!! All Messageboards