Spell resistance rule

[kreider204]

[Whoops, double post]

[kreider204]

My apologies if I came off as being "bent out of shape".

Sorry, that wasn't a reference to you. I only quoted you for the first part of my post, where I was agreeing with you. The last bit was a comment about the general tone the thread was taking (though as you say, it's nothing compared to some message boards ... ).

[kreider204]

- The mantle of spell resistance gives an SR of 21, the number needed for complete immunity under this interpretation. If the roll had to be greater than (rather than equal to or greater than) the SR, then the mantle would only need to grant an SR of 20.

True to a point, without any modifiers you cannot get better than a 20 on the roll, but there is at least one magic item that grants a bonus to the SR roll. That is either the Staff of Power or Staff of the Magi, or maybe both, I don't have M&T in front of me right now. There may be others, but I only recall specifically seeing that on a staff.

Good observation. I think that's still consistent with my reasoning, though: SR 21 is full immunity under most circumstances, but still allowing for the possibility of being overcome when countered by other magic items - thus the need to assign an SR at all (rather than just saying "immune to magic no matter what").

[Arduin]

double post

[Arduin]

Ah, but be it 0 or 1 the end result is the same... roll a d20, on a 1+ you succeed... Thus there is no SR of 1 listed for anything that I can find, with the exception of the aforementioned Armor of Spell Resistance,

One can perform contortions that would make a Chinese acrobat blush in an attempt to paper it over but, at the end of the day, the rule was still botched.

[Rigon]

Ah, but be it 0 or 1 the end result is the same... roll a d20, on a 1+ you succeed... Thus there is no SR of 1 listed for anything that I can find, with the exception of the aforementioned Armor of Spell Resistance,

One can perform contortions that would make a Chinese acrobat blush in an attempt to paper it over but, at the end of the day, the rule was still botched.

In your opinion.

I've been playing C&C for 7 or 8 years fairly regularly and I've never had a problem with the SR rules as written. So you can say it's broken a million times, but it's just your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

R-

[mbeacom]

Ah, but be it 0 or 1 the end result is the same... roll a d20, on a 1+ you succeed... Thus there is no SR of 1 listed for anything that I can find, with the exception of the aforementioned Armor of Spell Resistance,

One can perform contortions that would make a Chinese acrobat blush in an attempt to paper it over but, at the end of the day, the rule was still botched.

In your opinion.

I've been playing C&C for 7 or 8 years fairly regularly and I've never had a problem with the SR rules as written. So you can say it's broken a million times, but it's just your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

R-

I agree the rule is not botched. You can achieve anywhere from 5% resistance to 100% resistance. It works just like AC does and is consistant. Even if they did want to change it (which it would seem they do not, after leaving it the same over 4 printings) I'm not sure what they would change that would make it better. Changing it from "meets or exceeds" to simply "exceeds" would remove its consistancy with the unified mechanic of C&C IMO. I would say anyone who feels it's off should probably house rule since it would seem that most posters on this thread agree that it works correctly as written. But we're all entitled to our opinions and I don't begrudge anyone on here expressing theirs.

[Arduin]

In your opinion.

Lex parsimoniae

No need to get your panties in a knot.

[TheMetal1]

With this, the old White Dragon description was wrong, and has been corrected to start at 2.

Just to be sure that everyone is clear. In the latest printing of Monsters & Treasure (3rd printing, or if you perfer, the M&T's 3rd Crusade), the Old White Dragon stat has been corrected to be an SR 2 which is in line with all the other dragons starting SR.

But just to make sure we're all on the same sheet of music in terms of the RAW here are the two quotes from latest printing of the rules - M&T 3rd Crusade and PHB 4th Crusade

Spell Resistance is a special defensive ability. A defender’s spell resistance
is like an armor class against magical attacks. If a spell is targeted at a creature with spell resistance, the caster of the spell must roll 1d20, unmodified. If the result is equal or greater than the creature’s spell resistance rating, than the spell can affect that creature. Otherwise, the creature’s spell resistance causes the spell to dissipate harmlessly. Certain spells are not subject to spell resistance, as detailed in their descriptions in the Castles & Crusades Players Handbook. A monster’s spell resistance is listed in its stat block with the abbreviation SR. For example a Dryad’s spell resistance is 10 and it is listed on the Special heading as “SR 10”. If a monster does not have a spell resistance no listing is given.

Spell resistance is a special defensive ability. A defender’s spell resistance
is like an armor class against magical attacks. If a spell is being resisted by
a defender with spell resistance, the caster of the spell must make a check
(1d20) at least equal to or greater than the creature’s SR for the spell to
effect that creature. Spell resistance applies even if a given spell also allows
a creature a saving throw. The effects of spell resistance, if any, are applied
first, and then the creature may also make a saving throw. In most cases, spell
resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not
when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place, such as
a wall of iron.

Again for the sake of discussion all the For Magic Items which offer spell resistance.

Spell resistance.......10,000 gp per point (For magic Item Creation)

+2 (+5) Holy Avenger: This +2 iron sword becomes a +5 holy sword
in the hands of a paladin. It deals double damage against all targets of evil
alignment. It provides a spell resistance of 5 + the paladin’s level to the
wielder and anyone immediately adjacent to her. It also enables the wielder
to use dispel magic (once per round as a normal action) at the class level of
the paladin. It inflicts 2d20 points of damage to any evil aligned creature that
attempts to wield it.

Armor of Spell Resistance: This property grants the armor wearer spell
resistance while the armor is worn. The spell resistance can be 13, 15, 17, or
19, depending on the armor.

Mantle of Spell Resistance: This garment, worn over normal clothing or
armor, grants the wearer a spell resistance of 21.

Robe of the Archmagi: This normal-appearing garment can be white (01–45
on d%, good alignment), gray (46–75, neither good nor evil alignment), or
black (76–100, evil alignment). Its wearer, if an arcane spellcaster, gains the
following powers.
+5 bonus to armor class
+4 bonus on all saving throws
+2 enchantment bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell
resistance
Spell resistance 9
If a white robe is donned by an evil character, that character immediately loses
three levels of experience. The reverse is true with respect to a black robe
donned by a good character. An evil or good character that puts on a gray
robe, or a neutral character that dons either a white or black robe, loses two
class levels. These losses are only while the robe is worn, and the lost levels
return when the robe is removed. The effects cannot be overcome in any way
(including restoration spells).

Scarab of Protection: This device appears to be a silver medallion in the
shape of a beetle. If it is held for 1 round, an inscription appears on its surface
letting the holder know that it is a protective device. The scarab’s possessor
gains spell resistance of 5. The scarab can also absorb energy-draining attacks, death effects, and negative energy effects. Upon absorbing twelve such attacks, the scarab turns to powder and is destroyed.

The Shield of the Sun: This +5 large shield, emblazoned with the symbol
of the heraldic “Sunne in Splendour”, allows the wielder to cast spells as if
she were a 20th-level cleric with a wisdom score of 20. The spells gained are
cumulative with any existing spells per day that the character might have,
even if she’s already a cleric. The Shield of the Sun also grants spell resistance
15 to its wielder. It absorbs the first 10 points of damage from any energy
attack (fire, cold, acid, electricity, or sonic). In return for all this, once per year the shield’s owner must undertake a quest (no saving throw to avoid) at the behest of a lawful good deity.

Staff of the Magi: A long wooden staff, shod in iron and inscribed with sigils
and runes of all types, this potent artifact contains many spell powers and
other functions. Some of its powers use charges, while others do not.
The following powers do not use charges: detect magic, enlarge person, hold
portal, light, mage armor, mage hand.

The following powers drain 1 charge per usage: dispel magic, fireball (10d6
damage, save versus dexterity for half ), ice storm, invisibility, knock, lightning
bolt (10d6 damage, save versus dexterity for half ), pass wall, pyrotechnics (save versus dexterity negates), wall of fire, web.

These powers drain 2 charges per usage: summon greater monster, plane shift
(save versus wisdom negates), telekinesis (400 lb. maximum weight).
A staff of the magi gives the wielder spell resistance 17. If this is willingly
lowered, however, the staff can also be used to absorb arcane spell energy
directed at its wielder, as a rod of absorption does. Unlike the rod, this staff
converts spell levels into charges rather than retaining them as spell energy
usable by a spellcaster. If the staff absorbs enough spell levels to exceed its
limit of 50 charges, it explodes as if a retributive strike had been performed
(see below). The wielder has no idea how many spell levels are cast at them,
for the staff does not communicate this knowledge as a rod of absorption does.
(Thus, absorbing spells can be risky.)

Retributive Strike: A staff of the magi can be broken for a retributive
strike. Such an act must be purposeful and declared by the wielder.
All charges in the staff are released in a 30-foot spread. All within 10
feet of the broken staff take hit points of damage equal to 8 times the
number of charges in the staff, those between 11 feet and 20 feet away
take points equal to 6 times the number of charges, and those 21 feet
to 30 feet distant take 4 times the number of charges. Successful save
versus Constitution reduces damage by half.

The character breaking the staff has a 50% chance (01–50 on d%) of travelling
to another plane of existence, but if they do not (51–100), the explosive
release of spell energy destroys her utterly. Only specific items, including the staff of the magi and the staff of power are capable of a retributive strike.

[TheMetal1]

I think the intent is roll an unmodified d20 and roll equal to or greater than the listed SR Number and the spell you cast works. Seems to be the case across the board in M&T and PHB. The big issue that though is the Mantle of Spell Resistence. With an SR of 21, it makes the wearer completely immune to spells, because it is impossible to roll a 21 on unmodified d20. Further, as far as I know, there isn't any magic items that allow you to surpass SR. (not that I couldn't put in a +2 SR Defeater Ring or something). So my question is why did the trolls put it at 21 instead of 20 (to allow for at least a 5% chance of the spell working), or simply call it the Mantle of Spell Immunity and in the write up say spells don't work against th wearer.

[gideon_thorne]

Well. I'm going to swirl the tea in the pot some more and chime in with what I just got from Steve. He's had a busy couple days and hasn't had a chance to look in here. But apparently the SR question came up in a game. Seems the wording needs to change. Should be "roll greater than the listed SR number" The equal too bit seems to need removal.

I can only guess that the Mantle of Spell Resistance is set at 21 just to allow for the future creation of SR roll modifying items?

[Omote]

Well that's just silly then. First, it goes against the conventions set forth in the rest of the C&C game where every other roll is to equal or better the target number (saving throws, AC, etc). There is no other rule where a number has to be bested in order to succeed. Second, the Trolls corrected the SR value of the dragons who had an SR 1 based on the current description of how SR works according to BOTH the PHB and M&T. If the Trolls do make that change, they will have to fix a few descriptions in the PHB and M&T to go along with changing that rule. Silly.

~O

[Arduin]

what I just got from Steve. He's had a busy couple days and hasn't had a chance to look in here. But apparently the SR question came up in a game. Seems the wording needs to change. Should be "roll greater than the listed SR number" The equal too bit seems to need removal.

Yes, that is what I figured out from reading the rule. I gave the correct errata rule language earlier in the thread.

[gideon_thorne]

Well that's just silly then. First, it goes against the conventions set forth in the rest of the C&C game where every other roll is to equal or better the target number (saving throws, AC, etc). There is no other rule where a number has to be bested in order to succeed. Second, the Trolls corrected the SR value of the dragons who had an SR 1 based on the current description of how SR works according to BOTH the PHB and M&T. If the Trolls do make that change, they will have to fix a few descriptions in the PHB and M&T to go along with changing that rule. Silly.

~O

Hey, I'm just passing along a bit I got in a hasty conversation. I expect when Steve's day is a bit less hectic he'll come along and explain.

Don't shoot the messenger!

[Troll Lord]

Well. I'm going to swirl the tea in the pot some more and chime in with what I just got from Steve. He's had a busy couple days and hasn't had a chance to look in here. But apparently the SR question came up in a game. Seems the wording needs to change. Should be "roll greater than the listed SR number" The equal too bit seems to need removal.

I can only guess that the Mantle of Spell Resistance is set at 21 just to allow for the future creation of SR roll modifying items?

Its ironic that this came up on the boards when it did as we actually ran across this in last week's game when fighting a monster in the MT of AIhrde with an SR of 1, which I found rather useless. We didn't get a chance to talk about it as the party was in the midst of dying and rules are the last thing on Mac and Davis' minds when their 7th level characters are having their asses hats handed to them. Then of course we forgot about it as Davis dropped some guiness and other things happened....

The above quote from Peter was from me....the non-rules guy...when he called as that made sense to me last week. But Omote is right in regards to the philosophical principle of the game, the equal to or greater and the streamlined rules process. The SR 21 is another philosophical aspect of the game I never quite agreed with, that of the perfect 20...we Trolls still argue that a natural 20 always succeeds...I don't agree with that..

Sadly however Davis' wife just gave birth this morning to his fourth child...or 78th I'm not sure, they are all over the place and move to fast to count, so I can't ask him...at least not unit later tonight if he shows up for the game. But in any case, Mac will be here and we'll run it by him.

In anycase the rules need to be rewritten, the idea is that they are supposed to be simple and understandable. These 3 pages prove that the SR rule is not either.

Steve

[Relaxo]

So I was right, then.


:stirthepot:

[mbeacom]

I actually thought it WAS pretty clear if that's all you were reading. It was just the white dragon with an SR of 1 that confused things (and I understand that has already been fixed?), and perhaps the cost of SR for magic items (10K per +1). Maybe just add a sentence at the end that "The minimum SR is SR2" which equates to 5%. That way there's much less (nothing) to change (no need to go back and errata all those dragons so they have the proper SR) and the system will still work as it always has, as well as maintain consistency with the unified resolution mechanic that makes C&C so slick to run. Imagine if the system went from "All rolls need to meet or exceed a number" to "All rolls need to meet or exceed a number....except for Spell Resistance". That's my input. I recognize it's not worth much, but there it is. Ultimately, whatever the trolls decide, I'll be totally fine with.

[Arduin]

In anycase the rules need to be rewritten, the idea is that they are supposed to be simple and understandable. These 3 pages prove that the SR rule is not either.

Steve

I guess that is the ultimate point. However it falls, it must make sense with everything else.

[Omote]

[Hey, I'm just passing along a bit I got in a hasty conversation. I expect when Steve's day is a bit less hectic he'll come along and explain.

Don't shoot the messenger!

Oh, you've been shotted'd.

I wasn't complaining mind you. I just find it inconceivable that the rule as it is presented in the PHB is in any way hard to understand or doesn’t read correctly. As another player that has been playing right along since C&C’s inception, this rule has never presented a problem or a hindrance to our games. Of course, I house ruled in that INT bonuses are allowed to be added to this roll, squarely because of the Mantle of Spell Resistance (SR 21).

Frankly, these are the types of easy rules that C&C is built on and works. Because there are three pages of discussion here that argue points back and forth doesn’t make the current SR rule bad. It’s not.

As one who loves to study these rules, I appreciate the Troll Lord himself stopping by to present a little inside view of the C&C game. The thought process that a nat. 20 auto succeeds hadn’t crossed my mind when it comes to the Mantle of Spell Resistance. That could work. However, that the rest of the C&C rules do not assume that 1s auto fail and 20s auto succeed. Interestingly enough, auto successes and failures are never discussed in the C&C PHB. These conventions come from player and CK experience over the other editions of this game.

~O

[Frost]

So since the SR 1 rule has been cleared up, it is just the SR 21 thing that is bothering people? Doesn't the fact that magic items can make one roll a 21 make a SR 21 "work?"

EDIT: Never mind. I mis-read some points being made. There are plenty of magic items that offer SR, but none that boost a PC's roll against SR.

So in regards to the SR 21, I see it working okay regardless of whether one rules that a natural 20 always succeeds or if it doesn't. Basically, if you rule that a natural 20 does *not* always hit, then the SR 21 equals spell immunity. If one games with the natural 20 rule as always hitting, then it makes it possible to hit the SR 21. Thematically, that should work with "20 always hits" style play because it won't be the only case where a natural 20 sort of over rides the rule (e.g., there will be times when a PC hits a monster with an AC it normally couldn't hit because of a natural 20). In a "a 20 is just another number" campaign, it works fine as well. It's just a quantified way of saying "immune" (e.g., there will be times when a PC simply can't hit a monster's AC no matter what).

[Rigon]

In your opinion.

Lex parsimoniae

No need to get your panties in a knot.

I don't believe my panties are in a knot. I was just trying to point out that no matter how many times you state the SR rules are botched, that it is your opinion and not fact.

Just saying.

R-

[kreider204]

I don't believe my panties are in a knot.

So, you admit you're wearing panties ...

[Arduin]

I don't believe my panties are in a knot.

Hmm, not so sure. Kidding.

Anyway, one way or another, errata is needed. Either every character has an SR of 1 or, you have to roll higher than the SR rating and not ≥ .

[mbeacom]

Or SR1 simply does nothing like the way it is now, which I'm totally ok with. However, some clarification could be made that the lowest effective SR is 2. I just hope they don't change the design away from the unified mechanic that resolves every other aspect of the game simply because a couple of people are confused by a typo on the white dragon.

[Frost]

Or SR1 simply does nothing like the way it is now, which I'm totally ok with. However, some clarification could be made that the lowest effective SR is 2. I just hope they don't change the design away from the unified mechanic that resolves every other aspect of the game simply because a couple of people are confused by a typo on the white dragon.

I'm still trying to decide whether the new grapple rules are better or worse than the old ones.

[Arduin]

I just hope they don't change the design away from the unified mechanic that resolves every other aspect of the game simply because a couple of people are confused by a typo on the white dragon.

Never noticed the dragon thing. Just the problem with everything having an SR of 1....

[koralas]

EDIT: Never mind. I mis-read some points being made. There are plenty of magic items that offer SR, but none that boost a PC's roll against SR.

Not so... the Robe of the Archmagi does (I incorrectly stated Staff of the Magi in an earlier post), it provides a +2 bonus. However, the wording for this needs to be cleared up in that it states...

+2 enchantment bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance

Which would lead one to think you modify your roll by the caster level. While the SR rule states the roll is unmodified... #more mud for the water#

[koralas]

Good observation. I think that's still consistent with my reasoning, though: SR 21 is full immunity under most circumstances, but still allowing for the possibility of being overcome when countered by other magic items - thus the need to assign an SR at all (rather than just saying "immune to magic no matter what").

True, I was thinking back to the old 1st Ed. days with Class VI psionics (as in a previous post), where you were immune to them, not even beneficial psionics could help you. With SR21 you are not "immune", but "merely" almost completely resistant.

[Lord Dynel]

But Omote is right in regards to the philosophical principle of the game, the equal to or greater and the streamlined rules process.

Thanks for coming in Steve, and clearing that up. Much appreciated!

The SR 21 is another philosophical aspect of the game I never quite agreed with, that of the perfect 20...we Trolls still argue that a natural 20 always succeeds...I don't agree with that..

I don't agree, either, Steve. The only place a natural 20 always succeeds is in combat.

As far as the Mantle of Spell Resistance goes, that was one of my first questions here on the boards. The rationale was that while the Mantle does provide, basically, immunity to most spells but there are many spells that don't have SR. So the wearer isn't completely "immune" to all spells. This is one of those items where you don't want to roll randomly as a CK and have it thrown into a treasure pile. It should be carefully selected and placed, and the CK should know what he's getting into.

[kreider204]

The only place a natural 20 always succeeds is in combat.

The CKG talks about the option to use natural 20s and natural 1s for other SIEGE checks, but it also says that they shouldn't apply to saves. By extension, I would think that they shouldn't apply to SRs either.