Spell resistance rule

[Arduin]

There IS a way around this. Currently, unlike AC (everyone has an AC) the default is that everyone does NOT have SR. They could rewrite the game so that everything has a natural SR of 1. Apprentice spellcasters (while training towards 1st level) have a 1 in 20 chance of not being able to overcome the natural SR of 1...

[Rigon]

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

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

You'll have to come to Con on the Cob to find out.

R-

[Traveller]

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?

SR1 does mean something when it comes to spell resistance, and here is why. Peter is correct. The original intent was to have items that either provided a Spell Resistance bonus or a Spell Resistance penalty, along with items like the Armors of Spell Resistance and the Mantle that provided a flat SR. If I recall correctly the idea is that Spell Resistances were supposed to stack, and thus the SR1 with an added magic doodad to boost the SR rating would make for a tougher creature. But the default SR is 0, not 1. In that regard Arduin is right.

On a side note, for five years I kept the errata for the game, and I don't remember how many times the question of the Mantle's Spell Resistance popped up. People keep believing for some inexplicable reason that the Mantle's SR21 somehow must be a mistake because it renders the wearer absolutely immune to spells. Well, for the umpteenth time in the last five years, the Mantle of Spell Resistance is correct. If it weren't, it would have made it into my errata by now. Peter is once again correct about why the Mantle is set at SR21, though Omote's thought that the Mantle is an artifact level item has plenty of merit.

As to the die roll, my opinion is that it should be "equal to or greater" and not simply "greater". But that's simply because I don't feel the change is a worthwhile one.

[TheMetal1]

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, great catch on that the Robe of the Archmagi. I completely missed that in the description!

This does seem to be the only item is a "Spell Resistance Defeater." And the logical progression is that Mantle of Spell Resistance can be overcome, by using this item. So my beef with the Mantle is now out the window.

[gideon_thorne]

Peter is correct.

I was right about something? Yay me? *wonders what it was?*

I was just speculating. Not really one for hard and fast rules myself. Hell, the way I'd run a C&C game would make it almost unrecognisable from the baseline.

For example. I have a neat idea for counter-spells. A spell caster can elect to fight defensively. To that end, he can roll an attribute check(based on class prime) for a chance to counter or deflect an incoming spell from an opposing caster. The difficulty being the level of the opposing caster. This, only cause I see it so often in movies, especially Harry Potter, where a caster bats an incoming spell out of the way.

Actually, come to think of it, you could develop a kind of combat specialist or spell duelist class ability that would work not unlike a fighters multi attack. One attack could just be used as defence.

Certainly would make for an interesting extra dimension to spell combat.

[DeadReborn]

I like!

[Traveller]

So my beef with the Mantle is now out the window.

Metal, while the Robe is the only item in Monsters & Treasure that has a Spell Resistance bonus or penalty, there's nothing that says people can't create their own magic items that do the same thing. Of course, I never had a beef with the Mantle of Spell Resistance since I knew that the intent was to have items that could change the number.

[mbeacom]

That's a great point. Now the way the rule is written makes even more sense. On a side note, I've tinkered with what I call "spell penetration". Its based off what I saw another guy doing with resistance penetration in general. Say for example an enemy has some sore of damage resistance. You could then get a penetration bonus that would surpass a certain level of damage resistance. Say a stone ogre has damage resistance of 10. Somebody hits him for 12 points of damage he only take 2. But if you have penetration 5, then you'd do 7 hitpoint of damage because 5 point of damage have the ability to penetrate resistance. You could do something similar with spell resistance by making magic items have a spell penetration number. Effectively it would be a bonus to the SR roll. If a wand a SP2 (Spell Penetration 2) and you're using it to cast a spell against an enemy that has SR10, then, in stead of needing a 10 or better to surpass the SR, you'd only need an 8 or better.

[TheMetal1]

So my beef with the Mantle is now out the window.

Metal, while the Robe is the only item in Monsters & Treasure that has a Spell Resistance bonus or penalty, there's nothing that says people can't create their own magic items that do the same thing. Of course, I never had a beef with the Mantle of Spell Resistance since I knew that the intent was to have items that could change the number.

The extent of my angst against the mantle has been greatly exaggerated!

I'm only played C&C at mostly low levels - 1 to 3, so haven't had to deal really with any this, so until this SR discussion came up I was oblivious to it. It's been a great discussion so far. I dig delving into the rules mechanics like this.

I'm with you there, I can just add in magic items that defeat spell resistance as needed. Though, I'd probably house rule a natural 20 hits regardless - simply the weird nature of magic.

[Troll Lord]

Hey folks,

So Mac and I gave this a good going over. As usual the philosophy behind C&C's ease of play and the mechanics over lapped where spell resistance was concerned. He laid it out like this:

The caster must roll a number equal to or greater than the SR. The SR 1 is part of the game but in a generalized sense. Any creature that is playable...monsters, player characters, etc has a base SR 1. Though there is no chance that they succeed this SR 1 represents their ability to get a saving throw against the magical attack (assuming one is allowed). If you fireball a 1st level character he is able make a saving throw, that represents the SR 1. If you were to fireball a turtle crossing the road he would have an SR 0 and get no save. Further the SR 1 gives the CK a chance to manipulate the SR through magic or other material either found in the books or made up on his own.

The ambiguous areas that should have been discussed in the CKG (and will be in coming months) lie in 0 level characters. These technically do not get a saving throw against any spell as they have an SR 0. If you cast hold person on a peasant, he is held automatically.

So the equal to or greater than stands.

Now he did discuss two other options about SR; one was the SR as a Siege Engine check which Davis pushed for at some point and the other complimented the existing SR system (with SR 1 and equal to or greater) by adding a magic resistance to all creatures. SR designed for spells and magic resistance designed for all other magic...magical attacks, magic weapons etc etc. We abandoned this due to complexity for the CK.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining all this correctly so if its not clear let me know.

Thank eee!

Steve

[Arduin]

The caster must roll a number equal to or greater than the SR. The SR 1 is part of the game but in a generalized sense. Any creature that is playable...monsters, player characters, etc has a base SR 1.

Cool. This is the rule I proposed earlier in the thread.

[Lord Dynel]

So the equal to or greater than stands.

Thanks, Steve, for putting this to rest.

I do like your interpreptation of it:

SR 0 - not allowed a saving throw against a spell.
SR 1 - 1+ level characters, allowed a saving throw, if the spell permits.
SR > 1 - spells have to exceed this SR (if spell is affected by SR) to affect a character. Saving throw permitted, as well (if spell permits).

Thank you for the insight, bossman!

[koralas]

The ambiguous areas that should have been discussed in the CKG (and will be in coming months) lie in 0 level characters. These technically do not get a saving throw against any spell as they have an SR 0. If you cast hold person on a peasant, he is held automatically.

Hmmm, not sure I like this over much. Biggest reason is that a standard goblin at 1HD, 1d6, would get a saving throw, where a standard human, dwarf, elf, or halfling at 1HD, 1d8, would not.

[koralas]

Cool. This is the rule I proposed earlier in the thread.

Or at least close to it, though glad to see that my thought of having every creature being base SR1 is validated.

[Arduin]

The ambiguous areas that should have been discussed in the CKG (and will be in coming months) lie in 0 level characters. These technically do not get a saving throw against any spell as they have an SR 0. If you cast hold person on a peasant, he is held automatically.

Hmmm, not sure I like this over much. Biggest reason is that a standard goblin at 1HD, 1d6, would get a saving throw, where a standard human, dwarf, elf, or halfling at 1HD, 1d8, would not.

If you go back to AD&D, I think only humans were level 0.

[mbeacom]

Sounds like it made sense all along really. That's pretty much how I ruled on it anyway. Glad to hear it wasn't botched afterall and won't need to be changed. Maybe in future crusades, a bit more exposition can be included to add that extra clarity. Thanks again, you all rule!

[Traveller]

The ambiguous areas that should have been discussed in the CKG (and will be in coming months) lie in 0 level characters. These technically do not get a saving throw against any spell as they have an SR 0. If you cast hold person on a peasant, he is held automatically.

So the equal to or greater than stands.

Keep it simple. All characters regardless of level have a minimum SR of 1.

[Arduin]

Glad to hear it wasn't botched afterall and won't need to be changed.

If you read it again, the SR is being changed. Hence, the > level 0 SR...

[Arduin]

Glad to hear it wasn't botched afterall and won't need to be changed.

If you read it again, the SR is being changed. Hence, the > level 0 SR...

[Sir Ironside]

Glad to hear it wasn't botched afterall and won't need to be changed.

If you read it again, the SR is being changed. Hence, the > level 0 SR...

It hasn't changed, the Troll Lords just helped clarify the rules because they appear, in separate places, within the rules. Check-out; TheMetal1's post earlier in this thread. The rule is there, un-botched, it just isn't in a convenient all-in-one place, it is rather split in two different entries.

The only thing clarified is those who have a zero/none SR and those that do. This shows the importance of a SR1, even though the spellcaster cannot fail the roll. Granted this should have been mentioned in the RAW as it is quite important. The real confusion comes, from the fact, that some monsters have a listed SR1 where others have no listing at all. So, that makes the ambiguous rule more confusing. Either give all the monsters a listing of SR1 or take the SR1 out of the listing and add the rule about all monsters having no listing for SR should be assumed to have a SR1.

The only thing that was changed was the SR of the Old White Dragon, presumably to keep it inline with the other dragons.

[Arduin]

It hasn't changed, the Troll Lords just helped clarify the rules because they appear, in separate places, within the rules.

If you read it again, the SR is being changed on a global basis from default NO SR, to default SR 1 for creatures and PC's. So unless, you are using a different definition of the English word change than I...

[Sir Ironside]

It hasn't changed, the Troll Lords just helped clarify the rules because they appear, in separate places, within the rules.

If you read it again, the SR is being changed on a global basis from default NO SR, to default SR 1 for creatures and PC's. So unless, you are using a different definition of the English word change than I...

I said as much, in my post, but your other posts expressed a bigger "botched" rules than just a mere clarification of zero level SR. The rule in itself is not wrong, just part of it was omitted. Moving the goal posts for your argument does not make the rule "botched" as you stated in earlier posts.

No definition of changed needs to be addressed as your initial concerns were not about zero point SR's. The SR0 kind of fell into your lap and now your using it to try and prove that your concerned about a botched rule was true.

[Arduin]

I said as much, in my post, but your other posts expressed a bigger "botched" rules than just a mere clarification of zero level SR.

Then, you didn't read all of my posts. Probably a good idea to do so before posting...

[Sir Ironside]

I said as much, in my post, but your other posts expressed a bigger "botched" rules than just a mere clarification of zero level SR.

Then, you didn't read all of my posts. Probably a good idea to do so before posting...

Then our definition of "botched" is in question and not the word changed. So, maybe get the intent right so you could see the distinct difference between the two, before you post.

[Arduin]

Then our definition of "botched" is in question

"clumsily put together"

Nope, got it right. The OED is something I recommend everyone invest in.

[mbeacom]

Feels like the rule is remaining the same, at least as I understood it. Seems like a clarification of the underlying principle is all that happened. I don't see anything botched since nothing is really changing with regard this thread and whether or not the authors intended the SR mechanic to require roll greater than or equal to. Greater than or equal was the issue and that remains unbotched and unchanged. The unified mechanic remains, correct as always. Seems to be much ado about nothing.

[koralas]

If you go back to AD&D, I think only humans were level 0.

Not quite true...

Level 0 isn't really discussed much in 1st Ed. Brief mentions of it abound, but there is only one definition of it in the PHB and DMG... That being under the attack matrix for fighters, listing only Humans and Halflings as being level 0, Dwarves, Elves, and Gnomes are all assumed to be at least level 1, and NPC Half-Orcs are considered 1HD monsters. Half-elves and elves are mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph as "using the attack matrix" but the Half-Elf is left out of the line talking to Elves, Dwarves, and Gnomes being at least level 1. Now this guideline was broken with the Unearthed Arcana, when the Cavalier is introduced and required noble birth or a couple of stints as a 0-level character. Since elves could be Cavaliers, this invalidates the above, at least as regards elves. And later when the rules for 0-level characters came out (and I think that may have been a Dragon article, but not sure), that further broke that stereo type.

But lets take it at humans and halflings being the only 0-level types. I still don't like them not getting a save vs. magic... In looking back to 1st Ed., there was a saving throw line for 0-level creatures on the matrix for fighters...

Code: Select all

Save Type                           Score
Paralyzation/Poison/Death Magic       16
Petrification/Polymorph               17
Rod/Staff/Wand                        18
Breath Weapon                         20
Spells                                19

Granted, not very good chances of success, but still, it was there. Monsters saved as fighters of equal HD, there were no provisions given for 1/2HD, or 1-1 monsters, so you were left to think they saved as a level 1 fighter which is in each case except vs. breath weapon 2 points better than the above. Against breath weapons the 1st level fighter was 3 points better.

Since the Challenge Class of a spell is based on the level of the caster, level-0 characters will quickly succumb to a mid-level wizard's spells. Even if the attribute is prime, a spell cast by a 1st level wizard will still have a CL of 13, not a sure thing by any stretch, and if not prime, a 19 is required. Take this further and a 5th level wizard can still lay waste to vast swathes of 0-level types when she gets that fireball... CL of 17 if prime, 23 if not, yeah, not likely to have many save, not to mention even a save will still burn them to a crisp at 5d6 damage, average 3.5/die 17.5 hp, at 1/2 damage = 8.75hp.

[Arduin]

If you go back to AD&D, I think only humans were level 0.

Not quite true...

Level 0 isn't really discussed much in 1st Ed. Brief mentions of it abound, but there is only one definition of it in the PHB and DMG... That being under the attack matrix for fighters, listing only Humans and Halflings as being level 0, Dwarves, Elves, and Gnomes are all assumed to be at least level 1, and NPC Half-Orcs are considered 1HD monsters.

That is precisely the reference I was referring to. Forgot the halflings part. In the C&C Monster man. Dwarves & Elves have save bonuses vs. spell(s) so would HAVE to have an SR of 1 under new proposed rule...

[Arduin]

The unified mechanic remains, correct as always. Seems to be much ado about nothing.

Nope. The issue was how SR was used. THAT is being changed (In a big way too). The mechanic was simply what caused the scrutiny in the 1st place.

[koralas]

Glad to hear it wasn't botched afterall and won't need to be changed.

If you read it again, the SR is being changed. Hence, the > level 0 SR...

Actually, this isn't a rule change at all... where in the rules do you find anything about SR0? As explained above, there is clarification of the rule, in that...

SR0 = Spells always work, no saving throws allowed
SR1 = Spells always work, saving throws allowed
SR2+ = Spells have a chance of not working against the character, saving throws allowed if SR is overcome

The only reference that can be construed to refer to this is on page 49 of the 4th print PHB.

SPELL RESISTANCE: a special ability possessed by certain monsters and
characters that may negate spells cast against them.

However, mechanically speaking, SR1 is the equivalent of not having a spell resistance (not a saving throw, but an innate resistance to magic) since you cannot roll lower than a 1 on d20. Semantics, yes, wording issue, sure, ambiguous, yes, but a botched rule? No.