Spell resistance rule

[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.

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...

Actually, I would think if anything was "botched", it could be those rules, in that Dwarves and Elves should have SR against those particular things they have bonuses against. In fact in the case of Elves and Half-Elves, the ability is actually called Spell Resistance, but only affects sleep and charm type spells. For the Dwarf is it Resistant to Arcane Magic, so Divine type magic would not be affected. Being resistant to one thing doesn't mean you couldn't be resistant to another. Thus you could have an SR of 0 (again I don't like that for a standard) but still be resistant to sleep and charm with an SR of 10.

[koralas]

"clumsily put together"

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

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.

The initial question of the post was if you had to have an SR2 in order to be "5%" resistant to magic. That was what you originally believed to be true based on your reading, and that was 100% correct, and for the Leprechaun you proposed, an SR of 17 would grant the 80% resistance as you stated.

Later you changed your thought process and said

Yes, I think the intent was roll "higher". The rule is just written incorrectly. One more for the errata...

It was on this postulation that it seems you based that the rule was botched. You later also gave your interpretation of the way the rule should have been written..

The rule should have read, "The spell caster has to make an unmodified roll on a D20 and score HIGHER than the SR of the creature."

You continued with the comments on the magic item creation rules that SR1 items cost 10,000GP, and that since SR1 means nothing, the rule is written incorrectly. Actually here I agreed to an extent, in that I believe the magic item rule should be 10,000GP to grant a +1 to the SR of the being.

I am sure ONLY if ya want the rule mechanism to make sense. I believe the rule was worded as per the Siege Engine methodology without close extermination as to the logical outcome. There is NO doubt. To have SR 1 having NO game effect, the magic item creation rules, etc.

After 34 years of reading and running RPG's, I find this to be a fairly minor botch. But, botched it was...

Here you are correct in the first section, but incorrect in the later section, as SR1 is intended to still allow a spell 100% chance of successfully penetrating the SR, though a saving throw is still allowed if applicable.

No. Standard is NO SR.

This was in response to my postulating that each individual has SR1. Which as is later pointed to by the Trolls as incorrect on my part as 0-level characters are SR0, but as I spoke of in other posts, I am not a fan of. (of course the question becomes what differentiates a 0-level character from a monster such as a goblin, orc, etc. especially since in the CKG rules are made to make them playable races)

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.

This in response to my comment of SR0 or SR1 being the same, no chance of out and out resisting the spell. Again, SR0 has a different meaning as was later pointed out.

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...

As we will soon hear from the Trolls, everyone DOES have SR1, except level-0 characters. Though, again what is the def... ah, never mind.

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

Not quite the rule you proposed, close in that as Steve wrote "any character that is playable...monsters, player characters, etc has SR1", which also mirrored my thought. But no reference in your rule to SR0 as Steve wrote, nor any reference to apprentice wizards getting that 1 in 20 chance to overcome SR1. I think using this ruling brings up other issues, such as, do castle walls get saving throws from spells? They are not "playable", and if monsters are playable, then what is the difference between a standard goblin or CK controlled NPC human after all Human is an entry in the M&T?

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

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...

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.

In reference to these last three posts, the mechanic of the rule isn't changing (you state that in the last), you need to meet or beat the SR, this is specifically spelled out in the existing rule. This brings us back to the original point of the thread. In fact, the only thing that is being "changed", or actually introduced since it wasn't in the original rule, is the definition of SR0 meaning no saving throws allowed. The clarification of the "default" SR being one is added, but isn't a change just a clarification since it wasn't explicitly shown in the rules. Thus the rule wasn't botched, but a portion of the rule was omitted in the write-up. As to the comment to "This issue was how SR was used." I guess I don't really understand your point on. How you use SR is the mechanic... meet or beat the roll... That did not change. Or am I missing what you are meaning in that point?

[Lord Dynel]

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...

I think mbeacom was referring to your claim, Arduin, that the equal to or greater than was "botched," as you put it earlier. Now, before I posted this I wanted to read the rest of the thread to make sure I wasn't saying something that wasn't vaild (because of later posts).

Arduin, you said that botched meant "clumsily put together." While that may be, that's debatable in my opinion...just as isn't in yours. The original question was (more or less) that if the SR roll is "equal to or greater than," what happens with an SR of 1? Now, since the Trolls didn't discuss it in the PHB or M&T, and there was one example of an SR 1 creature in the then your claim of the rule being botched does have some merit.

However, was it ever really botched in the first place? While you think it was, look at it from the opposing point of view for just a moment. SR 0 and SR 1...they automatically fail at an SR check. They have no bearing and have no chance to succeed. Using the rules as written (in both the PHB and M&T), of an equal to or greater roll, then it's in black and white what happens to SR 0 and 1.

I greatly appreciate Steve coming in and clarifying it for us all, but what he did was reinforce what was written in the core books and was echoed in this thread - the SR check must equal to or exceed the SR to succeed. While he did extrapolate, for our enlightenment, what SR 0 and SR 1 actually means, it does not change that SR 0 and SR 1 fail, automatically, on a SR check. Which was the consensus on here before Steve weighed in. Remember, the question was what happens with SR 1, not what SR 0 means, 0-level characters, who gets saving throws and who don't, etc. The rule of SR has NOT changed, in no way whatsoever and we know what most of us have always assumed it was, which was how it was written in the book.

It seem like tensions are starting to get a little high on this topic. I suggest we let it rest, but that's only my opinion. The question has been answered, and any indecision should have been laid to rest. I only suggest we let it rest because I don't want there to be any hard feelings between any of us or for anyone to get their feelings hurt. But we're all big boys and girls here, carry on - or not - how you all see fit.

[mbeacom]

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.

I said the unified mechanic remains and you say "nope". This does not compute. I guess I missed where they're changing the unified mechanic from "meets or exceeds" to what you said they "meant" to have it as "exceeds only". You claimed that the rule was botched because it was "meets or exceeds" rather than what you said it "should" be. Now you claim it's about SR0 vs 1. To me that was never the issue since it was of no consequence to the rule as written. The rule states "meets or exceeds". The wording was not botched. It was intentional. It is not changing as you claimed it should. Again, it seems simple. The rule remains essentially unchanged as far as I can tell. If you consider it being changed then you probably misunderstood it to begin with. That's why I suggest they include further clarification in future printings.

[Traveller]

Just added to the errata in Keeper Advice:

Spell Resistance (Clarification): All beings in the game, whether character or creature, have an innate SR of 1. This reflects the fact that characters and creatures are entitled to saving throws versus magic. Ignore all references to SR 1 in monster write-ups in Monsters & Treasure.

I did not mention much else because it didn't seem necessary. The rule itself hasn't changed, and I didn't change the 10,000gp for 1 point of SR note in the appropriate table in Monsters & Treasure since it's possible to create items with a flat SR as well as items that provide a SR bonus. If anyone can think of something I missed here, kindly let me know so I can edit the clarification.

[mbeacom]

Looks good to me. While this doesn't really effect the running of the game since how everything works is unchanged, I think the clarification will definitely help avoid future confusion. It's also nice to understand the rationale for the current system as it's designed. That's one of the things I love about the Troll Lords, they're very open about letting us in on their ideas and what went into the decision making process. Thanks for the update!

[Traveller]

I did notice one thing to change. It should say that all beings have a minimum SR of 1 since some beings in Of Gods & Monsters have SR greater than 1.

[Arduin]

I did notice one thing to change. It should say that all beings have a minimum SR of 1 since some beings in Of Gods & Monsters have SR greater than 1.

Yes, that'll have to be added to the errata. BTW, where does one find the official errata for the various editions?

[Traveller]

Keeper Advice.

There are two sticky threads at the top of the forum, both authored by myself. The first thread covers the current printings of the books. The information within the thread itself will get worked into the PDF in the course of time, but you may want to download both the PDF and the information from the thread anyway. The second thread is the archives for older printings. The errata documents in the archives thread are no longer updated since I concentrate solely on the currently printed versions.

I welcome input for potential errata as well, and a lot of great guys have chimed in on the errata, for which they all receive my thanks. However, be aware that my errata compilations are at best semi-official and can be contradicted at any time by the Trolls if they so choose.

[Arduin]

Keeper Advice.

There are two sticky threads at the top of the forum, both authored by myself. The first thread covers the current printings of the books. The information within the thread itself will get worked into the PDF in the course of time, but you may want to download both the PDF and the information from the thread anyway.

Thanks I'll download. So, there isn't an "official" published errata?

I welcome input for potential errata as well, and a lot of great guys have chimed in on the errata, for which they all receive my thanks. However, be aware that my errata compilations are at best semi-official and can be contradicted at any time by the Trolls if they so choose.

Glad I could help with input on this latest errata. C&C seems to be a very good RPG.

[Traveller]

The official errata covers two things:

1. Combat Dominance in the Player's Handbook
2. Sharks/Megalodons in Monsters & Treasure

Combat Dominance was incorrect in the former, and sharks were missing in the latter. However the official errata does not cover an error found in the scrying spell, the spell resistance clarification, nor the various special abilities listed for select monsters but not described in Monsters & Treasure. Thanks to Peter, the author of the Crusader Companion, these errors were found and added to the errata.

[Arduin]

The official errata covers two things:

1. Combat Dominance in the Player's Handbook
2. Sharks/Megalodons in Monsters & Treasure

Combat Dominance was incorrect in the former, and sharks were missing in the latter. However the official errata does not cover an error found in the scrying spell, the spell resistance clarification, nor the various special abilities listed for select monsters but not described in Monsters & Treasure. Thanks to Peter, the author of the Crusader Companion, these errors were found and added to the errata.

I downloaded. Looks like you gathered up a lot of good stuff. Thanks, now I just need to edit the pdf's.

[mbeacom]

Keeper Advice.

There are two sticky threads at the top of the forum, both authored by myself. The first thread covers the current printings of the books. The information within the thread itself will get worked into the PDF in the course of time, but you may want to download both the PDF and the information from the thread anyway.

Thanks I'll download. So, there isn't an "official" published errata?

I welcome input for potential errata as well, and a lot of great guys have chimed in on the errata, for which they all receive my thanks. However, be aware that my errata compilations are at best semi-official and can be contradicted at any time by the Trolls if they so choose.

Glad I could help with input on this latest errata. C&C seems to be a very good RPG.

Agreed. C&C is proving to be very solid with a great community. This minor clarification wouldn't even qualify as errata in most modern RPGs. But in C&C we get very special treatment from the authors. I too appreciate that.

[kreider204]

A few other errata, as long as we're keeping track:

Grappling and Overbearing:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11408&hilit=errata

Turning / Controlling Undead:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11417

Encumbrance:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=8951&hilit=errata

[mbeacom]

Awesome Kreider, thanks for posting!

[Traveller]

A few other errata, as long as we're keeping track:

Grappling and Overbearing:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11408&hilit=errata

Turning / Controlling Undead:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11417

Encumbrance:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=8951&hilit=errata

PM these links to me so I can look them over when I have a spare minute or five?

[kreider204]

PM these links to me so I can look them over when I have a spare minute or five?

Done!

[kreider204]

Awesome Kreider, thanks for posting!

My pleasure. I am hoping we'll have an almost completely errata free next printing.

[mbeacom]

Awesome Kreider, thanks for posting!

My pleasure. I am hoping we'll have an almost completely errata free next printing.

Great, just what I need, another reason to buy another C&C book, FOR THE ERRATA! Thanks for helping with this!

[kreider204]

Great, just what I need, another reason to buy another C&C book, FOR THE ERRATA! Thanks for helping with this!

Yep, I'm an enabler ...

[kreider204]

Hey, sorry to resurrect this, but I need a quick clarification. If I've followed all this correctly, we've decided that the SR 1 for the white dragon was an erratum. But how exactly do we correct it? Do we just remove the 1, and replace it with a dash, or do we increase the 1 to a 2 (and then, presumably, the SR 2 in the next older age bracket to a 3)?

On the same note, there are a few dragons in M&ToA with SR 1 - do we just remove those, or increase them to 2 (and add one to any other SRs for older age brackets)?

Thanks much in advance.

[koralas]

Hey, sorry to resurrect this, but I need a quick clarification. If I've followed all this correctly, we've decided that the SR 1 for the white dragon was an erratum. But how exactly do we correct it? Do we just remove the 1, and replace it with a dash, or do we increase the 1 to a 2 (and then, presumably, the SR 2 in the next older age bracket to a 3)?

On the same note, there are a few dragons in M&ToA with SR 1 - do we just remove those, or increase them to 2 (and add one to any other SRs for older age brackets)?

Thanks much in advance.

I would do just that, simply add 1 to all creatures that have SR1 listed, and increase subsequent improvements by adding 1 as well.

[kreider204]

Thank you kindly!

[Arduin]

I would do just that, simply add 1 to all creatures that have SR1 listed, and increase subsequent improvements by adding 1 as well.

Also, everyone has an SR of 1 now.

[Omote]

I would do just that, simply add 1 to all creatures that have SR1 listed, and increase subsequent improvements by adding 1 as well.

Also, everyone has an SR of 1 now.

Not 0-level, mundane types. But this is not RAW, only what Trolllord described here.

~O

[Arduin]

Not 0-level, mundane types. But this is not RAW, only what Trolllord described here.

~O

Nothing on this thread is RAW. It is just a work around so that the Siege Engine mechanic makes sense with Spell Resistance.

Also, Level Demi-humans would have SR 1 as they all have some type of save bonus vs. spell type stuff (maybe not 1/2 Orcs.). So, only 0 Level Humans would NOT have SR of 1 and thus, no saving throw vs. Spells...

[koralas]

Nothing on this thread is RAW. It is just a work around so that the Siege Engine mechanic makes sense with Spell Resistance.

Also, Level Demi-humans would have SR 1 as they all have some type of save bonus vs. spell type stuff (maybe not 1/2 Orcs.). So, only 0 Level Humans would NOT have SR of 1 and thus, no saving throw vs. Spells...

Just a point of clarification, there is no confusion in the mechanic of SR. SR was ALWAYS based on the Siege Engine. In every description in the core books, it specifically states that a mage must score equal to or greater than a creatures SR in order to be able to affect it, saving throws still apply. Thus, there is no "work around" provided for in this thread in the mechanic of how SR works.

The identification of all creatures having SR1 is a clarification that was an original omission to the rule. That SR0 does not provide for saving throws is something new, and further that level-0 types have SR0 is also new. Now, the level-0 ruling is one that I would house rule around to provide them SR1, and only specifically designed objects/creatures would have SR0.

My comment on giving a +1 to SR for any creatures listed with SR1 (and subsequent increases also gaining that +1) is completely unofficial. However, since the errata does have the White Dragon start at SR2, I think this is a logical deduction. Now this doesn't mean that everything now has SR2, since by default everything has SR1, because SR isn't listed in the standard stat block in M&T, only those that are supposed to benefit from SR have it listed in their abilities. Thus, if it is listed, and is/starts at SR1 increase it to provide the intended result.

[Arduin]

Just a point of clarification, there is no confusion in the mechanic of SR. SR was ALWAYS based on the Siege Engine.

I'm glad you got that cleared up for yourself. That it followed Siege Engine is how I discovered the problem with SR in the 1st place.

The identification of all creatures having SR1 is a clarification that was an original omission to the rule.

Yes, I know. I'm the one that came up with that solution and proposed it.

[kreider204]

Guys, I was just looking for a clarification on the white dragon stats, and some advice about the M&ToA dragons. I didn't mean to restart the bickering. Maybe we could give it a rest? Thanks.

[koralas]

Just a point of clarification, there is no confusion in the mechanic of SR. SR was ALWAYS based on the Siege Engine.

I'm glad you got that cleared up for yourself. That it followed Siege Engine is how I discovered the problem with SR in the 1st place.

The identification of all creatures having SR1 is a clarification that was an original omission to the rule.

Yes, I know. I'm the one that came up with that solution and proposed it.

Hmm, actually the issue with SR1 not providing the benefit of actually resisting a spell was identified long before your initial post, as shown by the White Dragon SR having been corrected in the 3rd Printing of M&T. Further, in this thread, SR1 for all creatures was postulated by myself, with you emphatically refuting my proposition as shown in these posts...

I think it is pretty simple, as has been pointed out, and RAW SR is the equivalent of an AC against magic. So you need to meet or exceed the number on a d20 to overcome the SR.

Just as a standard AC is 10 for an unarmored, flatfooted foe, the standard SR for each individual is a 1.

No. Standard is NO SR.

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.

Then later you changed your position...

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 ≥ .

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...

I point this out since you continue to state that the original rule was incorrect, which it was not. You are taking credit for finding something that was already identified and corrected, at least on one monster. And in more than one post tout to have come up with the idea of SR1 for all creatures, when as is shown in the above posts is not the case, and which you actually actively refuted at first.

Please note, I am not stating that I have any claim on all creatures having SR1, as the Trolls have pointed out this was the original intention. But rather pointed it out earlier in the thread as it was a simple and logical deduction based on the mechanic as written. SR1 makes no sense as a special ability, thus each creature could be considered to have SR1 since it makes no appreciable difference in the game (you cannot roll less than 1 on a d20).