Spell Resistance

[greytale]

I have a newbie question. It may have been asked before so for that I apologize.

I was quite happy reading through all the C&C rules and got everything about the system. The one thing that I did not get was why the spell level or PC level did not figure into spell resistance as a modifier. Shouldn't the power of a spell be a significant factor as to whether a creature can resist it?

Am I missing something?

Thanks for any feedback

Grey

[Dristram]

greytale wrote:
Shouldn't the power of a spell be a significant factor as to whether a creature can resist it?

Personally, I think no. A spell is a spell is a spell. It's all magic. And the spell resistance is essentially magic resistance. I would have preferred it called magic resistance instead. I think by calling it spell resistance it gives the feeling that certain spells might be harder to resist. But just plain magic resistance equals all spells to simply magic.

[moriarty777]

greytale wrote:
I have a newbie question. It may have been asked before so for that I apologize.

I was quite happy reading through all the C&C rules and got everything about the system. The one thing that I did not get was why the spell level or PC level did not figure into spell resistance as a modifier. Shouldn't the power of a spell be a significant factor as to whether a creature can resist it?

Am I missing something?

Thanks for any feedback

Grey

When factoring Saving Throws, PC levels are factored in when making a save and Caster levels are factored in determining the target number for that save. A creature with spell resistance also gets a saving throw (when applicable) if the spell gets through the spell resistance. Think of it as an innate extra layer of protection. Or better yet... cover. This is also why spell resistance is factored in only when the creature with it is actually targeted. If a fireball is cast and the creature is in the blast radius, Spell Resistance is not factored in. However, if a magic missile is cast at the same target, they would get Spell Resistance factored in despite not being allowed a Save.

That's my interpretation... I hope that helps some.

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[serleran]

No, level of the spell or its caster should not be a factor into spell resistance. Those are factored into the spell itself, with higher difficulty to save against, more damage (or whatever), duration, range, and the like.... but spell resistance is a defense. A PCs AC is not factored against the BtH of the attacker, but it is used to see if that attacker can hurt them. Spell resistance is similar.

[Treebore]

I also like it being done this way. (BTW, errata says add the INT or WIS bonus of the caster to their SIEGE check to beat SR)

Why?

Because it allows relatively small numbers to have a huge value.

What I mean by that is that instead of keeping things open ended like BtH and AC the SR check is able to be kept within a finite range.

So having an SR of 10 from your pseudodragon familiar is always going to be tough rather than become insignificant if your campaign lasts to 20th level. Especially if you go beyond 20th level.

The only thing the CK has to keep control of is the stat bonus for the PC's INT or WIS. An 18 WIS or INT trying to overcome an SR of 10 is very significant. Having a 25 INT with a +7 is very god like, like it should be.

So I like doing it this way. ITs easier for a CK to account for, and it stays a very significant defense up to and past 20th level because of it.

[greytale]

Thanks for the answers people.

Treebore and Serleran confirmed what I thought I had read. I understand the need to remove an open ended mechanic, the only thing that got me was that it did not matter whether I was a first level wizard or a twentieth, the roll against spell resistance would be the same as long as my attributes didn't change.

The principle I was working off of was that other class related checks apply level and to me this check was for a PC magic-user class to overcome the SR of the defender. Like you all have said SR is just an AC for magic and while combat rolls don't add a level modifier, the BtH does increase over level, so the level is being recognized in combat. It puzzled me that the SR check didn't scale that way, either in a similar mechanic like BtH or via a level modifier, instead it seems to be handled more like an non-class check.

I appreciate the feedback on this, from what I have read in the books I think the game is brilliant and I can hardly wait to start playing.

Grey

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
A PCs AC is not factored against the BtH of the attacker, but it is used to see if that attacker can hurt them. Spell resistance is similar.

There's something not quite right about this comparison...

The AC (spell resistance) of the defender does not change, but the bonus to hit (spellcaster) does get a bonus to hit, depending on his level.

But you're saying it's simply d20 > SR ? Since the SR of the target doesn't change, it doesn't matter how potent the spell is or how competent the caster.

So i don't see how this comparison works...

-Fizz

[serleran]

SR is finite, and invariable. AC is finite and invariable. When you are attacked, your AC is used to see if you were hit; the attacker gets no special benefit for your AC value (that is, there is no "if the AC is SR
[/quote]


By original design, yes. It seems to have changed to d20 + spellcasting modifier >= SR, making the caster slightly able to affect a wider range, meaning things with a very low SR have it negated against a very high attributed caster.

If you prefer a more AD&D way, go with d20 + level + attribute modifier >= 12 + SR. It should come out about right in most cases, save those where SR values were severely modified (ie, drow.)

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
SR is finite, and invariable. AC is finite and invariable.

Yes, i get that part. Where the comparison breaks down is on the `attacker' side.

A warrior gains a bonus related to his level. So he improves the chances of hitting any given AC with as he rises in level.

Whereas a wizard, btb, gains no such bonus. It's always the same difficulty for him to affect a given monster, no matter what spell he throws at it or what level he is.

So that's where i think the comparison breaks down.

I guess which method you use depends on the philosophy of magic in your world. If you prefer the `a spell is a spell' method, then there are no modifiers. If you prefer the `more powerful magic' method, then you should include the spell level as a modifier. Finally, if you prefer the `craft of spellcasting' method, then the spellcaster's level should be the modifier (ie, he can focus the magic better, or whatever).

I prefer the last one myself, but that's partly because i use a modified magic system that requires spellcasting checks.

-Fizz

[serleran]

Heh, well, if we really wanted to get weird, we'd start arguing that the spells are the weapons (and yes I know that lends some weight to your argument) of casters, and weapons are weapons are weapons, so even a BtH bonus is not needed, though, we cannot compare them that way because they are not exact. Similar does not mean exact; at some point the differences (as you've already noted) make them wholly separate, but it does not mean that the similarities should be ignored, since that was exactly how it was intended. SR is the "AC" of the defender, when subjected to spell attacks. Should a caster not want to deal with it, they have non-SR spells at their disposal. Fighters usually don't have instant hits...

And, by the way, a spell is not a spell is not a spell, in every sense of the word or there would not be spell level distinctions.

Anyway, what I've said on how it was meant to be designed (d20 > SR) is correct. That seems to have changed. Personally, I prefer the earlier version as it makes SR applicable at all levels, and against all foes.

[Geron Raveneye]

Personally, I've taken a bit of inspiration from AD&D 1E, where caster level and spell level were taken into consideration of magic resistance. I've simply put the SR in M&T on a base of "against a 12th level caster casting a 1st level spell" and modify the actual SR by caster level and spell level that are up against the creature in question. The formula is pretty simple, too.

Actual SR = Listed SR - (Caster Level - 12) + (1 - Spell Level)

Use the modified number as Challenge Level for a "standard" Prime check allowing caster level to modify it, and it gives you a different flavour of spell resistance altogether, of course, but it's still working. Makes casting at an Imp at low levels a nasty thing for an apprentice, but won't keep him from hurting that Imp 20 years and 15 levels later anymore.

[Treebore]

Fizz wrote:
...Whereas a wizard, btb, gains no such bonus. It's always the same difficulty for him to affect a given monster, no matter what spell he throws at it or what level he is...

-Fizz

Thats true, unless your run a game like mine where it is possible to increase your INT or WIS, either permanently or via the "Enhance Attribute" spell. Which does increase your chances of over coming SR. (Errata has INT or WIS bonus added to your SIEGE check to defeat SR)

So since PC's (and NPC's, I am a thorough believer in "whats good for the goose is good for the gander") can increase their stats via training in my campaigns up to an 18 (or 19 for certain races) then even higher, temporarily or permanently depending on the magic, a spellcaster can greatly increase their ability to overcome SR 10 years or 15 levels down the road of their life and career.

So that is why I am happy with handling it BtB on this particular issue.

Of course, like Geron, I was fine with how it was done in 1E, but I like the difference. So I'm sticking with it until I feel like trying something else out, or going in the direction Geron has.

[Omote]

I'm also not a huge fan of the way C&C handles SR. Frankly, I just this past weekend moved into the train of thought where to beat SR you roll a d20, add the relavent attribute + your level.

Seems very SEIGE-Y to me, so why not do it this way? What could be the downsides of treating SR like any other SEIGE check?

.........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

It has two bell curve effects: first, those with low SR have it become more powerful, even against a party of incredibly superior nature.

Example:

A party of 5th level PC against a SR of 4, which is usually not too good:

d20 + (let's assume a fairly common +1 attribute modifier) + 5 >= 12 + 4

That SR of 4 more than doubles in effect because instead of simply needing a roll over 4, it is now a roll over 9.

Example 2:

A party of 12th level PCs against the same SR 4.

d20 + same bonus + 12 >= 12 +4

The d20 needs a 3 or better, only barely weakening the SR, and that's at 3 times the SR in level.

So, what it means, basically, is that you will find spells being resisted an awful lot more than they should be, resulting in much longer fights. It also means the value (in XP) of SR should be increased because its much more powerful (even a SR of 1 can be extremely useful; whereas, under the BtB method, its a joke.)

Oh, and one other thing: using SR as a SIEGE Mechanic means a normally median value is incredibly powerful against a low level party, rather than being a medium challenge.

Example 3:

3rd level party vs SR of 8, which is decent, but not totally powerful (in fact, its relatively weak.)

d20 + same +1 + 3 >= 12 + 8

That 8 doubled to a 16 needed. This means wizards are greatly weakened, one, because they advance so slowly, and 2, because the odds of SR working are decreased severely. It has the opposite effect on those who don;t use magic since it reduces the caster's role and makes for more stand-up fights. The middle ground is not having SR as a SIEGE mechanic.

[Omote]

Ok, makes sense. What about SR then being a straight roll to beat, equalling in (almost) all cases d20+MOD+Level > SR (no SEIGE check), more just like that other game?

..........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

That reduces the effectiveness of SR, making casters much more powerful.

Example:

Same as above: 3rd level vs SR 8.

d20 + 1 + 3 >= 8. The effective roll needed is a 4, rather than an 8. In general, unless you're using very high SRs, monsters will be affected by spells more often, making the casters even more powerful, against any SR monster at low level.

Example 2:

Same as above, but higher SR:

d20 + 1 +3 >= 15

The needed roll is 11, or 20% more often the spell works.

At high level, SR becomes useless unless it becomes linear.

Example 3:

Same attribute, but 12th level, against SR of 15 which is usually very good.

d20 + 1 + 12 >= 15

The caster needs a 2, or, near automatic success. That makes the caster extremely potent.

The only true middle ground is to make it a flat roll, with at most, attribute mod added... this only affects the very low SRs in terms of "ease of penetration." A flat roll, however, retains its potency throughout the entire game, at any level, against any foe, making it an actual defense.

[serleran]

Now, to make SR more like AD&D, one could go with something like...

d20 + (level -1) >= 12 + SR

This would mean a 1st level PC against a SR of 10 would be at impossible to affect (needs a 22), but a PC of 12th level would be at a needed 13 on the d20 (same as "roll above SR flat" in this case.) A 15th level PC against SR of 4 would need a 2, but at near 4x the SR, reducing it by half is about right.

[Treebore]

The big thing your illustrating to me is that sticking with how it is in the books is easier.