Spell resistance rule

[Arduin]

"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."

So, if one wanted a SR of 5% it would be SR 2 and, for 100% 21.

Example: I'm creating a Leprechaun (SR 80%), that would equate to SR 17. SR 1 would equate to 0% SR.

Did I read the rule correctly?

[Rigon]

No, SR 1 is equal to 5% SR and SR 20 is equal to 100% SR. So your leprechaun with 80% SR would have SR 16 in C&C. It is 1 point per 5%.

R-

[Arduin]

No, SR 1 is equal to 5% SR and SR 20 is equal to 100% SR. So your leprechaun with 80% SR would have SR 16 in C&C. It is 1 point per 5%.

R-

Hmm, so if you have an SR of 1, and per the rule, the caster rolls a 1-20 on D20 or better to overcome, ("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.") how is that ANY % of spell resistance?

[Relaxo]

huh.

I think Rigon has the intent, if not letter of the law, so to speak, though the way it's worded makes you correct, technically.

It should probably read "If a spell is being resisted by a defender with spell resistance, the caster of the spell must make a check (1d20) greater than the creature’s SR for the spell to effect that creature."

so that SR 1 is 5%, and the caster must roll 2 or higher (5%)






or something.

[kreider204]

Hmm, I always thought of it as a very simple SIEGE check, without any modifiers - just like with AC or CC, it's the number to roll, equal to or better. Yep, that means that assigning a SR of 1 would be pointless. since it would essentially be 0% resistance, but then again, if you go the other way (have to roller greater than, but not merely equal to the SR), assigning an SR of 20 would be just as pointless, since it would equal 100% resistance - and then why even roll, or why even assign an SR (rather than just saying "Immune to magic") ...

[Arduin]

huh.

I think Rigon has the intent, if not letter of the law, so to speak, though the way it's worded makes you correct, technically.

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

[Omote]

Spell Resistance works exactly like armor class. If the SR is a 12, you roll a d20. If you get a 12 or better you pass spell resistance (page 54).

So in that case, a SR of 1 is useless. A SR of 21+ cannot be surpassed by the the rules as presented in the C&C PHB.

This means that a 1 SR does not equate to a 5% Spell Resistance check.

~O

[Omote]

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

This is not errata. The Trolls have been aware of this in every new printing of the PHB. Without putting words into the author's mouth, I believe that the intent was to allow this to be an easily modifiable rule where the CK determines if this check is modified by INT, level, or some other modifier.

There is a magical artifact that gives a SR21 in the M&T. I also believe that there is a monster with a SR of 1 in that book as well.

~O

[Arduin]

This is not errata. The Trolls have been aware of this in every new printing of the PHB.

So? Mistakes often go from printing to printing with no correction. It is a mis-worded rule. Plain and simple.

[Omote]

I'm not sure how you think that the rule is mis-worded. It couldn't be any clearer. Perhaps you think that the SR in C&C is supposed to equate to SR in AD&D? This is not the case. It is a simple mechanic where you roll a d20 and try to meet or surpass the result. If the Troll dudes wanted to use AD&D Spell Resistance %, I'm sure they would have.

~O

[Arduin]

I'm not sure how you think that the rule is mis-worded. It couldn't be any clearer.

And THAT is the problem. An SR of 1 has no meaning but costs 10,000 GP to include in a magic item.

So, it is clearly a mis-worded rule.

It couldn't be any clearer.

[Omote]

The methodology and the reasoning behind the way the rule works is actually described in the same paragraph! I'm not sure that there is even another thought-process-behind-the-rule section anywhere in the PHB.

Because an SR 1 costs 10,000 GP in the M&T doesn't prove that the SR rules in the PHB are mis-worded. Having that magic item formula simply means that to have an appreciable SR, one must spend 20,000 GP. If this is the case, there is no reason to waste the space in the magic item construction rules describing how SR has to start at 2 and cost 20k. That might only open up unnecessary questions in that section. Given how short the magic item creation rules in the M&T are, the authors probably never thought about the ole SR 1 hiccup in the rules, if you can even call it that. It’s just not that important, and it’s not really a flaw.

~O

[Ronin77]

I don't really follow the rules on this I guess, I thought I was. I add SR to saving throws. Whats the use of having an arcane spell save and then not use it. So I just have a siege roll based on int with SR added to the roll. Since 1 in 20 is 5% it actually adds 5% to the roll. Rolling on arcane spell save if the spell doesn't fall under one of the other saves.

[Arduin]

Because an SR 1 costs 10,000 GP in the M&T doesn't prove that the SR rules in the PHB are mis-worded. Having that magic item formula simply means that to have an appreciable SR, one must spend 20,000 GP.

Now, THAT was funny.

Anyway. I just added this to errata doc. Next, edit my pdf's to include all of it

[Lord Dynel]

Wow. This is a tricky one.

As far as I know, no creature has a SR of 1. According to the wording of Spell Resistance in both the PHB and M&T, which clearly state the roll has to be equal or greater, it would indeed appear pointless if a creature had a SR 1. Looking at the magic item creation rules, the table clearly shows that 1 point of SR costs 10,000 gp. But again, considering the wording of the rule in both books, it would appear to be a waste of money if one constructed an item with SR 1.

I think that, with the open-endedness of SR, we're making the mistake of equating 1 SR = 5% magical protection. We don't do that with AC, so why should we assume that to be the case with SR? A holy avenger grants SR to the paladin of 5 + his level...what if it's wielded by an 18th level paladin? No where does it say that SR tops out. I would think that if it was meant to be on a percent scale, wouldn't the Trolls made it as such?

These are just my musings on the subject, and YMMV, of course.

[Arduin]

I think that, with the open-endedness of SR, we're making the mistake of equating 1 SR = 5% magical protection. We don't do that with AC, so why should we assume that to be the case with SR?

Has nothing to do with equating it to a %. (I simply noticed the flaw when converting AD&D % to C&C) It has everything to do with the errors you pointed out. The rule was botched.

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."

[TheMetal1]

An SR of 1 has no meaning but costs 10,000 GP to include in a magic item.

Oh my...
You said... Magic Item Creation.

That is quite problematic in an of itself if you try to follow the RAW. If you wing it C&C-style, no problems, but going through the forumla, there are issues. By the way, I thought the issue of Magic Item creation was going to be addressed in the next crusade of M&T?

Here is thread if anyone is interested:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9645

There is a magical artifact that gives a SR21 in the M&T. I also believe that there is a monster with a SR of 1 in that book as well.

The SR 1 creature is the Old White Dragon (M&T, 2nd Crusade, page 24)

The SR 21 Magical Item is the following:

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

[Relaxo]

I must say the 1 point = 5% thing was an assumption I made. (Not sure I was the only one or that I planted the idea in others, but certainly it's one I made).

so yeah.

HEY STEVE! What's up with SR, boss?

[AGNKim]

SR is exactly like Armor Class for spells. I would interpret the rule for magic creation to be "10,000gp gets you a +1 SR", which assumes you, and everything entity in the known multiverse, has a base SR of 1. In other words, paying 10,000gp in magic creation garners you a 2 SR. Not exactly the way it is written, but I started playing these crazy games in 1983 and it's just a leap I make based on that experience.

[Lord Dynel]

I think that, with the open-endedness of SR, we're making the mistake of equating 1 SR = 5% magical protection. We don't do that with AC, so why should we assume that to be the case with SR?

Has nothing to do with equating it to a %. (I simply noticed the flaw when converting AD&D % to C&C) It has everything to do with the errors you pointed out. The rule was botched.

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."

Are we 100% sure on this, or is that your interpretation? I'm not trying to sound snarky, so my apologies if I do. As many times as the rule is repeated in the PHB and M&T, I find it hard to believe that the rule was botched. Unless you mean bothced as in "not well thought out," instead of "misworded." I don't think it's misworded, since it was repeated as many times as it was.

So, out of everything (all examples we can find), the old white dragon is the only thing that has a SR of 1. I would be more inclined to think that was the botch, instead of the multiple-written rule...but that's my opinion.

SR is exactly like Armor Class for spells.

Since this is how the books rule it, this is how I think it's supposed to be. At least, this is how I'll adjudicate it. I'll house rule the old white dragon to have a SR of 2, and 20k gp will be the base price for a SR 2 created item (them 10k gp for each +1 after that).

[Arduin]

Are we 100% sure on this, or is that your interpretation? I'm not trying to sound snarky, so my apologies if I do. As many times as the rule is repeated in the PHB and M&T, I find it hard to believe that the rule was botched.

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...

[Lord Dynel]

Are we 100% sure on this, or is that your interpretation? I'm not trying to sound snarky, so my apologies if I do. As many times as the rule is repeated in the PHB and M&T, I find it hard to believe that the rule was botched.

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...

I don't think it's "Siege Engine methodology" - almost every game, and mechanic within a game, follows the philosophy of "if the result [of the check/roll/etc] is higher/lower or equal to the [target number] then the [check] succeeds." There were a few that I recall, off hand, but most followed the "or equal to" mentality. I have plenty of years of reading and running rpg's, too, but I don't think it takes three decades to figure out what the precedent is in this case. No one's "gaming cred" is at stake here. But, I think the inclusion of one creature (the old white dragon in this case) is sending out some "DOES NOT COMPUTE" signals.

Without getting an official Troll in here, it's going to be a "your way or my way" interpretation of the rule. Not that your interpretation is a bad one, Arduin. It definitely has merit. I just think that someone, somewhere would have seen this by now and said, "hey, the SR check result has to be 'greater than' not 'equal to,' sorry" or "hey, the white dragon from M&T is wrong...it should have a SR of 2." Since neither of these have happened (but I'm crossing my fingers for someone to rule one way or the other) I, personally, have to go with what we got...and that's the in-print and official rule.

I think both methods make sense but I tend to lean towards the written rule, when it doubt, though I would have no problem with an official revision of said rule!

[koralas]

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. Meaning, without anything extra, spells will always be able to affect you. Emphasis because the spell has to overcome your innate resistance to magic, and if it does you will still need to fail a saving throw (if one is allowed) to have the spell actually affect you.

With this, the old White Dragon description was wrong, and has been corrected to start at 2. Now, when creating a magic item, I would think that each SR applied should be added just like magical armor, that is it would be a bonus to your SR. Thus SR +1 makes a standard person have an SR of 2, and would cost 10,000gp, SR +3 makes you a SR 4 and costs 30,000GP.

You would have to determine if magic items as written in M&T grant a bonus or grants the level shown... Thus is the Holy Avenger bumped to +4+Pal Level, or will it simply be 5+Pal Level? The end result is the same, but you would have to apply it equally across the board. Using it as a bonus also lets Armor of Spell Resistance make sense since it has a range of 1-8, thus it is +1 - +8, or grants an SR of 2-9. The Mantle of Spell Resistance would be +21 making a person technically 22, but since it is unmodified, at least without certain magic items that specifically state a bonus to the SR roll, it would rarely matter, or simply a flat 21... again consistency is the key.

[tylermo]

Guess I should look more closely at this thread. I've been running a game, but haven't had to use SR much yet. It's going to come up, so I'll want to be up to speed.

[Arduin]

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.

[koralas]

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, which is something that is going to need to be fixed via errata, or the rule changed/rewritten/explained differently to make an SR1 mean something. Since the White Dragon was changed, I am more inclined to think the way I wrote in my previous post, which also accommodates an SR1 of having a 5% chance of failure, if applied to a base SR1. Thus the effective SR is 2, and a mage rolling a 1 on a d20 fails to break the SR of the target.

RAW, there is no 5% chance of the spell not working, as there would be in the event of using a d%, after all you cannot roll less than a 1 on a d20... since it is not a d% with a SR of 1, there is zero chance of failure. However, if you want it to work on a d% in your game, by all means, house rule it, make each increment a 5% step, thus you can roll that d% and a 5 or less is a failure to break the spell resistance, 6+ successful.

Now perhaps you might want to consider using a base SR1 and make an SR of "-", "n/a", or "0" the same as a class VI Psionic from 1st Ed. That is completely immune, but cannot benefit from any magic be that source from spells, magic abilities, or items. Of course, that is directly impacted by magic, but the "side effects" can still affect them... Earthquake, rock to mud and back to rock, etc.

[mbeacom]

The way I read it, SR being like armor class and you need to meet or exceed the SR in order for the spell to work, SR2 is the lowest number that makes sense. That being the case, SR2 would give a 5% chance to avoid the magical effects since only on a natural 1 would the spell fail. So, SR2 = 5% resistance. Follow this scale up to SR20 would be 95% resistance since only a roll of 20 (5% chance) would allow the spell to succeed. Any spell resistance over 20 (i.e. 21), would be considered 100% resistance assuming the lack of any modifiers. Making 20 the same as 95% resistance seems justified, since anything with 100% resistance wouldn't require a roll at all. I always thought this made perfect sense. I think the white dragon SR is probably the typo. I don't think the SR rule needs to be errata'd at all. But that's just my opinion.

[kreider204]

I think the white dragon SR is probably the typo. I don't think the SR rule needs to be errata'd at all. But that's just my opinion.

I agree:

- Both the PHB and M&T state that the roll is equal to or greater.

- This makes SR work just like AC and CC, so it's consistent.

- The White dragon is the only monster with an SR of 1 - and note that every single other dragon goes from no SR to 2 or more, so it seems more likely that the white dragon is the error than it does that all the other dragon entries accidentally skipped SR 1.

- 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.

Ultimately, the only people who can tell us whether or not this is errata are the Trolls, but regardless, one can always houserule as one sees fit. More importantly, let's remember that this is just a game, and no cause to get too bent out of shape - there in lies the slippery slope from geek (cool) to nerd (not cool) ...

[koralas]

- 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.

[mbeacom]

I think the white dragon SR is probably the typo. I don't think the SR rule needs to be errata'd at all. But that's just my opinion.

Ultimately, the only people who can tell us whether or not this is errata are the Trolls, but regardless, one can always houserule as one sees fit. More importantly, let's remember that this is just a game, and no cause to get too bent out of shape - there in lies the slippery slope from geek (cool) to nerd (not cool) ...

My apologies if I came off as being "bent out of shape". I'm totally ok with this. I think the rule seems clear and doesn't need to be errata'd, but I have no problems with anyone who disagrees, or who houserules as they see fit. This is why I like C&C because these types of disputes are generally very amiable. The wotc boards are rife with anger and confusion. It's a sad place to be.