PDA

View Full Version : My Attempt at Balancing Spell Resistance



NeoSeraphi
2012-01-29, 08:50 PM
Spell resistance is a joke in 3.5. It's the only defense monsters get against spells other than energy resistance, and since most casters don't use too many blasting spells anyway, it should hamper spellcasters just as much as miss chance, invisibility, flying, damage reduction, regeneration, swarms, incorporealness, and natural armor hamper mundane characters, combined.

So here is a simple fix to Spell Resistance that I propose.

A spellcaster who attempts to cast a spell that allows spell resistance against a creature with spell resistance has his caster level for that spell reduced by an amount equal to the creature's spell resistance. Creatures with spell resistance have their spell resistance amount reduced by 10. If a creature's spell resistance would reduce a caster's effect caster level for a spell to 0 or lower, that spell has no effect on the creature with spell resistance. Spells that deal specifically with spell resistance like assay resistance and true casting are removed from the game, as are feats that specifically deal with spell resistance like Spell Penetration. The spell resistance spell and other spells that grant any form of spell resistance to a creature are likewise removed from the game entirely. Items that grant spell resistance are also removed from the game. The only ways to get spell resistance would be racial, class-based, or applying a template.

There. Now you would need to be at least CL 4 to affect a 1st level drow with a spell, but you would do so automatically, and spell resistance becomes much more like "resistance", in that it actually weakens spells that affect the creature, rather than just acting like AC.

Silva Stormrage
2012-01-29, 09:42 PM
Frankly thats a horrible solution. Look at the spell spell resistance. It would give 2+ caster level spell resistance. That means that it is immune to all spells cast by a caster of equal level. It is a serious nerf to spell casters but all it will do is make them rely on solid fog, orbs, or summons that don't rely on SR. It really isn't that effective.

A better system IMO is just to take spell resistance as a number and remove it. A creature either has SR or it doesn't. Any creature with SR has a 50% chance of failing to effect it with a spell. I think that is a quicker, simpler, and it doesn't make SR = spell invulnerability.

Mulletmanalive
2012-01-30, 01:26 PM
It does seem very cumbersome.

If you were looking at a computer game, fine, but designing a rule that requires constant checking and recalculating of spells on already over-long mage turns seems like a bad idea.

Can't really come up with a practicable suggestion, though this would work fine for Psionics based effects; they already have an element of calculation and were designed to be reasonably swift in use despite that.

NeoSeraphi
2012-01-30, 01:32 PM
A better system IMO is just to take spell resistance as a number and remove it. A creature either has SR or it doesn't. Any creature with SR has a 50% chance of failing to effect it with a spell. I think that is a quicker, simpler, and it doesn't make SR = spell invulnerability.

That is indeed a quick and simple solution, though I don't feel it punishes casters enough. Still, an easy fix is a good idea too.

Edit: You made a good point about the spell resistance spell though, so I updated my OP to reflect it. Spell resistance cannot be attained through magical means or items anymore.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-01-30, 03:51 PM
I like the idea of making spell resistance less of an all-or-nothing prospect, but I think this is, if anything, worse. Anything with a halfway effective spell resistance will wind up almost completely immune to magic. Things with weaker spell resistance will render already-suboptimal blast spells completely useless, while leaving them wide open to all kinds of instant-duration save-or-dies.

Perhaps instead of lowering caster level, SR instead converts to a bonus to saves/touch armor against spells? Say, at a 1/4 level, so that SR 20 turns into a +5 on saving throws and +5 AC against touch spells. That makes it significantly harder to affect, turns all-or-nothing SoDs into a less attractive strategy, and requires no more rolls than normal.

NeoSeraphi
2012-01-30, 03:54 PM
I like the idea of making spell resistance less of an all-or-nothing prospect, but I think this is, if anything, worse. Anything with a halfway effective spell resistance will wind up almost completely immune to magic. Things with weaker spell resistance will render already-suboptimal blast spells completely useless, while leaving them wide open to all kinds of instant-duration save-or-dies.

Perhaps instead of lowering caster level, SR instead converts to a bonus to saves/touch armor against spells? Say, at a 1/4 level, so that SR 20 turns into a +5 on saving throws and +5 AC against touch spells. That makes it significantly harder to affect, turns all-or-nothing SoDs into a less attractive strategy, and requires no more rolls than normal.

Your suggestion is still an all-or-nothing prospect. Either you make your save, or you don't. Either your AC is high enough, or it isn't. The only way this is "less of an all-or-nothing prospect" is against spells that have an effect on a failed saving throw, and even then, it doesn't make the creature with resistance any better than another creature who saved against the same effect.

gooddragon1
2012-01-30, 03:57 PM
How about a % failure chance

Leave spell resistance as is (including all ways to attain it or bypass it) but for every point below that the effective caster level is against the SR there's a 10% chance that the spell fails to work.

NeoSeraphi
2012-01-30, 04:02 PM
How about a % failure chance

Leave spell resistance as is (including all ways to attain it or bypass it) but for every point below that the effective caster level is against the SR there's a 10% chance that the spell fails to work.

But how is that "resistance"? That's just immunity with a chance of failure. There's no go-between here. And again, if a caster pumps his caster level high enough, then spell resistance becomes neutralized completely, even with your proposed fix.

Maquise
2012-01-30, 04:06 PM
Your suggestion is still an all-or-nothing prospect. Either you make your save, or you don't. Either your AC is high enough, or it isn't. The only way this is "less of an all-or-nothing prospect" is against spells that have an effect on a failed saving throw, and even then, it doesn't make the creature with resistance any better than another creature who saved against the same effect.

So, what you're suggesting sounds to me like something of a DR for magic, where SR reduces the effects of spells?

Going with that, what if SR served as DR that only applied to spell-caused damage? I'm not even sure it is a good idea; I'm just throwing it out. I already know it will be a problem for any spells that causes status-effects.

NeoSeraphi
2012-01-30, 04:11 PM
So, what you're suggesting sounds to me like something of a DR for magic, where SR reduces the effects of spells?

Going with that, what if SR served as DR that only applied to spell-caused damage? I'm not even sure it is a good idea; I'm just throwing it out. I already know it will be a problem for any spells that causes status-effects.

That's the thing though, my proposal lowers damage dealt by damaging spells (by reducing caster level for determining that damage) as well as reducing the duration of save-or-sucks (like stinking cloud and glitterdust).

Damage reduction alone wouldn't be enough, it would have to be resistance towards all spells that were based on "spellpower".

gooddragon1
2012-01-30, 04:12 PM
But how is that "resistance"? That's just immunity with a chance of failure. There's no go-between here. And again, if a caster pumps his caster level high enough, then spell resistance becomes neutralized completely, even with your proposed fix.

Also, if the spell allows a save and a creature with spell resistance succeeds on the save they are unaffected by the spell regardless of what their spell resistance is vs the opponent's caster level.

If that's not good enough, they also gain a +X bonus on saves against such spells equal to 1/5th their SR (rounded up).

NeoSeraphi
2012-01-30, 04:16 PM
Also, if the spell allows a save and a creature with spell resistance succeeds on the save they are unaffected by the spell regardless of what their spell resistance is vs the opponent's caster level.

If that's not good enough, they also gain a +X bonus on saves against such spells equal to 1/5th their SR (rounded up).

Okay. So now the immunity is slightly more effective. What about a spell that doesn't allow a saving throw? And more importantly, if they fail their save and the spellcaster ignores their SR, the creature is still completely affected by the spell as if it didn't have spell resistance!

Djinn_in_Tonic
2012-01-30, 04:16 PM
As suggested, with a difference.

Spell Resistance > your Caster level means you can't hit the monster with a spell that allows spell resistance. Sure.

Spell Resistance < your Caster level does this: add Caster Level + 10 (Spell Potency?), and subtract the creature's SR. It gains that as a bonus to its saving throw against the spell. Yes, this makes even SR 12 useful against a 20th level caster, and high SR becomes *really* hard to penetrate. You could also say this penalty applies to the CASTER level as well (minimum 1), meaning that a Fireball cast at something with SR might only end up doing 1d6 damage to it (if, say, a level 10 Wizard uses Fireball against something with 10 SR, and thus a +10 bonus to saves against the now CL 1 Fireball).

That might punish casters TO much, actually...:smallbiggrin:

Amechra
2012-01-30, 04:17 PM
My personal favorite for a fix reduces the spell level by one half of their SR -10, and anything with SR: No actually means SR: 1/2. You can choose to allow a beneficial spell through as a free action, unless your particular ability requires a different action.

If the Spell Level is reduced below 0, the spell has no effect on them; if the spell affects an area, then the creature with SR simply ignores the effects of the spell, walking through force-cages and the like.

The creature with SR gains a bonus on saves vs. spells that allow a save equal to 1/2 their SR value, and they gain a will save on any spell targeted at them that doesn't normally have a save, which only receives half of the bonus to saves.

So Mr. Drow, a 1st level Drow Warrior, would have SR 2, which makes him immune to cantrips and gives him a +1 on his saves vs. 1st level spells.

If Mr. Drow was 7th level, he would have SR 8, which is immunity to all spells of 3rd level or below that all SR and all spells of 1st level or lower that do not allow SR; he would get a +4 on saves vs. any spells not canceled out, and a +2 bonus and a Will save against all spells targeted at him that don't normally allow saves.

If Mr. Drow was 20th level, he would have SR 21, which is immunity to all spells of 10th level or below that allow SR (i.e., EPIC SPELLS!), and immunity to all spells of 5th level or lower that do not allow SR. He would get a +10 bonus on saves vs. spells, and would get a +5 bonus and a Will save vs. any spell that was targeted at them that does not allow a save.

You can leave Assay Spell Resistance and True Spell alone, because they would actually have to pierce the SR to DO anything.

Also, this makes Heightening useful outside of a couple tricks.

Oh, and by the way... under this scheme, the Tarrasque is immune to 11th level spells that allow SR and any spell of 5th level or lower that does not allow SR. Throw on Improved Spell Resistance the full 9 times you can apply epic feats to big T... and the Tarrasque is immune to ALL mortal magic. Suck it, wizards.

Yes, that is right, an SR of at least 36 is immunity to everything short of a Red Wizard of Thay or an epic spellcaster.

gooddragon1
2012-01-30, 04:17 PM
Okay. So now the immunity is slightly more effective. What about a spell that doesn't allow a saving throw? And more importantly, if they fail their save and the spellcaster ignores their SR, the creature is still completely affected by the spell as if it didn't have spell resistance!

They have a better chance of making the save. However:
If the spell does not normally allow a save they are entitled to a will save to negate it.

NeoSeraphi
2012-01-30, 04:19 PM
As suggested, with a difference.

Spell Resistance > your Caster level means you can't hit the monster with a spell that allows spell resistance. Sure.

Spell Resistance < your Caster level does this: add Caster Level + 10 (Spell Potency?), and subtract the creature's SR. It gains that as a bonus to its saving throw against the spell. Yes, this makes even SR 12 useful against a 20th level caster, and high SR becomes *really* hard to penetrate.

That might punish casters TO much, actually...:smallbiggrin:

And for spells that don't allow a saving throw, or spells where the DC is still too high or the creature rolls a natural one, it is still completely affected by the spell as if it didn't have spell resistance. That's what I'm trying to prevent here.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2012-01-30, 04:23 PM
And for spells that don't allow a saving throw, or spells where the DC is still too high or the creature rolls a natural one, it is still completely affected by the spell as if it didn't have spell resistance. That's what I'm trying to prevent here.

I editted in (prior to you posting this) a further way that reduces caster level against opponents with SR.

That said, I don't think you need to worry about EVERY part. This is already HUGE, in that it denies a whole bunch of useful tools (while my save-reducing and CL-reducing suggestion penalize those that remain). SR shouldn't, in my mind, completely deny the wizard ALL his tools...

NeoSeraphi
2012-01-30, 04:27 PM
I editted in (prior to you posting this) a further way that reduces caster level against opponents with SR.

That said, I don't think you need to worry about EVERY part. This is already HUGE, in that it denies a whole bunch of useful tools (while my save-reducing and CL-reducing suggestion penalize those that remain). SR shouldn't, in my mind, completely deny the wizard ALL his tools...

Alright, that works pretty well then.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-01-31, 12:12 AM
Yet another variant of the SR-as-saving-throw-modifier idea:
Divide all existing SR values by 5, rounding up.
All spells that directly affect creatures, whether Target, Area, or Effect, allow SR.
If a spell normally allows a save or requires a melee/ranged touch attack, SR X grants +X to the saving throw and touch AC against it
If a spell does not normally allow a save (whether innately via Saving Throw: None, or via a paralyzed creature not getting a Ref save or similar), a creature with SR may make a save against the spell.
Creatures with SR who succeed on saves against spells are completely unaffected, even on save-for-half or save-for-partial spells.
Creatures with SR who fail saves against spells by 5 or less take partial effect, as if they had succeeded on their saves; if they fail by more than 5, they are subject to the fail effect as normal.

Absol197
2012-01-31, 12:25 AM
My personal favorite for a fix reduces the spell level by one half of their SR -10, and anything with SR: No actually means SR: 1/2. You can choose to allow a beneficial spell through as a free action, unless your particular ability requires a different action.


Yet another variant of the SR-as-saving-throw-modifier idea:
Divide all existing SR values by 5, rounding up.
All spells that directly affect creatures, whether Target, Area, or Effect, allow SR.
If a spell normally allows a save or requires a melee/ranged touch attack, SR X grants +X to the saving throw and touch AC against it
If a spell does not normally allow a save (whether innately via Saving Throw: None, or via a paralyzed creature not getting a Ref save or similar), a creature with SR may make a save against the spell.
Creatures with SR who succeed on saves against spells are completely unaffected, even on save-for-half or save-for-partial spells.
Creatures with SR who fail saves against spells by 5 or less take partial effect, as if they had succeeded on their saves; if they fail by more than 5, they are subject to the fail effect as normal.

I think both of these systems have merits. I'll try combining them, and see if I can come up with something that works.

Ashtagon
2012-01-31, 12:47 AM
Yet another variant...

* Subtract 10 from all published SR values. A published SR of 10 or lower means you have no SR in this system.
* Any caster within 30 ft has his caster level reduced by your SR. Any spell cast against you that under RAW allows a SR roll has the effective caster level reduced by your SR. These two effects do not stack.
* If the effective caster level for a spell is reduced below the minimum required to normally be able to cast the spell, there is a 50% chance the spell simply fizzles.
* Critters with SR can tune (or untune) themselves to any specific identifiable caster within 30 ft as a swift action. Tuning in this manner turns off your SR for any spells that this caster might cast. This tuning is automatically lost if the caster is out of direct sense range for more than a minute.

Yitzi
2012-01-31, 10:32 AM
SR is not the only defense against spells that monsters get against spells other than energy resistance. There's also saves.

I'd say the answer isn't to make SR stronger, but rather to make saves harder to bypass.

Seerow
2012-01-31, 11:02 AM
I suggested almost this exact same thing about two years ago, just like here general opinion seemed mixed.

I do honestly still think it's a good way to go, but I think that to make it really work you would have to rewrite a lot of spells to make it so they all work based on caster level.

Even a simple rewrite like: All save or sucks have you roll xd12 dice, add the total, if it's higher than the target's HP the effect takes place. If it's less than the target's hp, nothing happens. Saving throw causes half damage. (As an aside, this lets metamagics be applied to those types of spells, making metamagic more valuable).

I also think just SR-10 isn't a good enough conversion. While it will be fine for a lot of things, there are several (such as the mentioned Spell Resistance spell) that would make you basically immune to on level magic. I think this is something that you could give a general rule for monster conversion, but convert other things on a case by case basis. (For example spell resist armor would be fine as is, and actually useful now. Spell resist spell would need to be nerfed to something like 1 SR per 2 caster levels, max 10, or something to that effect)

Yitzi
2012-01-31, 11:38 AM
Actually, the conversion I'd suggest is newSR=levelX(oldSR-level)/20, rounded down, where "level" is the level at which you're expected to encounter the effect (so for monsters it's the monster's CR, for class features it's the class level, for spells it's the CL. So for a drow it's half (character level + 1), for a high-level monk it's half the class level, and for the Spell Resistance spell it's 60% of the CL. For cases where there is no "level" such as item effects I'd just use newSR=oldSR-10.)

Yitzi
2012-01-31, 11:40 AM
Actually, the conversion I'd suggest is newSR=levelX(oldSR-level)/20, rounded down, where "level" is the level at which you're expected to encounter the effect (so for monsters it's the monster's CR, for class features it's the class level, for spells it's the CL. So for a drow it's half (character level + 1), for a high-level monk it's half the class level, and for the Spell Resistance spell it's 60% of the CL. For cases where there is no "level" such as item effects I'd just use newSR=oldSR-10.)