Eliminating SR-no

[Calimehter]

The more I think about it, the more I'm tempted to just wipe out the "SR:yes or no" line from spell descriptions and just say that there's no such things as spells or SLA's that ignore spell resistance.

I've read a few older threads on the subject, and I didn't really find any of the objections compelling. Saying that SR:no spells allow a caster to contribute and/or survive against high-SR foes doesn't work for me. To me, his role in such an encounter is to start buffing up his melee teammates to go kill it . . . if he has no such teammates, the fact that he is 'screwed' doesn't bother me any more than saying that a fighter is 'screwed' w/o magical help against certain (many?) threats. Seems to me it would encourage teamwork between the casters and noncasters, which is really nothing but a good thing in my book.

To make it work, IMO, one also has to go ahead and just say that "no magical spells can create nonmagical materials" since that is the basis of most SR:no spells from a RAW and/or logical point of view. Again, I don't really have a problem with this. No permanent Walls of Salt to be resold for profit? Detect Magic and Dispels working on things like Grease, Mount, and various higher level Conjuration(creation) stuff? No problems here. I seem to recall it being suggested from time to time in various "fixing 3.5" threads.

One might also object by saying that it "makes no sense" from a verisimilitude standpoint to allow an SR creature to just walk through and/or ignore certain effects . . . but if we allow for 'any magical effect created by a spell is also magical', which makes about as much sense as 'magic rewrites physics because magic', then we can easily imagine demons walking right through conjured fogs and walls of stone and such.

About the only thing I'm not sure on is whether or not Conjuration(calling) should also be affected. Certainly the SLAs/spells of a called being would be affected by SR no mattre what, but I dunno about things like melee attacks and grappling. I'm . . . tempted to say "yup, SR applies" to them to, because, well, magic. I'm still wavering on that one, though.

Am I missing any downsides here??

[Fax Celestis]

The only downside I can see is buffing your allies turns into a problem if they have SR. I would go ahead and say that a caster can ignore the SR of a conscious willing target (or get like a +5 or +10 bonus on his check to pass SR).

[bekeleven]

The only downside I can see is buffing your allies turns into a problem if they have SR. I would go ahead and say that a caster can ignore the SR of a conscious willing target (or get like a +5 or +10 bonus on his check to pass SR).

I can't even think of a buff spell with SR:Yes (maybe a few status removers?), so I don't see how this change impacts that.

Edit: I meant SR: No, otherwise this comment would make no sense.

[HammeredWharf]

Bypassing SR is pretty easy, if you optimize even a tiny bit. Assay Spell Resistance is a +10 bonus, which will be enough in most cases even without a feat investment or buffing your caster level. SR is an annoyance, but not a big deal.

The one thing that this would change radically would be the casters' interaction with monsters immune to magic and anti-magic fields. That's a decent nerf, but usually doesn't come up that often.

[tyckspoon]

I can't even think of a buff spell with SR:Yes (maybe a few status removers?), so I don't see how this change impacts that.

Bless, Haste, the entire line of Animal's Foo spells.. most buffs you can cast on other characters are SR Yes (Harmless). Perhaps you're thinking mostly of Personal range buffs, which generally don't bother to mention SR because a creature always ignores its own SR?

Mind, difficulty in buffing a compatriot with SR is an existing problem, and I don't think the proposed houserule would change it; you already have to either check SR or have your target waste an action lowering his resistance in order to buff or heal a party member with SR. Or find a way for him to count as the caster of the spell (via potion, Ring of Spell Storing, or similar item) so he can benefit from the previously-mentioned rule that a creature with Spell Resistance ignores it for effects it casts on itself.

[ChaoticDitz]

I disagree, in fact we should get rid of SR, casters are already too weak as it is, they don't need any extra nerfs. I mean sure mundanes have to deal with Damage Reduction but at least they don't just get their attacks nullified.

... Miss chances? Concealment? AC? What kinds of weird things are you talking about?

Hm... I'm inclined to agree with parts and disagree with parts. I think with this you should just write Conjuration out in general or rewrite the spell list, because it's WAY better for immersion, balance, sensibility, etc. for the wizard to just not he able to make a wall of stone than for dragons to have a 50/50 chance of being able to fly through said wall...

Also, as controversial as this sounds, I think it's unfair to casters in low-op games. At high-op tables the removal of SR: No could be a fine houserule, but in casual games where caster domination isn't even a problem, this could totally ruin the wizard's creative use of spells that don't buff in order to stay even relevant in a fight against something with SR. Which is a lot of things, many of whom it would only be thematically appropriate to have the wizard duel and beat, and this unfairly hurts them in those fights; a low-op wizard/cleric/whatever deserves to have some options left in the epic dragon solo where the wizard serves as a distraction for the party to acquire the MacGuffin, or in the casterfight against the Mind Flayer Sorcerer to save all his dominated friends on the ground below.

[Spuddles]

What about rock to mud, or a creature with SR interacting with a petrified creature?

It's definitely a right way to go about it, but you're basically making everything an evocation. There will be some weird corner cases.

[Psyren]

SR:No came about because certain spells made no sense with SR applied. Take Earthquake for example; if you collapse the entire roof of a cavern on top of a drow patrol, would some of them just mystically not be crushed/pinned? Or Wall of Stone/Forcecage - can a creature with SR simply walk through it? Can a golem?

Dispels are a second issue. These spells tend to already have a failure chance built in; adding SR on top of that compounds the chances of failure and effectively punishes players for trying to use tactics. Creatures with SR tend to be hard enough fights on their own without their buffs being protected. Some divinations also have a chance of failure.

Finally, if you go this route then there are other spells not subject to SR that you need to worry about. There are buffs as Fax mentioned, as well as summons - does SR form an additional layer of defense against a summoned creature's attacks? If so, how does it work? And if not, summons become the de facto attack form for most magic users against creatures with SR. There's also shapeshifting - if a creature transmutes their hand into a claw, will their talons be affected by SR? If so, why, and how?

[Mithril Leaf]

Seems like it would be the ideal time to roll up a Malconvoker. Enslaved demons get even better when the comparisons all have a chance of failure.

[Melcar]

SR:No came about because certain spells made no sense with SR applied. Take Earthquake for example; if you collapse the entire roof of a cavern on top of a drow patrol, would some of them just mystically not be crushed/pinned? Or Wall of Stone/Forcecage - can a creature with SR simply walk through it? Can a golem?

Dispels are a second issue. These spells tend to already have a failure chance built in; adding SR on top of that compounds the chances of failure and effectively punishes players for trying to use tactics. Creatures with SR tend to be hard enough fights on their own without their buffs being protected. Some divinations also have a chance of failure.

Finally, if you go this route then there are other spells not subject to SR that you need to worry about. There are buffs as Fax mentioned, as well as summons - does SR form an additional layer of defense against a summoned creature's attacks? If so, how does it work? And if not, summons become the de facto attack form for most magic users against creatures with SR. There's also shapeshifting - if a creature transmutes their hand into a claw, will their talons be affected by SR? If so, why, and how?

Its important to rememer that dispel interacts with spells not creatures... So this would be very "unrealistic" to have SR on it, since spells cant get SR...

Personally I would not do this. I know that magic is magic and thus can break every part of making sence, but I think that its simplifying the system too much. I would indeed take a closer look at the spells but to eliminate SR: No, I would not recomend. As has been mentioned before, some spells does not interact with a target but an area around the target and so would make no sence in having SR. If you cast gate as a horizontal disc under a foe, you would not allow for SR to save against falling in would you?

[TuggyNE]

There's also stuff like flinging things with telekinesis or churning up a tornado with control weather. Or minionmancing with animate dead and the like. Or calling/teleporting in a temporary ally. (Summoning is weird enough, when it's basically just a magical copy, but calling? No.)

For that matter, giving a demon or golem or drow the ability to sometimes/always see through fog clouds or illusions or walls from a distance is pretty wonky too.

Basically, the reason SR: No spells exist is because trying to apply SR to them results in wacky and unintuitive results that make people wonder what the game designer was smoking. If a spell's magic directly affects an enemy, you can certainly apply SR to it, but if it doesn't, sorry, applying SR doesn't make sense.

It's possible to find a few spells, including about half of the orb line, that shouldn't ignore SR, but the majority of SR: No spells are written that way for a very good reason. In fact, it's probably the single most logically-consistent line in most spells' descriptions.

[nedz]

I think that you should focus on the spells which are, or are likely be, causing problems. Make those SR:No.

[Psyren]

What TuggyNE said. It can cause pretty jarring results if indirect effects can be resisted like this.


I think that you should focus on the spells which are, or are likely be, causing problems. Make those SR:No.

I think you meant Yes there.


Its important to rememer that dispel interacts with spells not creatures... So this would be very "unrealistic" to have SR on it, since spells cant get SR...

You still target a creature though in order to strip his buffs. You don't target the individual spell or spells on a creature. So it is in fact important to spell out how SR interacts with dispel magic.

[Brookshw]

I'm inclined to agree with your intention for the most part though certain specifics as have been mentioned make it a bit challenging and running through the entire list is just time consuming. Changing conjuration so that only calling effects remain in an amf (or not) might be one easier fix, and restoring golems to straight magic immunity wouldn't be horrible.

Very much agreeing that a temporary support role isn't horrible and that giving different party members there time to shine is fine.

[Psyren]

Creation effects should remain too.

If you really want to rebalance orbs, either move them back to evocation, or turn them into summoning spells and make them SR:Yes. You summon the energy to form them, and that magic holds it together until it hits its target. If that magic is suppressed, the orb itself winks out; if instead the magic is resisted, the orb discorporates on contact before it can transfer its energy to the target.

[Brookshw]

Creation effects should remain too.

.

Is this because of walls or did you have other spells in mind?

[Psyren]

Is this because of walls or did you have other spells in mind?

Lots of things. In addition to walls - If you ate some Created Food and walked into an AMF, would you be hungry again? Can creatures with SR drink Created Water? Can a Drow grease himself to escape a grapple? Would a True Created sword vanish from your hand in an AMF? If you made a demiplane and a visitor cast AMF, would they fall through it into the Astral Plane? etc.

[nedz]

I think you meant Yes there.

Oops, yes I did — thanks.

[Spuddles]

Lots of things. In addition to walls - If you ate some Created Food and walked into an AMF, would you be hungry again? Can creatures with SR drink Created Water? Can a Drow grease himself to escape a grapple? Would a True Created sword vanish from your hand in an AMF? If you made a demiplane and a visitor cast AMF, would they fall through it into the Astral Plane? etc.

Sure why not. Just get rid of the whole conjuration thing, no need for it

Move almost all conjuration into evocation. Summoned creatures have to check vs SR to attack. The calling function of gate should be removed for any normal game, so no need to worry about that. Same with planar binding spells.

[Brookshw]

Lots of things. In addition to walls - If you ate some Created Food and walked into an AMF, would you be hungry again? Can creatures with SR drink Created Water? Can a Drow grease himself to escape a grapple? Would a True Created sword vanish from your hand in an AMF? If you made a demiplane and a visitor cast AMF, would they fall through it into the Astral Plane? etc.

Hmmm, intersting points though I think it might be an interesting campaign to say "yes, things go away", magic doesn't make permanent things, there is no substitute for elbow grease. The demiplane example is a bit trickier. Kind of hamfisted to change things in this way and would need various house rules to deal with the odder scenarios. I'm not wed to this as the best possible modification (its probably a bad one at that) but its interesting to consider

[Doug Lampert]

It's possible to find a few spells, including about half of the orb line, that shouldn't ignore SR, but the majority of SR: No spells are written that way for a very good reason. In fact, it's probably the single most logically-consistent line in most spells' descriptions.

I tend to largely agree, but if I were currently running 3.x and inclined to make such a rule, I'd use the following. "If the spell specifies how much damage it does to a living target or any condition it imposes on a living target then it is automatically SR: Yes."

Then I'd look for exceptions where I need to still allow the spell. I don't think I'd find many and exceptions would consist ONLY of spells where the damage or condition is identical to what would be expected from a non-magical enviromental effect of that type.

If you make acid magically and it's more potent than acid that comes in a flask, then that isn't non-magical acid and doesn't get to ignore spell resistance. If you make fire magically, and it gets to ignore fire resistance and does 10d6 in a fraction of a round then it's not non-magical fire.

[Spore]

Spells with SR: No should ALWAYS have some form of checks to mitigate or bypass the effect.

I don't care if it's a Reflex save for Telekinesis, a SR check for Magic Missile or an Acrobatics check for Grease (though I'd prefer a Reflex check on that one). There are more than enough ways to boost DCs and improve Spell Penetration that there is ANY reason for spells to not have variable outcomes.

That being said this would buff .... buffs to an ungodly strength and you'd have to rework buff categories to even cope with variable outcomes. Adding 1d3 to damage on an Bless spell is certainly an uselessly convoluted way of dealing with the problem at hand.

[lunar2]

Creation effects should remain too.

If you really want to rebalance orbs, either move them back to evocation, or turn them into summoning spells and make them SR:Yes. You summon the energy to form them, and that magic holds it together until it hits its target. If that magic is suppressed, the orb itself winks out; if instead the magic is resisted, the orb discorporates on contact before it can transfer its energy to the target.

except orbs don't need rebalancing. they are right where blasting needs to be. if anything, the rest of the damage dealing spells need to be buffed to where the orbs are.

[Fouredged Sword]

See, I would consider removing SR entierly, and replacing it with magic resistace. Magic resistance adds +1 to defense, resistance to damage 1 / 2 levels, and +1 to saves per 3 levels.

You determine the effect of magic by taking the creatures Magic Resistance and subtracting the caster level of the spell.

A creature with Magic Resistance of 18 getting hit by a CL 12 spell would result in ether +6 to the creatures AC if the spell calls or allows for an attack, resistance 3 to any damage caused by the spell, and +2 to saves to resist the spell.

Then remove SR from all spell lines.

Then allow creatures with Magic resistance to ignore area effect spells with non-instantaneous durations on a DC 20+Cl magic resistance check. Passing the check should allow the creature to act as if the spell was not in effect for one round.

Yes, a high level demon should be able to push his way though your wall of force, passing though but leaving it intact.

I am in favor of removing rolls from combat. Removing SR boost the power of golems though, as they will shrug off ALL spells now.

[Psyren]

except orbs don't need rebalancing. they are right where blasting needs to be. if anything, the rest of the damage dealing spells need to be buffed to where the orbs are.

Hence "if you want to." Some folks don't like where they are; I'm not one of them, but I was still providing a suggestion for those who are.

[Calimehter]

Wow, lots of replies!

I've got a limited time window for this post, but some thoughts so far:

- I may not have described it very well, but I was very much functionally blurring the border between conjuration and evocation, though I hadn't thought of it in that particular way. I'd probably still keep the schools apart, just because that would be one heck of a school as far as spell selection went and there are some thematic differences that remain even with the mechanical blurring, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

- There would be some adjudication required for corner cases, as many have noted, but for the most part I still think things would be intuitive and easy to rule on. To grab a couple of Psyren's examples: A Drow could cast Grease on himself, but only if he lowered his own SR first. Food you have consumed wouldn't really go away in an AMF, because its already inside you (no LoS - you are your food's very own shrunken tinfoil hat!), though there would be some interesting implications once the food . . . well, exited the system. AMF as a garbage disposal? Heh. Stepping onto a magical gate might actually mean that you 'magically' don't fall into it (depending on the SR check), treating any surface below it as though the gate wasn't there and you were just walking through an gate-looking Silent Image.

- Called critters I'm still not sure about.

- I could see adding a related houserule to make it easier to lower (and then reraise) one's own SR for the purposes of buff spells and the like. I'm away from the books right now and won't have a chance to take a closer look a the mechanics for about a day or so. Do you folks think it is critical to consider?

Thanks again for the replies so far!

[bekeleven]

A Drow could cast Grease on himself, but only if he lowered his own SR first.A creature is explicitly never hindered by its own SR.

[Psyren]

You still haven't addressed created structures. With SR/AMF up, I could walk through a wall of stone, or fall through a demiplane, or have created arrows pass through me. And where do you draw the line with things that are created through magic but nonmagical thereafter, like golems?

You also haven't addressed large-scale effects. If someone magically alters the weather to create a natural hurricane, can I walk through it with my SR as though it weren't there? If someone magically collapses the roof of the cavern I'm in, will the mountain above my head wink out as it reaches my AMF?

I still think your best bet is just to add SR to the specific thing you have a problem with rather than taking a machete to the whole system.

[Telok]

I think that you could just get away with something like "Summoned and created creatures, objects, or forces are always SR:Yes and subject to dispelling."

So the evocation:no orbs, the walls of money, and greenbound summons are all subject to SR while Rock to Mud and Earthquake bypass by transmuting the environment instead of summoning or creating.

What is the ratio of issues solved to issues created in relation to the complexity of the change?

[TuggyNE]

I tend to largely agree, but if I were currently running 3.x and inclined to make such a rule, I'd use the following. "If the spell specifies how much damage it does to a living target or any condition it imposes on a living target then it is automatically SR: Yes."

Then I'd look for exceptions where I need to still allow the spell. I don't think I'd find many and exceptions would consist ONLY of spells where the damage or condition is identical to what would be expected from a non-magical enviromental effect of that type.

If you make acid magically and it's more potent than acid that comes in a flask, then that isn't non-magical acid and doesn't get to ignore spell resistance. If you make fire magically, and it gets to ignore fire resistance and does 10d6 in a fraction of a round then it's not non-magical fire.

Oh, I agree, and that's the philosophy I used with my orb fix, which left three out of six as SR: No, eliminated two entirely, and moved one to Evocation/SR: Yes. The SR: No spells there use only nonmagical materials, which also means you can't apply most metamagic to them.

[Calimehter]

I think that you could just get away with something like "Summoned and created creatures, objects, or forces are always SR:Yes and subject to dispelling."

So the evocation:no orbs, the walls of money, and greenbound summons are all subject to SR while Rock to Mud and Earthquake bypass by transmuting the environment instead of summoning or creating.

What is the ratio of issues solved to issues created in relation to the complexity of the change?

That's pretty much a better phrasing of what I'm doing. :smallsmile:

Re Psyren:

I can see going through the SR:no spells one by one and eliminating 'problems' as being a valid approach - TuggyNE and Doug L. have given some good tips along those lines, too - but I prefer the blanket approach. So far, I'm pretty comfortable making judgements based off of the premise that 'things created by spells are magical' and letting the answer flow from that.

Golems: While they use spells as part of the creation process, they are really created by Craft feats, so they would not be dispellable or subject to SR, any more than a magic sword or a fighter with a buff spell on him would be.

Earthquake and rocks fall: Here, the spell(s) in question are targeting the environment around the target, so SR wouldn't come into play. I see it as being analogous to casting Disintigrate on a bridge that an creature with SR is standing on . . . its SR wouldn't apply in this case.

The weather one is a bit tricky, as I'd have to check the spell out. It depends on whether the rain is actually created by the spell (ala Solid Fog) or whether the weather (hah!) itself is the actual target, and is just being modified by the spell. IIRC, you can only modify the weather from certain 'starting points', so *if* IIRC SR would not apply.

SR creatures could walk right through a Wall of Stone or conjured arrows, just as easily as they could walk through a Fireball or an illusionary wall w/o taking damage or stopping . . . all assuming their SR check was passed, of course.

Called critters are where I'm still stuck a bit. I could basically redo them as Summons - in which case, SR/AMF/Dispels apply to them, but then they aren't "really" there, just like Summon X spells. If I do that, about the only difference between Summon X and things like Planar Binding is the duration. Otherwise, I could exempt Called critters from the SR:no bit, at least as far as their physical attacks and other consequences of their physical presence were concerned. i'm on the fence with this one. Malconvoker gets a bit more appealing by virtue of other options being less powerful than they once were, but doesn't *really* have any more power than it does w/o the house rule.

Critters that came in of their own power through an open gates, astral portal, etc. would of course be 'real' in either case.

Edit: Credit where credit is due