Steel vs. magic

[Shpadoinkle]

So, a thought I had the other day: In a lot of fairy tales, iron is resistant to magic, and in some cases is the only thing that can hurt fey (magical) creatures. So, what if we applied this idea to D&D? (I'm posting this in the 3.X forum because it's the edition I'm most familiar with.) The basic idea I had was that iron (or steel) or mostly iron armor would provide spell resistance equal to its AC bonus, while iron weapons would provide SR equal to half its damage die (so a medium longsword, dealing 1d8, would provide SR 4 while wielded.) Numerical magic bonuses (+2 or whatever) would add to the SR granted, in addition to the usual bonuses they grant.

Thoughts? Overpowering? Underpowered?

[flappeercraft]

It would only help in the low levels, even with Full-plate you would have a SR of 8 which would only have impact on the lower levels while the problem is on the higher levels which is where casters are more powerful. I would instead propose something that would impact higher level casters instead of lower level ones as by lower levels mundanes are actually decently competent with casters.

[Zanos]

It would only help in the low levels, even with Full-plate you would have a SR of 8 which would only have impact on the lower levels while the problem is on the higher levels which is where casters are more powerful. I would instead propose something that would impact higher level casters instead of lower level ones as by lower levels mundanes are actually decently competent with casters.
The other issue is that directly attacking creatures with spells that offer spell resistance is typically the least efficient way to play casters, so it kind of punishes unoptimized casters by making counters to the less powerful method of casting more readily available. I assume Full Plate(8) and a greatsword(2*3 = 6?) would give 14 SR, which is pretty good at lower levels.

Also D&D does already have a bit of this. Fey and other magical creatures often have DR/Cold Iron, cold iron is more difficult to enchant, etc. Maybe buff that by having cold iron weapons be unenchantable, but also ignore or dispel some defenses granted by magic?

[Fizban]

Spell Resistance not applying to certain spells is easily fixed by abolishing SR:no and applying it to all spells. Your standard SR maxes out at 30 or so with sword 'n board, 25 without a shield to enhance. Most of the game it's not likely to reach 10+level, but it shouldn't anyway.

[Vogie]

I could see it as an option, but with some delineation. For example, "Cold Iron" arms and armor is made of solid Iron, thus having magic-nulling properties, but also is heavier, more rare, and harder to hold an edge. Steel is more common, lighter than iron (the normal RAW weight), stays sharper, and is easier to repair. The steel has a lot of Iron in it, but that iron is diluted. In pathfinder, they define Cold Iron objects are "forged with the least heat possible" and "costs twice as much to make" (Ultimate Magic)

[Madwand99]

This isn't as much of a buff to fighters as you'd think, as they'll be harder to buff (with haste, etc.), heal, and otherwise cast beneficial magic on.

[Elkad]

Spell Resistance not applying to certain spells is easily fixed by abolishing SR:no and applying it to all spells.

That's a solution that wouldn't hurt most games.

I don't mind a few specific exceptions to SR, but it should apply to the average Orb of Fire or whatever. A demon should be able to lean on a Wall of Force and push through it (though I'd probably give that a difficulty increase).

[Gullintanni]

The other issue is that directly attacking creatures with spells that offer spell resistance is typically the least efficient way to play casters, so it kind of punishes unoptimized casters by making counters to the less powerful method of casting more readily available. I assume Full Plate(8) and a greatsword(2*3 = 6?) would give 14 SR, which is pretty good at lower levels.

Also D&D does already have a bit of this. Fey and other magical creatures often have DR/Cold Iron, cold iron is more difficult to enchant, etc. Maybe buff that by having cold iron weapons be unenchantable, but also ignore or dispel some defenses granted by magic?

Assuming Enhancement bonus adds to SR, then +5 Full Plate provides 13, and a +5 Greatsword, 11, for a total of 24. A CL 20 opponent will fail 15% or 3 of every 20 spells. Certainly not the best form of defense, but for something that comes built into armor by default, it's certainly not nothing. Throw a +5 Animated Heavy Steel shield on top, and we're really getting somewhere.

+5 Mountain Plate (15 SR), +5 Greatsword (11 SR) and +5 Animated Heavy Steel Shield (+7 SR) nets us 33 SR at level 20. The same CL20 opponent has his spells fail 65% of the time. Finally a use for Sword and Board? :P

EDIT: Also keep in mind, Clerics and other armored casters are far and away the biggest beneficiaries of this change. An otherwise identical Cleric armed with a Morningstar instead of a Greatsword would end up with a 31 SR, and subsequently, has no need to Animate his shield. 55% spell resistance vs. CR appropriate casters is a big boost for a class whose primary threats are limited to other casters. An appropriate limitation might be that characters must beat their own equipment based Spell Resistance in order to cast spells, under the theory that metal equipment acts as sort of a faraday cage for magical energy. Magic has just as difficult a time going out as it does going in. To balance this out, allow any character to voluntarily lower or raise this spell resistance as a standard action. ...or perhaps metal armor for casters would require special metallurgical processes or materials that allows magic to flow naturally thorugh them, thereby eliminating any equipment based SR for casters in the first place.

Your armored casters will spend most of their time without any equipment borne Spell Resistance, and melee gets to have nice things.

[Slipperychicken]

If there was just one defense stat that applied against all types of magic, that might make for better game design. Say, get rid of saving throws for spells and replace them with one level-scaling stat that protects against all harmful magic.

I fully support the idea of armor providing extra defense against magic. I could see makers incorporating lead and other types of shielding to interfere with magic spells.

If nothing else, armor should offer some degree of protection against spells that cause physical harm, like fire-blasts and others.

[flappeercraft]

I would make it so that it reduces effective Save DC by 1/2 armor bonus and CL by 1/4 armor bonus instead on all effects against you but for casters its either you take those bonuses from armor but take those penalties for your own spells or ignore them and have no bonuses yourself or possibly just say specialized armor refluffed for casters.

[ExLibrisMortis]

There are typically three defenses to be checked: (touch) AC, SR, and save. As such, we get three obvious houserules.

1) Metal armour applies against magical touch attacks.
2) Metal armour applies to SR (increases SR by armour bonus). Creatures without specified SR have base SR 0, to which armour is added.
3) Metal armour applies to all saves against magic (increases saves by armour bonus).

This is a straight buff for all classes, favouring those with armour proficiencies. If you want to buff mundanes specifically, you need further houserules.

4) Metal armour applies as penalty to caster level (decreases caster level by armour bonus). If this reduces your caster level below the minimum required to cast the spell, you cannot cast that spell.
5) Metal armour applies as penalty to spell save DC (decreases save DC by armour bonus).
6) Metal armour applies as penalty to spell attacks (decreases spell attack bonus by armour bonus).

I wouldn't use these rules myself, but if I had to, I'd make them seriously radical, because a small change is just a pity buff for mundanes.

[Fizban]

EDIT: Also keep in mind, Clerics and other armored casters are far and away the biggest beneficiaries of this change. An otherwise identical Cleric armed with a Morningstar instead of a Greatsword would end up with a 31 SR,
Clerics are also capable of just casting Spell Resistance for for 12+cl, though I don't think I've ever seen anyone recommend it for whatever reason, and they're the only naturally armored casters. And it doesn't much matter if the back row has SR when the front row is the one that worried about spells in the first place. Considering the implications of such a base change is important though, there may be a few significant monsters that pick up SR from this who didn't have it before.

[Mehangel]

6) Metal armour applies as penalty to spell attacks (decreases spell attack bonus by armour bonus).

Damn, that is harsh, I would probably instead just give them a penalty to spell attacks equal to the armor's armor check penalty.

[Gullintanni]

Clerics are also capable of just casting Spell Resistance for for 12+cl, though I don't think I've ever seen anyone recommend it for whatever reason, and they're the only naturally armored casters. And it doesn't much matter if the back row has SR when the front row is the one that worried about spells in the first place. Considering the implications of such a base change is important though, there may be a few significant monsters that pick up SR from this who didn't have it before.

Yes Clerics can cast a spell at mid to high levels and receive the same benefit, but this would be a permanent, non-magical, non-dispellable buff for as long as the Cleric wore armor, something they're going to be doing anyway. There is literally no opportunity cost.

Having that Spell Resistance impair outgoing spells imposes an opportunity cost to benefitting from the changes to armor.

While mundanes are also getting a buff without any opportunity cost, I don't think anyone on these forums would argue that mundane classes couldn't use a little support. This change, in my view, has the potential to be a flavourful way to provide a little of that support.

Heck, it even throws back to old school editions. In AD&D, mundane classes had better saving throw progressions than all of the other classes in the game, which along with the best armor utility and largest hit die, actually made them difficult to kill, even for spell casters. That toughness, combined with much lower hit point thresholds, longer spell casting times, and the lack of any "concentration" skill, meant that Fighters were a serious threat to casters unless they could be neutralized quickly.

Granting mundanes a free bump as far as resisting spells goes actually gets them a little (as in, trace amounts) closer to their original role.

...Going back to Clerics, the ones I've played have been moderately optimized and were, as a result, nigh unkillable in level appropriate encounters, head on encounters. The only real threats were surprise rounds and opposing spellcasters...or falling rocks from a Murder-DM. If every spell cast on my character came with a 55% failure rate for free, it'd take some of the tension out of encounters for me. A lot of my opinion comes down to personal gameplay experience, and everyone's mileage will vary dramatically I'm sure. For what it's worth, my two coppers are on the pile.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Damn, that is harsh, I would probably instead just give them a penalty to spell attacks equal to the armor's armor check penalty.
Armour check penalty applies to attack rolls if you are not proficient with the armour you're wearing. That includes attacks with mundane weapons as well. I didn't want to cause confusion with that rule by making an exception for magical attacks.

Secondly, armour check penalty can be brought to zero, whereas armour bonus can't - at least not in any useful way :smalltongue: - so there won't be any way to get around the penalty. Absolutely very harsh, as you say, but still not enough to do away with martial/caster disparity.