Spells with no SR

[JupiterPaladin]

I've mentioned this before, but it seems to be a hot topic again with some newer members asking the age old question - Why are evokers bad?

Why the heck are there spells that can ignore Spell Resistance? Seriously, there is no logical way they can justify a monster resisting one spell but not another. Spell Resistance should be a blanket protection, not hit and miss depending on a cheap spell description. I understand that they made spells to override SR so casters will have something to do every round, but that seems like a gross oversimplification of the problem. They never made a melee ability to ignore flight or concealment "just because the fighter needs to have something to do". If it's flying, he can't hit from the ground, just like a spell should not ignore SR "just because".

This brings me to another conundrum, or should I say yet another WotC gross act of negligence, forgetfulness, or other lack of writers that know the rules of the game - the Orb spells. Yes they are suboptimal but I'm picking on them anyway. Sure no save because you gotta aim the spell to hit, fine. But it should not ignore SR. Worse yet, they are conjurations. OK so you conjure the fire instead of evoke it... What? Their description IIRC is that you conjure "non-magical versions of the elements" which is why they ignore SR, but the damage scales like any other magic spell as does it retain an orb shape magically. If it's not magic you can't control it. The real big issue I have is that non-magical fire does 1d6 damage, whether it's a trip into a campfire, or a round of running through a house that is a "natural" raging inferno. The house fire does not do any more damage (unless your DM houserules it). How can they justify non-magic stuff scaling up in damage by caster level? It's stupid.

There are other spells that make me cringe like Ray of Enfeeblement. Like there's no way somebody could resist the magic? Why? It's a low level spell even. There is never a reason to deny a save unless it's a targeted ability, but should never ignore SR. The orb spells as conjurations were one crappy writer's way of having blast spells for his specialist wizard who has barred evocation, and that's pretty lame.

[Eldariel]

Why the heck are there spells that can ignore Spell Resistance? Seriously, there is no logical way they can justify a monster resisting one spell but not another. Spell Resistance should be a blanket protection, not hit and miss depending on a cheap spell description. I understand that they made spells to override SR so casters will have something to do every round, but that seems like a gross oversimplification of the problem. They never made a melee ability to ignore flight or concealment "just because the fighter needs to have something to do". If it's flying, he can't hit from the ground, just like a spell should not ignore SR "just because".

This brings me to another conundrum, or should I say yet another WotC gross act of negligence, forgetfulness, or other lack of writers that know the rules of the game - the Orb spells. Yes they are suboptimal but I'm picking on them anyway. Sure no save because you gotta aim the spell to hit, fine. But it should not ignore SR. Worse yet, they are conjurations. OK so you conjure the fire instead of evoke it... What? Their description IIRC is that you conjure "non-magical versions of the elements" which is why they ignore SR, but the damage scales like any other magic spell as does it retain an orb shape magically. If it's not magic you can't control it. The real big issue I have is that non-magical fire does 1d6 damage, whether it's a trip into a campfire, or a round of running through a house that is a "natural" raging inferno. The house fire does not do any more damage (unless your DM houserules it). How can they justify non-magic stuff scaling up in damage by caster level? It's stupid.

There are other spells that make me cringe like Ray of Enfeeblement. Like there's no way somebody could resist the magic? Why? It's a low level spell even. There is never a reason to deny a save unless it's a targeted ability, but should never ignore SR. The orb spells as conjurations were one crappy writer's way of having blast spells for his specialist wizard who has barred evocation, and that's pretty lame.

The primary reason some spells don't have spell resistance is that they're not magical at the point where they hit the opponent. Like, you conjure an orb of acid (just as strong as you can; the more powerful a wizard you are, the more/more potent acid you can summon), and magically propel the orb towards the opponent. Now there's nothing magical about the orb anymore; it's simply an orb of acid with speed headed towards an opponent. Same with the other Orbs.

Spell Resistance presents a creature's resistance to magical energies and if they aren't present in the attack, there's nothing for them to resist. That said, you could claim that the Orbs need magic to maintain their integrity, but really, if the acid itself isn't magical, you don't really care if they break the structure-maintaining spell as the acid itself still hits. The bigger question is, why the hell do Fireballs, Lightning Bolts et co. offer Resistance. I suppose we're talking about magical fire, electricity, etc. in those cases; that is, the caster generates magic energy that takes the shape of a given element and shoots it as opposed to summoning the actual substance from somewhere.

And as I understand, spell resistance means that the subject is inherently resistant to magic in general, while fort saves mean that for X effect to take place, the spell needs to overcome the resistance of the body (and will-saves of course the resistance of the mind and Reflexes...well, reacting really fast). So spell resistance applies when a magical effect hits you, while a save applies when something happens that needs to overcome something within you, be it your will, your heart or whatever. Something like the Necromancy Rays just don't need to overcome anything; they bestow you with the negative energy they carry and are done with it and you're not a happy panda unless you're resistant to the actual delivery and can cause the spell energy to end.


EDIT: Also, last I checked, there was nothing suboptimal about the Orbs. Best means to deliver damage when need be.

[wadledo]

My thoughts on the matter?
The orb spells are wizards forcing a certain "type" of energy into a container of magic that stops working when it touches the enemy.
The higher the level of caster, the tighter/more dense they make it.

Ray of Enfeeblement, I agree.
That makes no sense, but then, a good number of things in DnD make no sense. :smallshrug:

[JupiterPaladin]

While I can appreciate the point on magic containing the elements until delivery, it doesn't change the fact that if the elements are truly non-magical in nature then they would not scale in damage. Non-magical elements do very little damage. By sub-optimal I meant as in they scale 1/2 your level to their cap instead of 1 per level like the evocations. For the ray spells, whether the energy hits you or not, you should have some sort of physical resist save to avoid the effect. It's the same thing as charm person or whatever. The magic energy makes it to the target then they make a will save to shrug off the effect. To me it's the same thing. There is no justifiable way to claim some spells should work guaranteed and some shouldn't. Magic creates an effect and the target tries not to take it.

[Toliudar]

Why the heck are there spells that can ignore Spell Resistance? Seriously, there is no logical way they can justify a monster resisting one spell but not another. Spell Resistance should be a blanket protection, not hit and miss depending on a cheap spell description. I understand that they made spells to override SR so casters will have something to do every round, but that seems like a gross oversimplification of the problem. They never made a melee ability to ignore flight or concealment "just because the fighter needs to have something to do". If it's flying, he can't hit from the ground, just like a spell should not ignore SR "just because".

Clearly, since constructs and undead only exist by some kind of magic, their attacks should also be subject to SR?

If, as you suggest, SR-no spells are designed so that casters aren't entirely hosed by high spell resistance, why is that MORE of a gross oversimplification than "spell resistance should resist everything magic"?

There are tons of non-spell abilities that are designed to negate flight and concealment. Magic items. ToB maneuvers. Missile weapons.

I suppose that a houseruling that SR is good against all spells and spell-like abilities would be interesting, potentially a way to contain the power of high-level casters. But that's not logic, just playing with balance.

[JupiterPaladin]

A golem is not in question. We're talking beams of fire and balls of acid. A construct or summoned animal or even a wall of iron become solid after the spells are cast. Cheap spell descriptions should not override a blanket resistance. That IS logic. It's like if you're fighting a Balor who is immune to fire, you can't just hit it with bigger fire. SR is a defense, which I'm not trying to claim should be total immunity 100% of the time. I'm saying that there are ways for the casters to increase the CL check to overcome it. Let alone Assay Spell Resistance is such a cheapo spell. Using magic against SR to lower SR seems like a total logical fail. Yes it is tinkering with balance, and yes it's completely logical. St Cuthbert forbid that a caster has to do something other than attack directly if they face high SR. Wall of Stone, flight, telekinesis... it's not like they run out of options, they just have to think for more than 2 seconds to figure something out.

[Eldariel]

While I can appreciate the point on magic containing the elements until delivery, it doesn't change the fact that if the elements are truly non-magical in nature then they would not scale in damage. Non-magical elements do very little damage.

I feel this is simply a matter of either making the substance extremely potent/having extremely much of it in small space. A splash of Acid only does so much, but if it's twice as dense, it'll do more. Same with fire, if it's hotter, it's going to deal more damage (in D&D, fire apparently is some sort of substance given things like the Plane of Fire can exist). If the frost is colder, it's the same thing. I feel they simply learn to make the amount of given energy/substance in the same container do more as they get higher caster level. Like, the stronger a wizard, the hotter flames you can create, or the more potent acid. It seems perfectly logical to me.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I'm confused.

Why is a fluffy rationalization required for why SR works the way that it does? Some spells just automatically beat any innate resistances that a monster might have. It's just how the rules work. You can make up any number of fictitious reasons as to why this is true, as per your taste.

If you're complaining about game balance, that's really a whole different gripe entirely. That's an issue of the certain spells not being playtested enough. But at no point should you start complaining that the ficition is illogical. That's just silly.

[Draz74]

Your rant makes a lot of sense. But worse than this is the question:

Why is SR such a swingy hit-and-miss immunity in the first place?

See, if an ability called Spell Resistance exists at all (as opposed to just meaning "has better saves," like in 4e), shouldn't it, you know, make spells have a *partial* effect? At least sometimes? Instead of all-or-nothing.

So I hit the Level 1 Drow Commoner mob with a Fireball. So I'm left with half of them as smoldering ashes, and the other half completely unhurt. None of them burned and angry but still fighting. This, to me, makes no sense.

Once again, Psionics did things at least a little bit better. I think SR should be more like the Wilder's Volatile Mind ability.

[Starbuck_II]

It's like if you're fighting a Balor who is immune to fire, you can't just hit it with bigger fire. SR is a defense, which I'm not trying to claim should be total immunity 100% of the time.

Yes, yes you can.

I point you to Searing Metamagic: deals fire damage to fire immune creatures because it is a bigger and hotter fire.

[Epinephrine]

SR sucks, and makes no sense half the time. I can think of MANY spells for which I disagree about the SR label.

Eye of the Hurricane and Downdraft = yes, but Control Winds = no? All of these manipulate wind.
Splinterbolt = no, but Ice Lance = yes? Both create a long, sharp projectile, which hurls at the enemy.

I find they make very questionable rulings on SR.

[The Glyphstone]

the only Orb spell that bugs me is Orb of Force. The spells are rationalized as being non-magical once conjured....so how do you have a non-magical orb of magical force? It's not even flavored like a concussion effect, that's more the realm of the psion anyways.

[Greg]

the only Orb spell that bugs me is Orb of Force. The spells are rationalized as being non-magical once conjured....so how do you have a non-magical orb of magical force? It's not even flavored like a concussion effect, that's more the realm of the psion anyways.

I always thought orb of force was supposed to be a more powerful version of magic missile, as there is no lesser orb of force.

[LurkerInPlayground]

the only Orb spell that bugs me is Orb of Force. The spells are rationalized as being non-magical once conjured....so how do you have a non-magical orb of magical force? It's not even flavored like a concussion effect, that's more the realm of the psion anyways.

WOTC loves their force effects.

Think of "force" in D&D as your equivalent of a high-caliber round or an armor-piercing bullet. It hits incorporeal stuff etc.

[Devils_Advocate]

I point you to Searing Metamagic: deals fire damage to fire immune creatures because it is a bigger and hotter fire.

Unlike a high-level fireball, which does a bunch more damage than a low-level fireball by... um.

A Searing Spell also does extra damage to fire-vulnerable creatures, but has no special effect on most creatures. This one just generally makes no sense.

Why is SR such a swingy hit-and-miss immunity in the first place?

One could ask the same thing about saving throws and Armor Class. (And one could go on to alter all sorts of things to allow for a broader range of partial effects, if one wished.)

[AslanCross]

Why is SR such a swingy hit-and-miss immunity in the first place?

I always saw SR as the creature's innate but limited ability to shrug off magical attacks. It's not so much the ability to resist a spell's effects (which I think the saves cover), but it's a resistance to the application of magical energy, period. Kind of like how a hazmat suit prevents toxins from getting to you in the first place, as opposed to your body's natural ability to prevent toxins from making you sick. (This is why SR creatures can actually lower their SR.)

When the spell hits, the caster tries to amplify his spell in order to breach the creature's defense, but of course, he could fail. Same thing with dispelling magic---higher-level casters are obviously better at it. That it succeeds on some targets and fails completely on others makes perfect sense to me.

[Yahzi]

See, if an ability called Spell Resistance exists at all (as opposed to just meaning "has better saves," like in 4e), shouldn't it, you know, make spells have a *partial* effect? At least sometimes? Instead of all-or-nothing.

That's just part of D&D's whole mechanic. Hit point damage is the same way: the trip from 100 to 1 hp has no effect whatsoever on your character; the trip from 1 to 0 completely incapacitates him.

D&D is a very crude approximation, like a TV screen with 1 inch wide pixels.

[valadil]

Regarding conjuration to bypass SR, would you force a summoned creation to make SR checks? Sure the animal was magically summoned but it's still a real animal. Why would it need an SR check to bite someone (and if it did, would that mean that PCs that teleported would have to make SR checks to melee)?

Orb spells are the same type of conjuration magic - summoning a real object rather than a magical one.

I will agree that the Orbs are too powerful though. Maybe they should have had saves (though I can't agree with your statement that all spells should allow saves).

[LurkerInPlayground]

Again, I must insist that grouching about how magic functions is "illogical" or "unrealistic" is silly. You can invent any fiction you want to justify why the rules work they way they work.

As pointed out earlier, SR is by no means the only "hit-or-miss see-saw" mechanic.

It's really more relevant to discuss whether individual spells are balanced. And it's ultimately more productive to treat fluff and mechanics as separate discussions.

[Draz74]

That's just part of D&D's whole mechanic. Hit point damage is the same way: the trip from 100 to 1 hp has no effect whatsoever on your character; the trip from 1 to 0 completely incapacitates him.

Well, that's dumb, too. But I think the hit/miss mechanic is still a bad comparison. The SR system is more like, "Oops, you got hit -- you're dead. NO you can't be 'damaged but not dead!' What gave you that crazy idea? Hit Points? What kind of dumb idea is that?"

[Zeful]

Orb spells are the same type of conjuration magic - summoning a real object rather than a magical one.

They're all of the Creation subschool, so you are making a solid ball of fire, that will persist being a ball of fire after the magic stops, despite that without magic, doing so is impossible, then after conjuring it you propel it toward the target non-magically in that justifies the use of a ranged touch attack instead of a normal attack roll. If it were that easy to do why can't a rogue throw a dagger in such a fashion.

The Orb Spells should all be Evocation; Save partial, SR: Yes spells.

[Epic_Wizard]

Here's a fun one for the topic. We were fighting a Druid in a 20th level one off (which has since turned into a mini-campaign) and failed to kill him. We sent him running but that's it. I have since re-read the description of the Maze spell. I hadn't really thought about it since it removes someone from the fight for an indeterminate amount of time and I had only seen it used by monsters (Dungeon Magazine) as a way to buff themselves. Then I noticed the DC 20 Int save which the Druid's Dire Elephant physically CAN'T MAKE. The spell also offers no SR, save, or anything besides the Int check to get out (which is hard to make for any non-int class and physically impossible for anyone with negative int bonus)

Granted this isn't really a complaint or a criticism so much as a fun story that vaguely pertains so here's some pertinent questions. Why no SR when it physically removes you from the fight?

[JupiterPaladin]

You are so right Zeful! As far as a Searing Spell dealing fire damage against fire immune, that is ridiculous. From a logic standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense at all. From a balance/mechanics standpoint, it still doesn't hold up. Why would you take that very specific type feat when you could just take energy substitution and use acid instead of fire??? And thanks to those who are contributing to the thread. I've at least seen some different perspectives. That doesn't really change the fact that our opinions are basically hindsight caused from poor game designers, but that's a different story.

[Paul H]

Hi

Isn't trying to rationalise Magic using real world physics a bit wierd?

Just accept that it does what the book says.

Cheers
Paul H

[hamishspence]

One good reason- when using it on a creature of the cold subtype that has somehow (magic item, template?) gained immunity to fire.

result- searing spell does more damage than other effect would.

A troll with Regeneration/Fire and Fire Immunity would be another candidate.

[Epic_Wizard]

Oh yeah my two cents on the whole "Conjuration doesn't provoke SR". I'm not even going to touch the Orb spells since I think you have a fairly viable argument there (no matter how much I like those). But for stuff like summons it shouldn't provoke SR simply because there is no lingering magic for SR resist. That hell hound you summoned is here to stay until either the spell running out or something else like a Banishment spell gives it's inter-planar bungee cord a yank.

[Zeful]

Hi

Isn't trying to rationalise Magic using real world physics a bit wierd?

Just accept that it does what the book says.

I'm not rationalizing magic using real world physics. I'm pointing out that some spells (Orb of X) must work a way counter to their spell school, or they fail logically.

[Eldariel]

They're all of the Creation subschool, so you are making a solid ball of fire, that will persist being a ball of fire after the magic stops, despite that without magic, doing so is impossible, then after conjuring it you propel it toward the target non-magically in that justifies the use of a ranged touch attack instead of a normal attack roll. If it were that easy to do why can't a rogue throw a dagger in such a fashion.

The Orb Spells should all be Evocation; Save partial, SR: Yes spells.

Maybe little cantrip is part of the spell? Y'know, Mage Hand-type effect to propel it? Not all spells need to be composed of just a single effect, after all.

[Keld Denar]

result- searing spell does more damage than other effect would.

But it does. Searing adds +1 hp per die of damage, on top of the fact that it burns hot enough to deal 1/2 damage to fire immune creatures. That means that its hotter than normal for creatures who aren't fire immune, and hot enough that it makes fire immune creatures uncomfortable.

Regardless, its just another cost/benefit thing. Instead of using a 6th level fire spell, you have to use a 4th level spell with lower damage to get the same result. Game balance wise, I actually find it underpowered, because its only really useful in situations where you have fire subtype creatures who are immune to cold, or cold subtype creatures who are immune to fire, and then, you could easily take Energy Sub (Acid) and have fewer issues altogether with Resistances.

EDIT:
And conjouration really contains 2 branches. Part of it creates something from nothing, and part of it transports stuff across planes. So maybe an orb of fire opens a small conduit to the elemental plane of fire, and the wizard then propels that rift at his foe. The more powerful the wizard, the bigger and stronger the portal is, to the point where it caps out at 15d6. Wizards haven't discovered a method of creating bigger planar portal effects without them becoming unstable and collapsing on themselves, which limits the effect. Just an idea.

[Zeful]

Maybe a little cantrip is part of the spell? Y'know, Mage Hand-type effect to propel it? Not all spells need to be composed of just a single effect, after all.

Than it should be split school. Mage hand is Transmutation, so if it's included in the effect, then Conjuration/Transmutation. Though, since your not actually changing the thing in question, just moving it, Transmutation is a bad school for Mage Hand/Telekinesis.