Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Werebat 06-26-07, 11:25 AM	Any good sources of Monstrous Feats -- and by that I mean feats for monsters that could be used to counteract the overall power creep of 3E for PCs? Here's a good example of a monstrous feat that helps to rescue SR from the dustbin it has been thrown in by the various Orb spells, etc. Of course PCs might take it too but they probably wouldn't bother. I call it "Harden SR": Harden SR: Your SR cannot be lowered or overcome by any means Prerequisites: SR Effects: Your SR works against all spells that target you, even those listed as "SR: No". Furthermore, your SR cannot be lowered by any means other than your own choosing. Note that area effect and other spells that do not specificaly target you can still ignore your SR if they are "SR: No". I ask you, what dragon would not take this feat? - Ron ^*^
tarkin 06-26-07, 11:41 AM	What a horrible, poorly thought out feat. Orb spells do not 'overcome' SR, SR simply does not apply. You summon non-magical stuff and throw it at people, no way can merely taking a feat allow you to suddenly get your SR against non-magical stuff. Now, the Orb spells are badly written. Honestly, the only one that makes any kind of sense as is, is the Orb of acid. The rest are some fool seeing a well written spell and saying "Hey, I can just change the element and make another, similar spell". That is like seing a spell called "Burn down the Forest" and thinking that "Liquify the Forest" is just as reasonable/fair.
Werebat 06-26-07, 06:01 PM	What a horrible, poorly thought out feat. Orb spells do not 'overcome' SR, SR simply does not apply. You summon non-magical stuff and throw it at people, no way can merely taking a feat allow you to suddenly get your SR against non-magical stuff. Now, the Orb spells are badly written. Honestly, the only one that makes any kind of sense as is, is the Orb of acid. The rest are some fool seeing a well written spell and saying "Hey, I can just change the element and make another, similar spell". That is like seing a spell called "Burn down the Forest" and thinking that "Liquify the Forest" is just as reasonable/fair. How do you know exactly why the orb spells (for example) overcome SR? Do you really propose that the ball of electricity or cold summoned ISN'T magical? If it were, then it could be tossed into an anti-magic field, right? Well, can it? If not, why not? The feat was conceived because of the fact that SR has become a joke, and is still priced at its core value (when it wasn't so much of a joke). It needs some power creep to deal with the power creep against it. If we change to wording to "this feat enables your SR to apply to magical effects that ordinarily aren't affected by SR", does that make things better? - Ron ^*^
Ezurus 06-26-07, 06:13 PM	Maybe they thought that a good SR was too powerful, so to compensate, they made spells that can do some damage without SR. I mean, an orb spell can only affect 1 target, and you have to make a ranged touch attack. It's not nearly as nice as a good area of effect d6/level damage spell.
Werebat 06-26-07, 07:24 PM	Maybe they thought that a good SR was too powerful, so to compensate, they made spells that can do some damage without SR. I mean, an orb spell can only affect 1 target, and you have to make a ranged touch attack. It's not nearly as nice as a good area of effect d6/level damage spell. Or it was plain old power creep. "Only one target" doesn't mean much when most things with SR are lone bosses, not a horde of mooks... In other words, when fighting a dragon the fact that the orbs aren't AOE spells means nothing. The orbs were made to kill dragons, nothing else. However dragons do now have access to the Ray Deflection spell which will negate them, at least until it's dispelled. - Ron ^*^
Teron Gorefiend 06-26-07, 07:32 PM	How do you know exactly why the orb spells (for example) overcome SR? Do you really propose that the ball of electricity or cold summoned ISN'T magical? If it were, then it could be tossed into an anti-magic field, right? Well, can it? If not, why not? Yes, it can. The feat was conceived because of the fact that SR has become a joke, and is still priced at its core value (when it wasn't so much of a joke). It needs some power creep to deal with the power creep against it. There are several things wrong with the orb spells, so you could just ban them. If we change to wording to "this feat enables your SR to apply to magical effects that ordinarily aren't affected by SR", does that make things better? No, because the orbs themselves aren't magical effects. The spells are supposed to create and launch a perfectly mundane glob of matter or energy that simply does what such things are wont to do when they hit stuff (tarkin is right about that making little sense, but that's the theory behind it). What this wording would do is require constant judgment calls about which supernatural abilities, weapon properties, and who-knows-what-else it can negate.
Morwen 06-26-07, 07:35 PM	The orbs were made to kill dragons, nothing else. However dragons do now have access to the Ray Deflection spell which will negate them, at least until it's dispelled. Not to mention they have access to the Wraithstrike spell, which makes them even more of a combat machine than before :) Any good sources of Monstrous Feats -- and by that I mean feats for monsters that could be used to counteract the overall power creep of 3E for PCs? You could do what I do; actually use the same options that are available to the players :) Anyway, Draconomicon and Savage Species have a fair amount of good monstrous feats.
Werebat 06-26-07, 11:46 PM	Yes, it can. Huh? And where is this goofy ruling stated? There are several things wrong with the orb spells, so you could just ban them. Still wouldn't fix all of the other ways SR has gone from "potent" to "teh suxxorz" over the last 4-5 years. No, because the orbs themselves aren't magical effects. The spells are supposed to create and launch a perfectly mundane glob of matter or energy that simply does what such things are wont to do when they hit stuff (tarkin is right about that making little sense, but that's the theory behind it). What this wording would do is require constant judgment calls about which supernatural abilities, weapon properties, and who-knows-what-else it can negate. It "negates" nothing. All it does is allow the SR to work against targetted spells that are labelled "SR: No". Can you think of one corner case as an example requiring a judgement call? - Ron ^*^
runestar 06-27-07, 12:46 AM	Huh? And where is this goofy ruling stated? AMF states that it does not stop instantaneous conjurations. While this meaning is clearly meant to apply more to creation spells such as fabricate, it can be argued that this too might extend to the orb spells, since they are conjuration spells with a duration of instantaneous as well. Plus, there is nothing stopping you from lobbing a flask of mundane acid at a mage in an AMF, so it should not stop the orb spells as well. How do you know exactly why the orb spells (for example) overcome SR? Do you really propose that the ball of electricity or cold summoned ISN'T magical? If it were, then it could be tossed into an anti-magic field, right? Well, can it? If not, why not? It would be if the designers wanted it that way. It might not make sense if it try to compare it with real life physics, but that might very well be our own bias speaking. Also bear in mind that this scenario is taking place in a fictitious dnd world where wotc designers write their own rules on physics, which may not necessarily be consistent with real life. In short, if the game designers state that they intended for a ball of cold or force not to be treated as magical for purposes of game mechanics, then it is not magical as far as the game is concerned.:) Still wouldn't fix all of the other ways SR has gone from "potent" to "teh suxxorz" over the last 4-5 years. One could argue that perhaps sr was too overly potent, being a catch-all which could stop any spell. This might actually be a move in the right direction. It is not inconceivable that wizards would eventually find a way of creating spells which would work past magic resistance or even immunity. And with regards to your feat, I agree with Tarkin that it is extremely poorly thought out, with no purpose whatsoever but to unfairly penalize players. The fact that it is inconceivable that no creature with sr wouldn't take said feat is proof that it is horribly broken beyond belief.
Neutronium_Dragon 06-27-07, 01:25 AM	> One could argue that perhaps sr was too overly potent, being a catch-all > which could stop any spell. Which the designers themselves have talked about in some of the material on the site, such as one article about adventure design which described the dislike of what they call "neener neener" abilities such as SR, and how they're seen to negatively affect gameplay. SR still works just fine against most spells regardless. Yes, you can circumvent it if you know it's coming and are prepared to do so, but the same is true of any defense in D&D. It's not meant to be an insurmountable roadblock and it won't improve the game to try to force it to be.
risner 06-27-07, 03:02 AM	I ask you, what dragon would not take this feat? One might say that if you ask that question, the feat is broken.
WolfHati 06-27-07, 04:56 AM	SR, as I see it, is simply AC for magic. A spell user adds their caster level - equivalent to base attack bonus - to their relevant ability score, just like str or dex is used for fighting types - and adds in any feats, like spell focus instead of weapon focus. Saying that SR is broken is like saying AC is broken, in which case you probably want to find yourself a different RPG system.
Witch 06-27-07, 06:03 AM	Except for the fact that you don't add in your ability score modifier on spell resistance, and that spells also generally require a saving throw or an attack roll.
Werebat 06-27-07, 03:20 PM	> One could argue that perhaps sr was too overly potent, being a catch-all > which could stop any spell. Which the designers themselves have talked about in some of the material on the site, such as one article about adventure design which described the dislike of what they call "neener neener" abilities such as SR, and how they're seen to negatively affect gameplay. SR still works just fine against most spells regardless. Yes, you can circumvent it if you know it's coming and are prepared to do so, but the same is true of any defense in D&D. It's not meant to be an insurmountable roadblock and it won't improve the game to try to force it to be. So... We've clearly heard from the players on this, how about the DMs? Seems to me that Assay SR, the Orbs, etc. are all equally "neener neener" when it comes to whomping something that was originally "priced" in xp as having a potent defense against magic. As for the orbs getting past AMS... Wow. I hadn't realized just how asinine they were. NON-MAGICAL force effects? What is this, Gamma World? - Ron ^*^
wonlee76 06-27-07, 03:50 PM	So... We've clearly heard from the players on this, how about the DMs? Seems to me that Assay SR, the Orbs, etc. are all equally "neener neener" when it comes to whomping something that was originally "priced" in xp as having a potent defense against magic. As for the orbs getting past AMS... Wow. I hadn't realized just how asinine they were. NON-MAGICAL force effects? What is this, Gamma World? - Ron ^*^ As a DM: I just edit the Orb spells to say "SR: Yes". Nice and simple. At the very least, Orb of Force makes a lot more sense. Assay resistance doesn't really bother me all that much. It only gives the caster a boost to bypass SR for 1 creature. So if I have a bunch of lowlie demon/devil types, Assay Resistance will help against one of those creatures but not against the others.
Witch 06-27-07, 03:53 PM	As a DM: I just edit the Orb spells to say "SR: Yes". Nice and simple. Doesn't make sense on itself. You also need to change them to Evocation, then.
Werebat 06-28-07, 08:34 PM	Doesn't make sense on itself. You also need to change them to Evocation, then. Yah, I'll be doing that myself. I hadn't realized quite how goofy they were. - Ron ^*^
Neutronium_Dragon 06-28-07, 11:01 PM	> So... We've clearly heard from the players on this, how about the DMs? I am a DM. I agree with the designers on this count. But thank you for trying to write me off as "just a player" because I don't agree with your view. Since it's clear that only supporting positions will be accepted, have fun.