PDA

View Full Version : Why is the Spell Resistance concept in DDO necessary?

tinyelvis
12-26-2011, 04:58 PM
The big question:

Ok, why is there a need for a second (arbitrary roll) to determine if some spells succeed? This is at best an unnecessary complication. For example, lets look at one particular situation. Suppose a person lands a spell 19 out of 20 times. That's an easy one roll. Now suppose in addition he fails to penetrate the spell resistance 1 in 20 times. Essentially this fellow went from a single instance 95% success to around a 90% success chance. Why not just eliminate the second calculation and increase the mobs save by one. The result essentially is the same, while fewer steps are needed.

Eliminating the arbitrary second roll and increasing the remaining roll appropriately is a really good way to setup your system. It means less calculations. It may lead to less lag in situations like spammed dancing balls. Plus it is easier to balance the game. I realize the level of detail is reduced a bit, and the dynamics of a two save system are higher, but the benefit more than makes up for the added simplicity.

Let's look at some examples where this has been successfully applied. A melee toon swings his big stick and hits a mob. Each time he swings he rolls a hit and compares it to the AC of the mob (19 in 20 success say). This situation is analogous to spell cast DCs and mob saves (but the roles are sorta reversed, in more ways than one.). It's simple and easy to compute.

Now imagine if you added arbitrary rolls. The melee must additionally penetrate the laquor on the armor (19 in 20), then he must penetrate the iron plate (16 in 20), then the leather jerkin (18 in 20), then the padding (19 in 20), then.. well you get the picture. It would result in a number of extra arbitrary rolls. This set of rolls could be replaced by one (13 in 20) roll with essentially the same chance for success. Essentially this has been done for melee and seems to work adequately in the game.

So why the arbitrary additional rolls for spell casting?

The solution:

Get rid of either spell resistance or the DC/save system.

1. Get rid of the DC/Save system for spells. I kinda like the idea of spell resistance on its own. Everything has a spell resistance. Some are more specific than others, like a high spell resistance to acid or enchantments. Unfortunately, though I think this approach would be best, it may be very hard to retro fit to the current game.

2. Get rid of spell resistance. This is a much easier fix. It would require someone actually calculating new spell DC's for mobs who formally had spell resistance. It would also require modifying spell pen items into stackable spell DC bonuses. A very few spells would need some extra attention (i.e. PWK and the damage side of finger of death). Spell descriptions would also need modified.

The benefit:

The benefits are numerous here.
1. Less lag in situations like massed dancing spheres
2. Simpler system which is good for everyone, including the game developers who have to balance quests.
3. The freed up resources could be applied to making effects of spell more complicated. For example, a new calculation could be added that applied cumulatively higher saves to each additional mob over one in an AOE spell. This idea is very D&D ish. But this is a different discussion.

So, game developers and spell casters throw off your spell pen and resistance bonds. You have nothing but a faster, easier game to fear.

ArcaneMelee
12-26-2011, 05:17 PM
It is necessary because it was in the game that inspired DDO, and Turbine hasn't gotten around to making it their own yet.

One of DDO's tips likens Spell Resistance to Armor Class for spells. Given how well SR performs compared to AC, I have to say I'm not really interested in Turbine "fixing" spell resistance, given their track record to "fixing" AC.

The only change I'd like to see them make (regarding Spell Resistance) would be to stop using 35 level mobs in epics.

Kinerd
12-26-2011, 05:52 PM
Having two systems lets you give things high saves and low/no SR, or high SR and low saves, or high both. There are also significant differences between the systems: a SR "save" is always complete, a save "save" does damage on instant kills. There are also spells that have save but no SR check, SR check but no save, both, neither. These qualitative differences cannot be reflected in quantitative adjustment of a single system.

Outside of epic, the SR system works pretty well. Inside epics, it collapses on the player side, but still has some use on the monster side. This is most apparent in CC work: without significant effort, a caster can't rely on SR check spells against epic drow.

dkyle
12-26-2011, 06:09 PM
I'm not seeing what problem you are trying to fix.

Lag/overhead from SR rolls? Ridiculous. A drop in the bucket compared to all the other calculations going on. A d20 roll and a compare operation is nothing compared to AI and physics checks. The checks to simply determine if a mob has entered a disco ball's zone of effect is probably hundreds, if not thousands, of times more costly than the SR check.

Game balance? Why does two rolls hurt game balance? I don't think the game is well balanced, in regards to casters, currently, but removing one of the tools the designers have to balance the game, and keep casters at least a little bit in check, is not a good idea. Two rolls simply scales differently than a single roll. If you roll SR and DC into one check, you're more likely to run off either end of the d20. That's not good.

Analogy to melee? Counter productive, because AC in this game is completely and totally broken, and exactly what SR and DC needs to avoid becoming. Your analogous series of rolls might well work better, because a wider array of armor choices might actually be relevant. In a video game, we can easily have all those rolls; only on the tabletop is having so many rolls infeasible.

Now, I'm entirely open to dropping SR, at least as a separate d20 check, but not by rolling it into DC on a d20 check. We should be moving away from a single d20 determining success/failure, not towards it. But, currently, AC is far more broken than DC/SR, so the focus should be on that. And, absolutely nothing should be done to buff casters, at this time, which is the likely outcome of your proposal. Having to optimize one value is inherently easier than optimizing two.

Antheal
12-26-2011, 06:25 PM
Blame Wizards of the Coast, it's their game after all.

Syllph
12-26-2011, 07:07 PM
For example, lets look at one particular situation. Suppose a person lands a spell 19 out of 20 times. That's an easy one roll. Now suppose in addition he fails to penetrate the spell resistance 1 in 20 times. Essentially this fellow went from a single instance 95% success to around a 90% success chance. Why not just eliminate the second calculation and increase the mobs save by one. The result essentially is the same, while fewer steps are needed.

This example is seldom the real case. Spell Pen adds a nice spice to casting. For example some mobs have low saves but high spell pen (Drow are perfect examples. With a nice high spell pen the drow in sands epics, von and tides are push-overs. With low spell pen they are nigh impossible to land certain spells on.)

Spells like power-word kill simply would be over-powered. There is no save.

Additionally give a low will save melee SR 45 and his crummy will save now doesn't restrict him.

spell pen adds a certain dynamic to the game.

Let's look at some examples where this has been successfully applied. A melee toon swings his big stick and hits a mob. Each time he swings he rolls a hit and compares it to the AC of the mob (19 in 20 success say). This situation is analogous to spell cast DCs and mob saves (but the roles are sorta reversed, in more ways than one.). It's simple and easy to compute.

Now imagine if you added arbitrary rolls. The melee must additionally penetrate the laquor on the armor (19 in 20), then he must penetrate the iron plate (16 in 20), then the leather jerkin (18 in 20), then the padding (19 in 20), then.. well you get the picture. It would result in a number of extra arbitrary rolls. This set of rolls could be replaced by one (13 in 20) roll with essentially the same chance for success. Essentially this has been done for melee and seems to work adequately in the game.

This is done to an extent. Blur check, displacement check, incorporeal check all before you even make the AC to-hit check followed by a crit-success check. Melee don't have it simple either.

Jaid314
12-26-2011, 08:05 PM
This is done to an extent. Blur check, displacement check, incorporeal check all before you even make the AC to-hit check followed by a crit-success check. Melee don't have it simple either.

let's not forget all those melee abilities that do, in fact, have a save component; assassinate, paralyzing weapons, stunning blow/fist, sunder, trip, stone prison, etc.

sirgog
12-26-2011, 08:21 PM
It adds more options for caster gear.

12-26-2011, 08:32 PM
Most monsters do not have spell resistance.

SR is something special that makes some monsters more challenging.

Believe me, we need all of the methods that anyone can think of to make (some) monsters more challenging in DDO. :cool:

tinyelvis
12-26-2011, 10:19 PM
Yes, yes, yes,.. I agree with most all of the above comments. However, I don't think you quite understand the point I am trying to make. Let's look at some in detail.

Additionally give a low will save melee SR 45 and his crummy will save now doesn't restrict him.
This of course is a dynamic that spell resistance could easily open. However, that is not how it is applied in DDO. Look at mobs that have spell resistance. Let's name a few; Drow in epic offering of blood; Pirate casters and archers in epic bargain of blood; Evil outsiders in elite Vision of Destruction, just to name a few. In each of these cases, spell resistance exists to make the mob only effected by caster with appropriate expertise (i.e. high spell penetration).

SR is something special that makes some monsters more challenging.This is a very common misconception. Many people, even experienced players don't really understand the system. SR does not in itself make monsters more challenging. Its the combination of the DC/save roll and the spell pen/SR roll. One roll, based say on a higher DC, could be setup to offer the exact same challenge. In fact, a higher DC could offer an even higher challenge without any SR at all.

For example, the drow trash mob has a save of 30 and a spell resistance of 43. Our wizard has a DC of 47 and a spell pen of 40. The mob fails save 16 in 20 and fails spell resistance 18 in 20. Essentially our wiz has a combined 70 some percent chance to effect the mob. Why not just give the mob a save 6 points or so higher than than the casters DC for the same overall effect? Say, the caster will have a DC of 52 and the mob a save of 58.

In each of the above cases,eliminating SR and replacing the spell save of the opponent with a higher one setup so that a player has the same expected chance to effect the mob would achieve the same result. The mob need not be any more or less challenging. It would not make things any easier. It would just reduce the unnecessary complexity of the rolls to effect. The resources saved could then be used to add a better new dynamic to spells (like cumulative negative modifiers for mob sizes over one).

Mobs then are designed to resist spells based on the best spec'd caster with the best gear having a certain chance of success based on one roll . There is no need for two rolls. It over complicates unnecessarily the system.

It adds more options for caster gear. Not necessarily. You could have more items that buff spell DC. Essentially the same number of items could be used. Spell pen on items would be replaced by stackable DC modifiers. At present, you grind for a certain DC and spell pen say 43 and 30 respectively to be effective in 60 - 70% of end game content. Why could this not be replaced with similarly rough grind to just get the DC high enough, say 49. The challenge, grind, and chance of success need not change. Only the unnecessary complexity.

Melee dont need to contend with an extra die roll. Mobs are setup with one die roll in mind. Melee get along just fine without the extra gear. Mobs are plenty challenging for them without the extra roll.

Its true, Melee do have some shielding effects (in theory) but these are all overcome completely with things like true seeing or special items. There are no gloves a caster can put on to overcome SR. There is no spell to cast that lets them overcome SR. In essence these mobs melee fight dont really have those effects. If caster could overcome SR that easily, it would skew the balance of the mobs in the favor of the caster. Developers would need to increase DCs.

tinyelvis
12-26-2011, 10:31 PM
I'm not seeing what problem you are trying to fix.

Lag/overhead from SR rolls? Ridiculous. A drop in the bucket compared to all the other calculations going on. A d20 roll and a compare operation is nothing compared to AI and physics checks. The checks to simply determine if a mob has entered a disco ball's zone of effect is probably hundreds, if not thousands, of times more costly than the SR check.

Well then why do people not complain about lag when webs are present? Or fire walls? If your statement were in any way correct, then the same lag would occur with webs and walls of fire, as well as other spells. I am not an expert, but your comment does not make sense. Spell resistance requires a roll and a check and and a decision upon a graphic. Good programming involves simplification. If you can achieve the exact same result with one calculation instead of two, then you are a fool to use two.

Game balance? Why does two rolls hurt game balance? I don't think the game is well balanced, in regards to casters, currently, but removing one of the tools the designers have to balance the game, and keep casters at least a little bit in check, is not a good idea. Two rolls simply scales differently than a single roll. If you roll SR and DC into one check, you're more likely to run off either end of the d20. That's not good.

The more arbitrary rolls producing one result there are the tougher it is to balance a given situation. Melee seem to get along just fine with one roll. It is much easier to balance for them. How in the world does SR keep or not keep casters in check? I have no idea what you mean by ends of a 20 sided die.

Analogy to melee? Counter productive, because AC in this game is completely and totally broken, and exactly what SR and DC needs to avoid becoming. Your analogous series of rolls might well work better, because a wider array of armor choices might actually be relevant. In a video game, we can easily have all those rolls; only on the tabletop is having so many rolls infeasible.

Now, I'm entirely open to dropping SR, at least as a separate d20 check, but not by rolling it into DC on a d20 check. We should be moving away from a single d20 determining success/failure, not towards it. But, currently, AC is far more broken than DC/SR, so the focus should be on that. And, absolutely nothing should be done to buff casters, at this time, which is the likely outcome of your proposal. Having to optimize one value is inherently easier than optimizing two.

I am sorry my comments went way over your head. Certainly that must be the case if you think my suggestion would lead to a caster buff. Further, the difficulty in optimizing a value does not have anything to do with how many there are. It has to do with how easy it is to get the necessary buff. Be it for one value or two values.

..

ArcaneMelee
12-26-2011, 10:50 PM
I don't believe removing the SR check would be either easy or beneficial. I do, however, believe that raising mobs saves to accommodate would be a nerf to many melee builds that focus on stunning.

I don't agree with your statement that "Melee seem to get along just fine with one roll. It is much easier to balance for them". You agreed that AC is broken, right?

I always thought the "lag" from disco balls was due to client difficulties with the display, not due to the server calculating SR checks. We'd have to ask a dev, methinks.

dkyle
12-26-2011, 11:02 PM
Well then why do people not complain about lag when webs are present? Or fire walls? If your statement were in any way correct, then the same lag would occur with webs and walls of fire, as well as other spells. I am not an expert, but your comment does not make sense. Spell resistance requires a roll and a check and and a decision upon a graphic.

Probably because Disco has a much more graphically intensive display than Web or Firewall. To be honest, I've never experienced Disco-related lag. I know others have, which leads me to believe it is client-side graphics lag, not server-side calculation lag.

Assuming there is lag, there is no way SR is responsible for lag unless the Devs are utterly incompetent. In which case, they should fix their code. SR should be completely trivial to calculate.

The more arbitrary rolls producing one result there are the tougher it is to balance a given situation. Melee seem to get along just fine with one roll. It is much easier to balance for them. How in the world does SR keep or not keep casters in check? I have no idea what you mean by ends of a 20 sided die.

First, it isn't any more "arbitrary" than DC. Two separate rolls produce a different result curve than one roll, which affects how the game plays. It isn't "arbitrary".

Second, I don't see how multiple rolls make it tougher to balance, in any real way. Having several available gives the designers more tools to tune content to the difficulty they want it at; placing success/failure on a single die makes it easier for us to break, than having several rolls involved. And even under your proposal, you'd have them assigning various situational bonuses to certain spell types. So the actual number of choices the designers make isn't decreased.

Third, it obviously has an impact on Caster power. Whether it actually keeps them in "check" is debatable, but they'd obviously be less "in check" without SR.

Finally, by "ends of a 20 sided die", I mean when you get to a point where either your modifier is so low, that you only succeed on one result (say, 20), and any lower modifier makes no difference, or your modifier is so high that you succeed on all but one result (say, 1), and any higher modifier makes no difference. This is not a good thing for game balance. Part of AC's problem is how easily we go off the d20 on attack rolls; on the low end for player AC, and the high end for mob AC. Having two rolls, for DC and SR, helps avoid going off the d20 entirely, since there are two separate rolls. Going off the ends of both is less likely than going off the ends of just one.

It certainly did not, and your tone only undermines your argument. I understand your suggestion, and think it is poorly formed, and lacking of compelling justification.

Certainly that must be the case if you think my suggestion would lead to a caster buff. Further, the difficulty in optimizing a value does not have anything to do with how many there are. It has to do with how easy it is to get the necessary buff. Be it for one value or two values.

It is theoretically possible for optimizing a single value to be more difficult than optimizing two, but unlikely, if the available options and targets are similar for both schemes. Having to decide between two different numbers to increase, and deciding which one to prioritize if you can't have both, is inherently more difficult than having just one number to increase.

For example, currently, in many cases, a caster has more than enough DC or SR to succeed 95% of the time, but not enough of the other to succeed that frequently. If both feed into the same number, that amount exceeding 95% that previously went to waste is likely to now contribute meaningfully, covering up for deficiency in the other.

But ultimately, without knowing the specifics of your proposal, I cannot say, definitively, if your proposal would be a buff to casters. I can only say what I said in my initial post: it is likely to be one. It would be a difficult task to not end up giving casters a buff.

tinyelvis
12-26-2011, 11:07 PM
I don't believe removing the SR check would be either easy or beneficial. I do, however, believe that raising mobs saves to accommodate would be a nerf to many melee builds that focus on stunning.

I don't agree with your statement that "Melee seem to get along just fine with one roll. It is much easier to balance for them". You agreed that AC is broken, right?

I always thought the "lag" from disco balls was due to client difficulties with the display, not due to the server calculating SR checks. We'd have to ask a dev, methinks.

A nerf to melee, that did not occur to me. Well, that ends that idea, unless they nerfed caster gear to account for a single roll. Fat chance of that happening.

I used to think so too, but I do not believe the lag is a video issue. Recently, I played DDO on a machine with a good processor but **** video card. Although I had plenty of issues with video lag especially in areas like giant hold and some vale, I never noticed any issues with dancing ball. Perhaps its the music that lags the situation for some.

ferrite
12-26-2011, 11:56 PM
Lol, funny post.

ITS IN THE 3.5 RULESET (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellResistance).

And DDO is based on 3.5. There you have it.

It isn't your fault you didn't do enough research before posting the idea. Well, maybe it is.

The system has already been playtested by millions of players. And it does translate well to online play, and is necessary for balance purposes.

tinyelvis
12-26-2011, 11:57 PM
First, it isn't any more "arbitrary" than DC.
Ok, so what? Are you saying two arbitrary is better than one?

Two separate rolls produce a different result curve than one roll, which affects how the game plays. It isn't "arbitrary".

Answer some questions. What exactly is spell resistance? What does it mean to penetrate it. What is a save? What does it mean when you beat a spell save? If you toss a charm person on a mob without spell resistance and he makes his save, did he not just resist your spell? Please tell my you understand that he did resist your spell.

Mathematically,

Case 1:
(50% to penetrate spell resistance) * (80% chance to make him miss his save) = 40% chance

Case 2:
(40% chance to make him miss his save) = 40%

Both cases result in subject not resisting your spell. So, why the extra arbitrary roll?

Second, I don't see how multiple rolls make it tougher to balance, in any real way. Having several available gives the designers more tools to tune content to the difficulty they want it at; placing success/failure on a single die makes it easier for us to break, than having several rolls involved. And even under your proposal, you'd have them assigning various situational bonuses to certain spell types. So the actual number of choices the designers make isn't decreased.

The more parameters the more complex the system. The fewer parameters the less complex. With one parameter everything I do effects only one value. I want a 40% result, easy the result is 40%. This is nice because a number of other parameters influence this parameter. Things like enhancements, items, item drop rates...... Add just one more parameter and not only are there multiple ways to produce the exact same result, but the number extra influences you need to consider shoots way up. All for no reason at all.

Third, it obviously has an impact on Caster power. Whether it actually keeps them in "check" is debatable, but they'd obviously be less "in check" without SR.

Why? A 40% result is a 40% result no matter how you come to it. You could take SR out of the game and raise saves to such a degree that it is near impossible to achieve a 40% result. SR is not necessary to do that.

Finally, by "ends of a 20 sided die", I mean when you get to a point where either your modifier is so low, that you only succeed on one result (say, 20), and any lower modifier makes no difference, or your modifier is so high that you succeed on all but one result (say, 1), and any higher modifier makes no difference. This is not a good thing for game balance. Part of AC's problem is how easily we go off the d20 on attack rolls; on the low end for player AC, and the high end for mob AC. Having two rolls, for DC and SR, helps avoid going off the d20 entirely, since there are two separate rolls. Going off the ends of both is less likely than going off the ends of just one.

I have no idea what you mean here. You do realize don't you that for 60 - 70% of end game content, the goal is to get your SR in the 30s so that as a caster you auto succeed at spell pen. This is actually a third degree of freedom that designers have to contend with now. It would be eliminated in my proposal. The 20 has no meaning in spell DC/Save calculations. You do not auto succeed on a 20. The system is a comparison of DC/Save system with a 1 roll always a failure. You could have a 100 spell DC against a 106 save and the chance for success would function similar to 20 DC and a 26 save.

I know you think my tone is out of wack, but I really dont think you understand what I am proposing.

It certainly did not, and your tone only undermines your argument. I understand your suggestion, and think it is poorly formed, and lacking of compelling justification.

It is theoretically possible for optimizing a single value to be more difficult than optimizing two, but unlikely, if the available options and targets are similar for both schemes. Having to decide between two different numbers to increase, and deciding which one to prioritize if you can't have both, is inherently more difficult than having just one number to increase.

For example, currently, in many cases, a caster has more than enough DC or SR to succeed 95% of the time, but not enough of the other to succeed that frequently. If both feed into the same number, that amount exceeding 95% that previously went to waste is likely to now contribute meaningfully, covering up for deficiency in the other.

What? Why? Nothing stated here is a fact. Its your opinion and none of it is correct. First off, in a world where a caster succeeds 95% of the time, then spell resistance has no effect and can not be in place. The best a caster could do if any spell resistance was not totally overcome would be around 90% success.

But ultimately, without knowing the specifics of your proposal, I cannot say, definitively, if your proposal would be a buff to casters. I can only say what I said in my initial post: it is likely to be one. It would be a difficult task to not end up giving casters a buff.

There really is no point in arguing with you over this. Youre not going to understand. And I am not smart enough to make my point of view clearer to you. I give up.

dkyle
12-27-2011, 12:00 AM
Lol, funny post.

ITS IN THE 3.5 RULESET (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellResistance).

And DDO is based on 3.5. There you have it.

It isn't your fault you didn't do enough research before posting the idea. Well, maybe it is.

While I don't think the OP proposes a good idea (or at least, doesn't adequately describe or support it), I must object to the notion that 3.5 is some gold standard of rules that should be adhered to. I encourage the Devs to deviate wherever they please, to make DDO a better game. Which it already is.

The system has already been playtested by millions of players.

3.5? Playtested? Balanced? That's a laugh.

AMDarkwolf
12-27-2011, 12:04 AM
*DERPDERP* I R TOO STOOPED 2 UNDRSAWND

RID SR MAKE 40 SAVE MOB INTO 70 SAVE MOB... *DERPDERP*

YAY NO LAG

Really dude, the whole 'your too stupid to understand my chicken scratches' approach at the start of the post, then the whole 'figerins' u did after...

No.

Its obvious you spent a whole lot of time mulling over something when the real meat of the matter is you just do -NOT- have a good grasp on the 'idea' your trying to modify.

Math or not. Its just a simple 'you just don't get it'

tinyelvis
12-27-2011, 12:07 AM
Lol, funny post.

ITS IN THE 3.5 RULESET (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellResistance).

And DDO is based on 3.5. There you have it.

It isn't your fault you didn't do enough research before posting the idea. Well, maybe it is.

The system has already been playtested by millions of players. And it does translate well to online play, and is necessary for balance purposes.

Actually SR was in earlier releases. But, it isnt your fault either. I do know one thing. WF were not in the 3.5 ruleset. Mana bars were not in the 3.5 rule set. True resurrection was not in the 3.5 rule set. Manually dodging traps and ranged attacks were not in the 3.5 rule set. Hundreds of things in DDO were not in the 3.5 rule set.

This is a DDO forum. Perhaps play the DDO online game before posting here. If you don't understand something. A better approach is open your mind and listen to more experienced folk.

Ukenburger
12-27-2011, 12:08 AM
The idea presented leaves a massive opening when it comes to no-save spells and spell-like effects. Ray of Enfeeblement, Waves of Exhaustion, Power Word: Blind, Symbol of Death, and other such spells would become more potent. In some situations it would also make these types of spells better to use as "scrolled" spells rather than cast spells because it takes one of the main reasons to cast these offensive spells from SP out of the equation (the difference in Caster Level granting the cast version greater spell penetration).

Mana bars were not in the 3.5 rule set.

Just to set this one straight... (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm)

ferrite
12-27-2011, 12:17 AM
This is a DDO forum. Perhaps play the DDO online game before posting here. If you don't understand something. A better approach is open your mind and listen to more experienced folk.

Give me a break. Its a dumb idea. If you can't take negative comments to a suggestion, then perhaps YOU should post elsewhere. Because it is your dumb idea, after all.

tinyelvis
12-27-2011, 12:35 AM
The idea presented leaves a massive opening when it comes to no-save spells and spell-like effects. Ray of Enfeeblement, Waves of Exhaustion, Power Word: Blind, Symbol of Death, and other such spells would become more potent. In some situations it would also make these types of spells better to use as "scrolled" spells rather than cast spells because it takes one of the main reasons to cast these offensive spells from SP out of the equation (the difference in Caster Level granting the cast version greater spell penetration).

Its not a massive opening. It actually is a chance to close a massive chasm and problem with caster balancing. I pointed out that some spells would need to be modified. Take waves of exhaustion, for example. A simple fix would be to give it a DC. Make the DC/Save equivalent to the chance of failure for the Spell pen/SR roll when you balance the spell.

For example, if the goal of the designer is for your baseline caster to have a 30% chance of success with Waves, then modify the saves vs DC situation to produce that result. The advantage is you control fully as a designer what percent of success you achieve. You no longer have to make the extra consideration that someone will overcome fully SR and get a freebie. This later situation is infinitely more difficult to balance. Other than that, its a role of the dice either way.

Think for a minute what a designer has to do currently when balancing for a well used great spell like power word kill. 1st he has to do a study considering the percent of casters that will automatically overcome SR and assign a percentage to it. Then he has to come up with a way to incorporate and combine this with casters who fail SR and what percentage of the time they fail it. The process gets hair raiseingly complex when you add DC spells. All of this to come to a baseline overall percent of failure or success. This is orders of magnitudes more complex than a single roll DC/Save system, which he can easily setup balanced percentages.

You are producing a single percent of failure event. Why make it so unnecessarily complicated.

dkyle
12-27-2011, 12:37 AM
Ok, so what? Are you saying two arbitrary is better than one?

I don't think either is "arbitrary", any more than any other game mechanic. The DCs/SR are chosen by the devs, but that doesn't mean they are "arbitrary". They serve a purpose.

Answer some questions. What exactly is spell resistance? What does it mean to penetrate it. What is a save? What does it mean when you beat a spell save? If you toss a charm person on a mob without spell resistance and he makes his save, did he not just resist your spell? Please tell my you understand that he did resist your spell.

SR represents a fundamental resistance to magic; magic literally bounces off for no effect. Saves represent the more mundane capacity for us to avoid the effects of the spell, by dodging, disbelieving, or simply overcoming them through mental or physical resolve. The spell still happens, it just doesn't effect us fully.

But the lore isn't important. The game mechanics are. And I'm not seeing a good game mechanics justification for your proposal.

Both cases result in subject not resisting your spell. So, why the extra arbitrary roll?

You're ignoring how those percents are created. Yes, with a 50% SR and 80% DC chance, it means a 40% chance. But if you eliminate the dual percents, then how do you have things that help SR but not DC, and vice versa? Or have mobs that are tough on one and not the other? The "extra" roll is there so there are potentially two separate, and independent, checks. That is simply different than having a single check.

Unless you're simply saying that we keep the game as is, with DC and SR, and instead of rolling 2 d20s, the game should calculate the probabilities, multiply them, then generate a single random number? I don't thinks so, but that would be the only way a single roll could produce the same game mechanics as the two rolls we have now.

The more parameters the more complex the system. The fewer parameters the less complex. With one parameter everything I do effects only one value. I want a 40% result, easy the result is 40%. This is nice because a number of other parameters influence this parameter. Things like enhancements, items, item drop rates...... Add just one more parameter and not only are there multiple ways to produce the exact same result, but the number extra influences you need to consider shoots way up. All for no reason at all.

There is a reason. It provides another thing that casters have to work at to be effective.

Furthermore, less complex does not necessarily mean more balanced.

Why? A 40% result is a 40% result no matter how you come to it. You could take SR out of the game and raise saves to such a degree that it is near impossible to achieve a 40% result. SR is not necessary to do that.

But raising saves would effect some casters differently then others. A caster that currently balances between saves and DC loses, and a caster that goes all out on DC wins.

Also, the question I responded to said nothing about raising saves to compensate.

I have no idea what you mean here. You do realize don't you that for 60 - 70% of end game content, the goal is to get your SR in the 30s so that as a caster you auto succeed at spell pen.

I realize this. But even then, you don't always auto-succeed. And you had to put the effort to get there. It serves a purpose.

Now, running off the d20 on SR isn't a big deal, because it's harder to run off the die on Saves. So end result, as a caster, it's hard to entirely run off the d20. Having two rolls helps this happen.

This is actually a third degree of freedom that designers have to contend with now. It would be eliminated in my proposal.

Why is this a good thing? Reducing the designer's options in balancing content is a bad thing.

I know you think my tone is out of wack, but I really dont think you understand what I am proposing.

I understand. You want to eliminate the SR roll, and increase saves (some situationally, to reflect current SR) to compensate, as well as more DC bonuses. I think that's a bad idea. Having two rolls makes casters more interesting, and challenging to build. It gives the designers more options to use to balance content.

What? Why? Nothing stated here is a fact. Its your opinion and none of it is correct. First off, in a world where a caster succeeds 95% of the time, then spell resistance has no effect and can not be in place. The best a caster could do if any spell resistance was not totally overcome would be around 90% success.

I said 95% on DC or SR, not combined. My point is, there is a point where more DC or SR doesn't help you. If there were a single number, all that excess that now gets wasted on one, would essentially be applied to the other. A buff, unless Saves are raised very high.

shores11
12-27-2011, 12:55 AM
While I don't think the OP proposes a good idea (or at least, doesn't adequately describe or support it), I must object to the notion that 3.5 is some gold standard of rules that should be adhered to. I encourage the Devs to deviate wherever they please, to make DDO a better game. Which it already is.

3.5? Playtested? Balanced? That's a laugh.

I could not disagree more. DDO and its developers should make every attempt possible to adhere to D&D ruleset in this case 3.5. Yes, there are times when the translation can not be made but every attempt should be made. Spell resistance is part of D&D ruleset and should be kept within DDO as it works fine the way it is.

Ukenburger
12-27-2011, 12:56 AM
Think for a minute what a designer has to do currently when balancing for a well used great spell like power word kill. 1st he has to do a study considering the percent of casters that will automatically overcome SR and assign a percentage to it. Then he has to come up with a way to incorporate and combine this with casters who fail SR and what percentage of the time they fail it. All of this to come to a baseline overall percent of failure or success. This is orders of magnitudes more complex than a single roll DC/Save system, which he can easily setup balanced percentages.

Do remember, we are talking about Turbine and DDO, as they would be the implementors. Their track history on major re-modifications and monster stats might make this worse than you envision. We still have 8 CON dwarves roaming Elite Prison of the Planes (which shouldn't be possibly) and monster skills (like balance) STILL don't adjust up or down to match the bonuses/penalties on the monsters. The removal of Spell Resistance and the adjustment to monster saves could be a travesty in its own right.

Also, a question. What is your proposition on things like Golems and Willowisps, who have a Spell Resistance that doesn't get bypassed?

shores11
12-27-2011, 01:00 AM
Actually SR was in earlier releases. But, it isnt your fault either. I do know one thing. WF were not in the 3.5 ruleset. Mana bars were not in the 3.5 rule set. True resurrection was not in the 3.5 rule set. Manually dodging traps and ranged attacks were not in the 3.5 rule set. Hundreds of things in DDO were not in the 3.5 rule set.

This is a DDO forum. Perhaps play the DDO online game before posting here. If you don't understand something. A better approach is open your mind and listen to more experienced folk.

You are way off base here. If you can not tell that DDO developers have made as much of an attempt as possible to adhere to D&D pen and paper then maybe it is you that should try some table top D&D to understand the foundation for DDO (Dungeons & Dragons Online).

Turbine has also setup their DDO forums to discuss D&D and it is not a stretch to bring them together. Hey Turbine did...

tinyelvis
12-27-2011, 01:11 AM
SR represents a fundamental resistance to magic; magic literally bounces off for no effect. Saves represent the more mundane capacity for us to avoid the effects of the spell, by dodging, disbelieving, or simply overcoming them through mental or physical resolve. The spell still happens, it just doesn't effect us fully.

Ok fine. Just change to read
"Saves represent the more mundane capacity for us to avoid the effects of the spell, by dodging, disbelieving, or simply overcoming them through mental or physical resolve or a fundamental resistanc to magic."

Its a simple two phase cause and effect problem.
1. You cast a spell.
2. The spell either effects them or it doesn't.

Why then burden yourself unnecessarily with overly complex systems that are tough to balance or involve more calculations than needed.

Why does this idea "fundamental resistance to magic" deserve such special treatment anyway. Why is there not also a physical resolve penetration check. Why not a mental toughness penetration. There are a multitude of different micro penetrations just as worthy of special status as "magic resistance." I'll tell you why, because it would add extra complexity. There is no need for the complexity. The game is so complex now its almost impossible for the designers to balance things. Take one more item off of their plate. The whole spell thing can be fudged down into one DC/Save roll.

dkyle
12-27-2011, 01:45 AM
Ok fine. Just change to read
"Saves represent the more mundane capacity for us to avoid the effects of the spell, by dodging, disbelieving, or simply overcoming them through mental or physical resolve or a fundamental resistanc to magic."

If removing SR were a good idea in terms of game mechanics, that would certainly be one way to adjust the lore of the game to accommodate those changes. I see no reason why its removal is a good idea, however.

Its a simple two phase cause and effect problem.
1. You cast a spell.
2. The spell either effects them or it doesn't.

And many spells have partial effect on saves.

A failed SR check is not the same as target saving. It has different mechanical implications.

Why then burden yourself unnecessarily with overly complex systems that are tough to balance or involve more calculations than needed.

SR is none of those things. It's one more d20 roll. It's hardly "overly complex". And it's no tougher to balance than Saves. And, again, the calculations are nothing.

Why does this idea "fundamental resistance to magic" deserve such special treatment anyway.

Because it represents the spell failing entirely, as opposed to saves, which represent the spell happening, but possibly at reduced effect. But "deserved" is besides the point. That's a lore concern. The game mechanics exist because they add something interesting to the game. The lore is a mere in-world justification.

Why is there not also a physical resolve penetration check. Why not a mental toughness penetration. There are a multitude of different micro penetrations just as worthy of special status as "magic resistance." I'll tell you why, because it would add extra complexity. There is no need for the complexity.

There is, essentially. Those are what Saves are: Fortitude=physical resolve, Will=mental toughness.

But if adding a third roll (or adding a second roll where SR isn't an issue) made the game better, and more interesting, and gave the devs something else to use to balance content, I'd have no problem with it.

The game is so complex now its almost impossible for the designers to balance things. Take one more item off of their plate. The whole spell thing can be fudged down into one DC/Save roll.

And I believe that "fudging" it into one roll would make the game more difficult to balance. The more that rides on a target number, the more difficult it is to get that number right. For example, set SR on the low side, and it won't break the content, because Saves are still there. Set SR on the high side, and it still doesn't break the content, because there are spells that circumvent SR. Same for Saves. Having multiple checks makes the game less fragile, and less sensitive to balance mistakes. If sky-high Epic Drow SR became sky-high Epic Drow Saves, then casters would be basically useless, instead of having to use different spells to work around the problem.

And, again, your proposed circumstantial bonuses to saves pose exactly the same complexity issues you claim to solve by removing SR, perhaps more-so. Setting an SR is basically the same as setting a bonus to Saves representing SR. And you talked about many more.

Ultimately, I get no sense that the devs are struggling to set fair SR and Saves. I see many instances where combinations of high/low of each make the game interesting, in ways that having a single number would not allow.

Rodasch
12-27-2011, 04:31 AM
Easy answer: Spell Resistance applies to many spells which don't get saves (such as enervation/energy drain) and to spells where save = half damage or partial damage (such as finger of death). Spell Resistance completely negates the spell effect instead of reducing it as a save does in many situations.

SR and Saves are two different mechanics and oversimplifying it as the OP does only confuses the questioner about it's function.

Spell Resistance is also a great way to make a monster highly resistant to spells without making it's saves vs melee special abilities ungodly high and unassailable.

It's needed because spells use the same save throws as everything else, and some things just resist magic better than they do a beating.

12-27-2011, 05:00 AM
Ok, why is there a need for a second (arbitrary roll) to determine if some spells succeed?
Incredibly simple answer: So there isn't just one DC number to stack up to make your spells good. Caster characters should need to work on pumping multiple stats in order to be powerful.

Eliminating the arbitrary second roll and increasing the remaining roll appropriately is a really good way to setup your system. It means less calculations. It may lead to less lag in situations like spammed dancing balls. Plus it is easier to balance the game.
The idea that removing SR would lower lag is massively and hilariously untrue. That it would improve balance is also incorrect: SR was added explicitly to improve balance, by giving the designers another stat to tweak when spellcasters find it too easy to defeat a monster.

Fomori
12-27-2011, 05:51 AM
I don't think its been mentioned but SR and spell DC also work on 2 different mechanics. Combining them is not really relevant.

Spell DC:

Target Number: 10 + (Level of Spell) + (Caster Stat) + (Misc Modifiers).
Roll by Caster: -
Roll by Target: d20 + (Applicable Save)

Applicable save is (fort/will/reflex) depending on the spell.
Caster Stat is (intelligence/charisma/wisdom) depending on the class.
Level of Spell is the actual level of the spell being cast (1-9), improved by heightening.

This save can be auto-failed on a 1 and auto-succeeded on a 20.

Spell Resistance (SR):

Target Number: (SR Value)
Roll by Caster: d20 + (Caster Level) + (Misc Modifiers)
Roll by Target: -

Caster Level is the level of the spell casting class being used by the caster (1-20). It is not total overall level, unless they are single classed.

This roll is like skill checks, there is no auto-fail on 1, auto-succeed on 20.

The difference that strikes me most immediately is the auto-fail/succeed condition. SR checks don't have it, Spell DC checks do. The next biggest is the caster level vs. spell level. One uses the number of caster levels and the other uses the spell level.

Some examples where a class level or feat makes things tricky:
level 20 wiz and a level 18 wiz/2 rogue. spell DC same, SR check different.
level 9 wiz and a level 20 wiz without heightening. spell DC same, SR check different.
level 20 wiz with heightening, level 20 wiz without heightening. Spell DC different, SR check same.

Perhaps if they were operating on the same mechanic this might be more debatable. But since they use different rules to check against it starts to add too much complexity into combining them. You may see 2 percentage chances and think (well lets just make 1 overall percentage chance) but generating those chances are on a totally different scale.

The only possibility I see is that the game generates the percentages, and then combines the two rolls into a single percentage by multiplying them together. However in that case they might as well just make a percentile roll (d100). That is not that feasible either as you add more code transactions (to resolve edge cases and interactions) than it would take to make 2 d20 checks.

End result is understand the mechanics better and you can continue to min/max casters without needing to make sweeping changes that don't significantly improve gameplay.

MRMechMan
12-27-2011, 06:11 AM
So....might as well get rid of ALL monster DR and just make mobs have only AC?

AFter all, monsters having more than one layer of defenses just overly complicates things, right?

Sometimes more layers doesn't makes things more complicated, it makes things more INTERESTING.

You neglected an important part of playing a caster. You are suffering for it in-game. You came on the forums because you were unhappy. You made a bad suggestion. No one agreed with you.

12-27-2011, 06:58 AM
Yes, yes, yes,.. I agree with most all of the above comments. However, I don't think you quite understand the point I am trying to make. Let's look at some in detail.

This of course is a dynamic that spell resistance could easily open. However, that is not how it is applied in DDO. Look at mobs that have spell resistance. Let's name a few; Drow in epic offering of blood; Pirate casters and archers in epic bargain of blood; Evil outsiders in elite Vision of Destruction, just to name a few. In each of these cases, spell resistance exists to make the mob only effected by caster with appropriate expertise (i.e. high spell penetration).

This is a very common misconception. Many people, even experienced players don't really understand the system. SR does not in itself make monsters more challenging. Its the combination of the DC/save roll and the spell pen/SR roll. One roll, based say on a higher DC, could be setup to offer the exact same challenge. In fact, a higher DC could offer an even higher challenge without any SR at all.

For example, the drow trash mob has a save of 30 and a spell resistance of 43. Our wizard has a DC of 47 and a spell pen of 40. The mob fails save 16 in 20 and fails spell resistance 18 in 20. Essentially our wiz has a combined 70 some percent chance to effect the mob. Why not just give the mob a save 6 points or so higher than than the casters DC for the same overall effect? Say, the caster will have a DC of 52 and the mob a save of 58.

In each of the above cases,eliminating SR and replacing the spell save of the opponent with a higher one setup so that a player has the same expected chance to effect the mob would achieve the same result. The mob need not be any more or less challenging. It would not make things any easier. It would just reduce the unnecessary complexity of the rolls to effect. The resources saved could then be used to add a better new dynamic to spells (like cumulative negative modifiers for mob sizes over one).

Mobs then are designed to resist spells based on the best spec'd caster with the best gear having a certain chance of success based on one roll . There is no need for two rolls. It over complicates unnecessarily the system.

Not necessarily. You could have more items that buff spell DC. Essentially the same number of items could be used. Spell pen on items would be replaced by stackable DC modifiers. At present, you grind for a certain DC and spell pen say 43 and 30 respectively to be effective in 60 - 70% of end game content. Why could this not be replaced with similarly rough grind to just get the DC high enough, say 49. The challenge, grind, and chance of success need not change. Only the unnecessary complexity.

Melee dont need to contend with an extra die roll. Mobs are setup with one die roll in mind. Melee get along just fine without the extra gear. Mobs are plenty challenging for them without the extra roll.

Its true, Melee do have some shielding effects (in theory) but these are all overcome completely with things like true seeing or special items. There are no gloves a caster can put on to overcome SR. There is no spell to cast that lets them overcome SR. In essence these mobs melee fight dont really have those effects. If caster could overcome SR that easily, it would skew the balance of the mobs in the favor of the caster. Developers would need to increase DCs.

So SR doesn't make it more challenging.... or you think you would get the same challenge from a higher save DC.

I disagree.

Currently there are a few (if you believe the forums thousands) of casters with so high a spell DC that saves are meaningless.

Having them also have to come up with some method of beating SR gives more of a challenge.

How many PMs wail their way through eOOB with ease I wonder?

12-27-2011, 07:12 AM
"because I said so" is never a good reason.
same with "because that is the way it was designed".

3.5 "is" very ballanced.

core rules are anyway..... just stay away from all of those extra uber prestige classes of the month.

But... tabletop D&D makes for a rather boring video game.
Temple of Elemental Evil was extemely frustrating to me, and if it wsn't for the nestalgia, I probably wouldn't have finished playing it.

And even though I liked Neverwinter, I never finished NN2 because DDO was sooo much more fun to play.

They need to think carefully before changing from 3.5, but use it as a guidline, not the absolute strict rule.

DDO has many changes and they are (almost) all good IMO.

Tabletop has a DM to adjust challenges to what players do. DDO has a DM who only adusts things twice a year. :rolleyes:

How much fun would friendly fire spells be in DDO?
(don't cast AOE spells! you moron!)

How much fun would casting one spell a day be?
(Sorry, I've already cast my Raise Dead spell today..., you'll just have to stay dead till tomorrow)(sorry, I already cast my Haste spell today)

DDO has made great changes to 3.5 to make this a much more action packed and fun game for all classes.

noinfo
12-27-2011, 07:20 AM
The big question:

Ok, why is there a need for a second (arbitrary roll) to determine if some spells succeed? This is at best an unnecessary complication. For example, lets look at one particular situation. Suppose a person lands a spell 19 out of 20 times. That's an easy one roll. Now suppose in addition he fails to penetrate the spell resistance 1 in 20 times. Essentially this fellow went from a single instance 95% success to around a 90% success chance. Why not just eliminate the second calculation and increase the mobs save by one. The result essentially is the same, while fewer steps are needed.

Eliminating the arbitrary second roll and increasing the remaining roll appropriately is a really good way to setup your system. It means less calculations. It may lead to less lag in situations like spammed dancing balls. Plus it is easier to balance the game. I realize the level of detail is reduced a bit, and the dynamics of a two save system are higher, but the benefit more than makes up for the added simplicity.

Let's look at some examples where this has been successfully applied. A melee toon swings his big stick and hits a mob. Each time he swings he rolls a hit and compares it to the AC of the mob (19 in 20 success say). This situation is analogous to spell cast DCs and mob saves (but the roles are sorta reversed, in more ways than one.). It's simple and easy to compute.

Now imagine if you added arbitrary rolls. The melee must additionally penetrate the laquor on the armor (19 in 20), then he must penetrate the iron plate (16 in 20), then the leather jerkin (18 in 20), then the padding (19 in 20), then.. well you get the picture. It would result in a number of extra arbitrary rolls. This set of rolls could be replaced by one (13 in 20) roll with essentially the same chance for success. Essentially this has been done for melee and seems to work adequately in the game.

So why the arbitrary additional rolls for spell casting?

The solution:

Get rid of either spell resistance or the DC/save system.

1. Get rid of the DC/Save system for spells. I kinda like the idea of spell resistance on its own. Everything has a spell resistance. Some are more specific than others, like a high spell resistance to acid or enchantments. Unfortunately, though I think this approach would be best, it may be very hard to retro fit to the current game.

2. Get rid of spell resistance. This is a much easier fix. It would require someone actually calculating new spell DC's for mobs who formally had spell resistance. It would also require modifying spell pen items into stackable spell DC bonuses. A very few spells would need some extra attention (i.e. PWK and the damage side of finger of death). Spell descriptions would also need modified.

The benefit:

The benefits are numerous here.
1. Less lag in situations like massed dancing spheres
2. Simpler system which is good for everyone, including the game developers who have to balance quests.
3. The freed up resources could be applied to making effects of spell more complicated. For example, a new calculation could be added that applied cumulatively higher saves to each additional mob over one in an AOE spell. This idea is very D&D ish. But this is a different discussion.

So, game developers and spell casters throw off your spell pen and resistance bonds. You have nothing but a faster, easier game to fear.

Melee have the same issue with blur and displacement and other concealment.
Some creatures are inately resistant to all types of magic regardless of whether it is will based or con or whatever SR represents this.
Some spells have no save yet are succeptable to SR checks.

SR or MR has been around since first edition and is part of the game.

AMDarkwolf
12-27-2011, 12:22 PM
All i see here is some guy really, REALLY trying to defend his 'bright idea' which HE seems to think is utter genius, and we are all just 'too stupid to get it'

For one second that guy should closes his eyes, relax a moment, then look at himself from OUR point of view...

... see? Now don'tcha feel stupid?

Dude, drop it. its a VERY stupid idea. SR and saves have a point, they belong. Your idea is just dumb, it would completely remove some of the uniqueness of various spells and mobs, and regardless of what you think, it would NOT 'improve lag'

And just so you know, your disclaimer prob made a lot of people laugh.. at you... but it didn't help your argument. (Not that anything COULD help that argument much)

Just do yourself a favor, do a lil' research into DDO to fix your gimpy wiz who has no spell pent, and drop your silly crusade!

Thrudh
12-27-2011, 12:30 PM

Just increasing saves on certain mobs (like Drow) to simulate SR means even more one-dimensional casters...

Right now, you can max out your DC, max out your nuking power, or max out your Spell Pen...

Pick two... You can't max out all 3... Spell Pen costs equipment slots, feats and enhancements, DCs costs equipment slots, and feats, and build points, Nuking costs feats, equipment slots, and enhancements.

Strip out Spell Pen, and every caster will have maxed out DCs and Nukes.

They need to add MORE spell resistance mobs really, to make it MORE important, in my opinion.

Thrudh
12-27-2011, 12:32 PM
Incredibly simple answer: So there isn't just one DC number to stack up to make your spells good. Caster characters should need to work on pumping multiple stats in order to be powerful.

The idea that removing SR would lower lag is massively and hilariously untrue. That it would improve balance is also incorrect: SR was added explicitly to improve balance, by giving the designers another stat to tweak when spellcasters find it too easy to defeat a monster.

All of this. +1

Thrudh
12-27-2011, 12:33 PM
So....might as well get rid of ALL monster DR and just make mobs have only AC?

AFter all, monsters having more than one layer of defenses just overly complicates things, right?

Sometimes more layers doesn't makes things more complicated, it makes things more INTERESTING.

Excellent point.

donfilibuster
12-27-2011, 07:41 PM
Short version: dun fight SR monsters with spells.

The way i read OP it appears the point is about having one instead of the two mechanics as in saves vs. spell resistance.
It'd be something like a plain magic-defense stat, and this would be rather poor.

I'd be very very strongly against a move like this. The game needs no more simplification, it needs the contrary.
D&D is a very rich system, with the various mechanics representing things the character can do.
Taking a single option away is one less way you can describe and customize your character.
Having a simple melee-defense and magic-defense is tasteless and pointless to anyone other than lazy players.

Trying to merge saves with SR is like trying to merge AC with DR, or reflex with evasion, or finesse with str, etc.
Sure that's extra stuff you have to take in account but customization is the name of the game and you are not supposed to be good in all at once.
Saying that one is poor in DDO amounts to DDO's fault at not making them work properly.

I'd use the AC vs DR as an example, since it is easier to get the idea.
One would want to get rid of AC but the truth is AC is on shortage not because it is useless but because there's few options in DDO whereas PnP can offer many more.
When there's a mechanics issue PnP is rarely at fault, it is MMO mechanics that gets in the way.
DDO is overly simplificated already, making a few of the options look poor and in need of love.
If anything, we need proper coverage of the options rather than further cut out them just because they don't seem good enough as presented.

MMOs tend to be played highly on the offense side, letting defense suffer.
This never happens in PnP, each class is versatile enough to have ways for both offense and defense.
Each class have some sort of AC option, be it spells or feats, etc. There's plenty of non-core spells for AC like greater mage armor.
You get to choose the role, it is not hard-coded in the build like it happens on MMOs, and it is owed to player optimization.

A high magic game has high hitting and high damage, but would also come with high defenses to match.
DDO has things like shield block, moving out of rays, killing caster first, kiting, etc. and these are MMO things.
They work fine but leave the D&D mechanics on second priority, they get useless unless maxxed and players will keep asking to make them usable.

Thus, we see saves and SR and ponder why they look poor or why you would bother with the lesser items.
e.g. partial saves like a reflex item vs a full resistance item, or why go for an SR item if you can't have max.
Or why no one uses dispel, or why everyone has heavy fort, or why there's magnetism VII if there's no such spells.
This is never an issue in PnP, you have other options like targeted dispel on items, counterspells, and god forbids on DDO, assay resistance.

Let alone talk of antimagic spells and zones. Players get annoyed already when they buffs get dispelled and much more with disjunction.
But truth is fortification is cheap because it does you no good if the first shaman in the way can supress your items with a simple dispel.
And then you may say there's no place for counterspells since the casters would be dead way sooner, but then complain the casters spam summons, fogs, sleet, comets, holds.
There's no compromise between defense and offense in order to make this play like a MMO.

I would never say simplification is bad, simplification is not evil.
Sure both the weapons and spells system suffer from it but DDO would still be a good game as a whole.
Yet saying DDO is not PnP is not an excuse to go around suggesting changes for the sake of it or in our advantage.
If the devs can do what they like is supposedly to make balance and make DDO a better game overall.

Cutting out things should help things go smooth, not look poor, and d&d is about making your hero unique.
Having multiple stats or defenses should help things be challenging, or give a way to save your skin.
In the case of saves vs. SR, there's simply monsters that are impervious to magic, but not immune.
There's a lot of softening already, like golems not immune to spells that have SR in PnP but not in DDO.

You are supposed to not fight monsters with high SR with magic, but on DDO's PvE balance things are tweaked so that casters can have a fair time wether they group or solo.
This is one reason spells were tweaked so that sorcs, fvs and necros could do better in high lv/epics.
Sadly in an online game the first and cheaper choice to fix things is a tweak, not improving the mechanics.
Nukers went up, etc. and fortification was up to match, nerfing the players that rely on it.
I'd keep saying it would have been better to just introduce more options to better do the things that were lacking.
Assay resistance could have been good on epics, for instance, rather than making more non-SR spells.

In sum, we need not get rid of SR, we just need more spells. We need not get rid of DR either, we need more AC choices.
Same with simple weapons, and everything else that frecuently shows up in the threads.

Kinerd
12-27-2011, 08:00 PM
or example, the drow trash mob has a save of 30 and a spell resistance of 43. Our wizard has a DC of 47 and a spell pen of 40. The mob fails save 16 in 20 and fails spell resistance 18 in 20. Essentially our wiz has a combined 70 some percent chance to effect the mob. Why not just give the mob a save 6 points or so higher than than the casters DC for the same overall effect? Say, the caster will have a DC of 52 and the mob a save of 58.You are still missing two crucial points:
-Not all spells have an SR check, and vice versa. It is explicitly the design intent that no-save SR check spells have 100% success against some targets and potentially less against others. You cannot replicate that intent with a single check.
-Resisting a spell and making a save often have different effects, for instance against Finger of Death. You cannot replicate that functionality with a single check.

Another point is that Spell Resistance and DC come from different sources. A drow wizard has higher DCs than an elven wizard while the elven wizard has higher Spell Penetration. Wizard past lives increase Spell Pen but not DC, Cleric past lives increase a certain DC but not Spell Pen. Combining the two systems would necessarily homogenize these choices. In general, a game is better where it has more choices, not less.

12-28-2011, 11:50 AM

Just increasing saves on certain mobs (like Drow) to simulate SR means even more one-dimensional casters...

Right now, you can max out your DC, max out your nuking power, or max out your Spell Pen...

Pick two... You can't max out all 3... Spell Pen costs equipment slots, feats and enhancements, DCs costs equipment slots, and feats, and build points, Nuking costs feats, equipment slots, and enhancements.

Strip out Spell Pen, and every caster will have maxed out DCs and Nukes.

They need to add MORE spell resistance mobs really, to make it MORE important, in my opinion.

Whie I do think they should add more SR mobs, the problem is that our so-called "epics" are not using "epic" monsters.

I think we'll see a much more challenging end-game when people are not fighting supped up Bugbears and Suhuagen(sp).

RedDragonScale
12-28-2011, 12:23 PM
I do know one thing. WF were not in the 3.5 ruleset. Mana bars were not in the 3.5 rule set. True resurrection was not in the 3.5 rule set.

Ok, WF were not in the CORE ruleset but they were were intoduced when the Eberron Campaign Setting came out and that IS 3.5.

Mana bars were not in the 3.5 CORE ruleset but the concept of Spellpoints has been used with D&D before and was Officially introduced as an OPTION in the 3.5 version of Unearthed Arcana.

True Resurrection IS in the 3.5 CORE ruleset. See The Player's Handbook on page 296.

Turns out you didn't know as much as you thought you did.

Thank you, come again.

CheeseMilk
12-28-2011, 01:26 PM
So....might as well get rid of ALL monster DR and just make mobs have only AC?

This.

Edit: Um, as a reason to keep SR in the game.

Sorry.

Talias006
12-28-2011, 04:00 PM
So if you get rid of SR and puff up relevant DC, what next?

Remove elemental resists and just puff up an irrelevant Save?
Remove melee tactical abilities DC and just increase the AC/to-hit?

One dimensional characters and abilities are, in my opinion, stupid.
Don't try to oversimplify this, please.

EnjoyTheJourney
12-28-2011, 04:15 PM
I think SR adds something to the game and I'm glad that it's part of the game; Kinerd and others have done a good job of explaining why its inclusion is sensible, even desirable.

It ain't broke. Let's not fix it.

/unsigned