# Assay Spell Resistance



## zlorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Hi,

What do people think of this spell from Spell Compendium:
Assay Spell Resistance (4th lvl Cleric)
Divination
Level: Cleric 4, sorcerer/wizard 4
Components : V, S
Casting Time: 1 swift action
Range: Personal
Taget: You
Duration 1 round/level

Finishing the spell, you eyes glow with a pale blue radiance, and you understand how to
overcome your foe's restance to your magic.

This spell gives you a +10 bonus on caster lvl checks to overcome the spell resistance of
a specific creature. Assay resistance is effective against only one specific creature per casting, and you must be able to see the creature when you cast the spell.


My feeling is that it bypasses one ability that is SR that many monsters CR's are based on
and without it weakens them considerability. Yes the spell has some limitation, but in most circumstances it will work. Yes i can add 2 monsters with SR and make one invis etc to not make the spell as effective. A 12 lvl cleric  will automatically bypass the SR or need a low roll to bypass  for most monsters that have a SR for someone of that level.

Apart from feats is this the only way to increase your caster lvl checks?

A +5 bonus for this to you caster lvl would still be attractive and maybe more balance.

Comments anyone?

Cheers
Z


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 29, 2007)

Assay resistance changes the game, but otoh spell resistance is annoying.


----------



## Nail (Jun 29, 2007)

zlorf said:
			
		

> What do people think of this spell from Spell Compendium:
> Assay Spell Resistance



We've used the spell in-game, up to 23rd level PCs.  The spell is effective...but not a game-breaker.  As you point out, it's only useful against 1 creature, and of course that one creature still gets a saving throw.

...and it's vulnerable to Dispel Magic.

Really, the spell just allows the spell-slinger to do his schtick, rather than let the Ftr handle it.


----------



## zlorf (Jun 29, 2007)

The monster get a saving throw? Against the spell? How?

Cheers
Zlorf




			
				Nail said:
			
		

> We've used the spell in-game, up to 23rd level PCs.  The spell is effective...but not a game-breaker.  As you point out, it's only useful against 1 creature, and of course that one creature still gets a saving throw.
> 
> ...and it's vulnerable to Dispel Magic.
> 
> Really, the spell just allows the spell-slinger to do his schtick, rather than let the Ftr handle it.


----------



## Nail (Jun 29, 2007)

zlorf said:
			
		

> The monster get a saving throw? Against the spell? How?



Monsters don't get a save vs. Assay Resistance.

Monsters *do* get a save against most spells you throw at them that also have "SR = yes".  Assay Resistance doesn't remove the save, just the SR.


----------



## Felon (Jun 29, 2007)

zlorf said:
			
		

> My feeling is that it bypasses one ability that is SR that many monsters CR's are based on and without it weakens them considerability. Yes the spell has some limitation, but in most circumstances it will work. Yes i can add 2 monsters with SR and make one invis etc to not make the spell as effective. A 12 lvl cleric  will automatically bypass the SR or need a low roll to bypass  for most monsters that have a SR for someone of that level.
> 
> Apart from feats is this the only way to increase your caster lvl checks?
> 
> ...



There are no real balance problems with it as-is. Monsters have defenses, and characters are often built to circumvent them. Damage reduction is a classic example of a defense that's bypassed more often than it's endured. Heck, there are so many conjuration school spells now that don't allow spell resistance that an evoker has good reason to feel bitter about having to use up a 4th-level slot on Assay Resistance. +5? That would stink.

There are a number of ways to increase caster level checks. There's True Casting from Complete Mage (1st-level spell that adds +10 to a single SR penetration check), and there's a 3rd-level spell in Spell Compendium that subtracts your caster level from a creature's SR (it allows a Will save though). In addition, anything you can do to ratchet up your caster level in general can boost SR penetration. Magic items, feats (particularly reserve feats), and PrC features (Master Specialist, Elemental Savant) can all do this.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jun 29, 2007)

Well, I don't like Spell Resistance as a mechanic, but I think concerns about this spell are valid, primarily because some other parts of D&D (level adjustments, CRs for certain monsters, etc) seem to have been designed with the idea that Spell Resistance can't be trivially circumvented.  For example, in a game world where lots of casters have this spell, Mind Flayers and Ropers are over-CRed, and the Drow's +2 level adjustment seems too high. Also, taking Spell Penetration or Greater Spell Penetration becomes a really poor feat choice.

I know that when I run a wizard I'll always want this spell, without exception.  The fact that it's a swift action is just gravy.

Think about it this way.  Would the spell be viable at 4th level if 

1) it wasn't a swift action
or 
2) it lasted 1 round, instead of 1rnd/level?

I think it would.

So, I'd say that it should be 5th level, or or be limited in one of these two ways.  And that 1st level spell that gives +10 to a single attemt to overcome SR is overpowered, too.

Ken


----------



## Felon (Jun 29, 2007)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Well, I don't like Spell Resistance as a mechanic, but I think concerns about this spell are valid, primarily because some other parts of D&D (level adjustments, CRs for certain monsters, etc) seem to have been designed with the idea that Spell Resistance can't be trivially circumvented. For example, in a game world where lots of casters have this spell, Mind Flayers and Ropers are over-CRed, and the Drow's +2 level adjustment seems too high.



Not a big fan of reiteration, but...let's forget what ideas other parts of D&D are designed with and confront the reality: Spell Resistance *is* trivially circumvented. Summon monster, elbemental orbs, melf's acid arrow, arc of lightning, blast of flame, and any number of other SR-ignoring spells make it simplicity. All this spell does is put lightning bolt back in the running.



> Also, taking Spell Penetration or Greater Spell Penetration becomes a really poor feat choice.



Can't say it's a very compelling arguement to suggest that a spell (or some other mechanic) is an overpowered option because it could infringe on the near-monopoly that a feat (or some other mechanic) previously had. 

There is a rather egregious assumption here that Assay Resistance requires a meager cost,  that it can always be at hand just like Spell Penetration. 4th-level spells are just sand off a beach? Every time you fight a monster with SR, this spell would have to be recast. I don't see the niche for Spell Pen disappearing, just shrinking.



> I know that when I run a wizard I'll always want this spell, without exception.  The fact that it's a swift action is just gravy.
> 
> Think about it this way.  Would the spell be viable at 4th level if
> 
> ...



Maybe I'm not playing enough 20th-level characters these days, but...no, it would stink if it only lasted a round. Expend a 4th-level spell just to improve the chance of making an SR check? That's poop.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 29, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Assay resistance changes the game, but otoh spell resistance is annoying.




QTF

Our planescape party has two characters with a one level dip in Marshal with the Aura "determined caster"... add Cha mod to overcome SR (no, they don't stack, but often enough the party is spread out enough to be using either one or the other's aura).  In our case that is a +15 or +10 vs SR... that stacks with the likes of Assay SR.  

Good times.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 29, 2007)

I feel it is a cheap attempt to bypass SR, trivialising one of the mechanics that is supposed to make many high CR creatures difficult to fight.

It is even worse than any silly new conjuration spells which do masses of damage and 'oh, ignore SR because it is conjuration'.

That's my opinion.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 29, 2007)

I think in combination with saving throw: none spells its too powerful. There are spells where SR is the only defense, and with this spell there is NO defense.


----------



## Nail (Jun 29, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I feel it is a cheap attempt to bypass SR, ....



Perhaps.

It might also be the result of comments from thousands of spell-casting players: "Having my spells just *fail* over half the time really sucks!  ...and *then* the monsters get a save versus my spell as well!?!"   

Besides, the monster could dispel the Assay Resistance, or - heaven forfend - start considering the spell-caster a threat and use tactics accordingly!


----------



## zlorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Yes, i see

The last monster had SR of 22. The 12th lvl cleric has +22 before the roll.
Unless 1 fails, then the SR is bypass. 

Some good comments about the balance of the spell, which i was looking for because its the first time someone has used it. 

Cheers
Z



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Monsters don't get a save vs. Assay Resistance.
> 
> Monsters *do* get a save against most spells you throw at them that also have "SR = yes".  Assay Resistance doesn't remove the save, just the SR.


----------



## zlorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Yes, but there are spells that bypass SR.  I dont mind the idea of the spell, but the +10 straight up, seems to make  a 50% mischance become a 5% mischange, somewhere inbetween would be nicer, or even +1 per 2 caster levels, still seems attractive. 

I just looked at some of the bigger demons  with SR 32 (CR 19) a 19th lvl Cleric would still
need to roll fairly low to bypass with this spell. But in saying that, even now save such as dex, ref, and fort are becoming fairly easy for 1/2 of the party around 12th lvl where only 1's will fail.

Cheers
Z



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Perhaps.
> 
> It might also be the result of comments from thousands of spell-casting players: "Having my spells just *fail* over half the time really sucks!  ...and *then* the monsters get a save versus my spell as well!?!"
> 
> Besides, the monster could dispel the Assay Resistance, or - heaven forfend - start considering the spell-caster a threat and use tactics accordingly!


----------



## zlorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Ah the acid orbs..yes the party Dragonlexi has these spells, absolutely hammers the constructs, pity another monster suddenly not as tough as it once was.

By the way hows this for a combo:
The 12th lvl cleric in the party can get his AC up to 50+ (i dont have his exact stats but it goes something like this.
WIS 22 and DEX 22 (+11)
Mage spell +4
Shield spell +4
Shield of Faith +4 or +3
Agility Spell that give +10 Dex
Belt of the  Monk (add wisdom and dex bonus to AC
Dodge maybe +1
Oh almost forgot Alter Self to Lizard +7 i think
(well something like that 

Throw in a +6 to all sav spells

AC 50+ abiet requires a few rounds to buff, not bad.

Add 3 domains, that give Dimension Door, Freedom of movement and Magic (for using mage wands and casting mage spells)

Maybe you can see why i want to look at some of these new spells.




			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I feel it is a cheap attempt to bypass SR, trivialising one of the mechanics that is supposed to make many high CR creatures difficult to fight.
> 
> It is even worse than any silly new conjuration spells which do masses of damage and 'oh, ignore SR because it is conjuration'.
> 
> That's my opinion.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 30, 2007)

Combined with no save spells, assay resistance is too powerful and very poorly designed.  The problem with this spell is that it was not considered with respect to such spells.  Every single caster out there will have this spell, even if only for the battle vs. the BBEG.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> We've used the spell in-game, up to 23rd level PCs.  The spell is effective...but not a game-breaker.  As you point out, it's only useful against 1 creature, and of course that one creature still gets a saving throw.



 This spell strips away SR to the point where it becomes irrelevant.  At high levels, SR is sometimes the only defense.  So, how is this NOT a game-breaker vs. the BBEG?  There is no save vs. assay resistance, unlike vs. lower resistance.  Compare the two spells.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> ...and it's vulnerable to Dispel Magic.



 This is one of the most common straw man arguments that is used to suggest a spell is not broken.  The return straw man is: "So, we can just reduce the spell level of assay resistance to 0th because it's vulnerable to dispel magic.  In fact, reduce all spells to 0th level which are vulnerable to dispel magic."

Obviously, I don't expect you to buy that argument, so don't expect the vulnerable-to-dispel argument to fly either.


----------



## Felon (Jun 30, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I think in combination with saving throw: none spells its too powerful. There are spells where SR is the only defense, and with this spell there is NO defense.





			
				zlorf said:
			
		

> Yes, but there are spells that bypass SR.





			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Combined with no save spells, assay resistance is too powerful and very poorly designed.  The problem with this spell is that it was not considered with respect to such spells.



What are you guys talking about? Spells aren't designed with the assumption that *all* targets have SR, because SR isn't a given. There are 20+ level characters that don't have SR. You guys don't give any specifics about which no-save spells you're referring to, so I can't address them at that level. However, hanging all your hopes on SR is pretty bad to begin with, because thanks to SR's all-or-nothing nature, you're basically hanging you're hopes on the spellcaster being rendered impotent. Flushing one spell after another down the crapper is about as anticlimactic as one-shotting the BBEG.


----------



## Felon (Jun 30, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It is even worse than any silly new conjuration spells which do masses of damage and 'oh, ignore SR because it is conjuration'.



"Even worse"? I'm interested in your reasoning here.

So, I can cast _assay resistance_ and then hit a guy with a _lightning bolt_ and bypass that 50% or less chance of success (SR and CR tend to correllate that way), or I can cast _orb of electricity_ and just bypass it automatically (oh, and do more damage on average). In the former instance, it cost me a 4th and 3rd-level spell, and in the latter it cost me a single 4th. 

So, how is the former the worse of the two?

All SR-penetrating spells do is put evocation spells back in the game. If you're really keen on just protecting bad guys from no-save spells, maybe that's the solution: have assay resistance's benefits only apply to a certain category of spells (like evocation).


----------



## blargney the second (Jun 30, 2007)

If you're really worried about SR, Arcane Mastery (CArc 73) is the feat you want.  It lets you take 10 on caster level checks.  I'd rather spend a single feat than a truckload of 4th level slots and a spell known.
-blarg


----------



## Felon (Jun 30, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Perhaps. It might also be the result of comments from thousands of spell-casting players: "Having my spells just *fail* over half the time really sucks!  ...and *then* the monsters get a save versus my spell as well!?!"



"Can I at least have the spell back when it fails? 'Cuz when the fighter misses his attack rolll, he just gets to swing again next round..."



> Besides, the monster could dispel the Assay Resistance, or - heaven forfend - start considering the spell-caster a threat and use tactics accordingly!



Perish the thought. It appears there's a strong sentiment that the "balanced" and "reasonable" situation is for the monster to be able to ignore the caster, who's just farting in the wind. That makes the CR appropriate, after all, which is doubtless no end of consolation to the spellcasting PC's. 

/sigh


----------



## Felon (Jun 30, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> If you're really worried about SR, Arcane Mastery (CArc 73) is the feat you want.  It lets you take 10 on caster level checks.  I'd rather spend a single feat than a truckload of 4th level slots and a spell known.
> -blarg



That is actually a really good feat, well worth mentioning. But in the scenarios I'm hearing, the DM just wants to stack the deck so that some uber no-save spell probably fails. Taking 10 doesn't help if you need over a 10.


			
				zlorf said:
			
		

> I just looked at some of the bigger demons  with SR 32 (CR 19) a 19th lvl Cleric would still need to roll fairly low to bypass with this spell.



OK, stop here for a second. Consider what that cleric (or, better yet, wizard) would be going through without assay resistance. He either packed a bunch of summon monsters and other no-SR spells, which makes the matter moot, or he packed yes-SR spells and is going to fail 40% of the time.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 30, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I feel it is a cheap attempt to bypass SR, trivialising one of the mechanics that is supposed to make many high CR creatures difficult to fight.
> 
> It is even worse than any silly new conjuration spells which do masses of damage and 'oh, ignore SR because it is conjuration'.
> 
> That's my opinion.



I agree


----------



## Felon (Jun 30, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I agree



Well, you're wrong.    See exhaustive explanations above. 

Boy, that felt good. I've sold curt glibness short all these years...I've got some good teachers here.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 1, 2007)

Combine Assay Spell Resistance with the original Irresistible Spell Feat from the Kalamar setting, and the campaign has a problem.  
  One removes SR.  The other removes saves.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 1, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Combine Assay Spell Resistance with the original Irresistible Spell Feat from the Kalamar setting, and the campaign has a problem.
> One removes SR.  The other removes saves.




Just another of the many reasons why nobody in their right mind uses the Irresistible Spell Feat.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jul 1, 2007)

Didn't they change that Irresistible Spell Feat?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 1, 2007)

I find it was a desperately needed addition to aid the underpowered evocation school, and welcome it whole-heartedly.  Conjuration just kicks too much a@@ now.  And, as someone mentioned, at level 1, True Casting may be more powerful.  My group uses it tons.  The best part?  Caster level means nothing for it, so it's the cheesiest spell ever to get scrolls of for 25 gp a pop.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Jul 1, 2007)

This spell probably needs some additional limitations. Maybe make it 5th or even 6th level, or make it a ray spell that you have to hit the enemy spellcaster with (thematically, I like that better as it "burns" away the enemy's protection rather than buffing the caster).

That being said, neither of these options dramatically nerfs the spell.

An alternative might be a lesser bonus (+5?) at the same caster level vs. all SR (not just one target; afterall, it doesn't really make sense that the caster becomes good at penetrating the SR of only one creature; SR is SR). Or maybe a much shorter duration.


----------



## mcgeedis (Jul 1, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> That is actually a really good feat, well worth mentioning. But in the scenarios I'm hearing, the DM just wants to stack the deck so that some uber no-save spell probably fails. Taking 10 doesn't help if you need over a 10.




If you need to overcome spell resistance often in a campaign, assay spell resistance is nice.  But, in a campaign that I played with lots of SR, I found Arcane Mastery to be much more useful.  It was HUGE when dispelling magic as well.  When combined with Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration, there was nothing that my sorcerer couldn't effect.


----------



## Felon (Jul 1, 2007)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> This spell probably needs some additional limitations. Maybe make it 5th or even 6th level, or make it a ray spell that you have to hit the enemy spellcaster with (thematically, I like that better as it "burns" away the enemy's protection rather than buffing the caster).
> 
> That being said, neither of these options dramatically nerfs the spell.
> 
> An alternative might be a lesser bonus (+5?) at the same caster level vs. all SR (not just one target; afterall, it doesn't really make sense that the caster becomes good at penetrating the SR of only one creature; SR is SR). Or maybe a much shorter duration.



I'm not sure why you don't think it makes sense to have a divination spell that shows the weak point in a specific creature's SR--after all, it's not like the specific nature of SR is well-explained.

Bumping up the spell level doesn't really do much to allay whatever reservations people have against it. If they feel that mages should just have to take SR on the chin, bumping the level won't matter to them.

But the ray idea's not bad. I had a similar idea for a spell that can damages the target if it penetrates and, whether or not it penetrate, chips away at the SR. I also think the idea of having a spell that reduces SR against a specific category of spells based on school (evocation) or spell level (only spells 4th-level or lower) is worthwhile.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 1, 2007)

I agree that wizards need some way of dealing with SR;  it's just that I think Assay Spell Resistance makes it way too easy.  

And I should make it clear that I also think that adding all those direct damage no-SR spells to the conjuration school was a big mistake (and to add insult to injury, they moved Teleportation spells into the Conjuration school in 3.5).  

 It's just that I don't think that a spell like Assay Spell Resistance is the right fix.

I do like the idea of a ray that works in an ablative fashion.  Maybe a ray with no save that does 4 points of 'SR damage'.  I think that such a ray as a 3rd or 4th level spell would be just fine.

Ken


----------



## Felon (Jul 2, 2007)

I notice _spell vulnerability_ hasn't been mentioned. It's also into the SC, it's a level lower, and it lowers SR by an amount equal to caster level (max +15). Note that since it actually lowers the SR, so not just the caster benefits. Unlike _assay resistance_, however, there's a save.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 2, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I notice _spell vulnerability_ hasn't been mentioned. It's also into the SC, it's a level lower, and it lowers SR by an amount equal to caster level (max +15). Note that since it actually lowers the SR, so not just the caster benefits. Unlike _assay resistance_, however, there's a save.




_Spell vulnerability_ is probably broken on a level comparable to _power word pain_, making it so obviously overpowered that no one in their right mind would even consider asking whether or not it is, in fact, as stupid as it sounds.

Of course, being that there was a thread a while back on _power word pain_, I realize the flaw in that reasoning, but I think I'm funny, and nothing you can say will change my mind, so its probably not worth it to point that out to me. Really. People have tried. I'm very dense.


----------



## evilbob (Jul 2, 2007)

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> I find it was a desperately needed addition to aid the underpowered evocation school, and welcome it whole-heartedly.  Conjuration just kicks too much a@@ now.  And, as someone mentioned, at level 1, True Casting may be more powerful.  My group uses it tons.  The best part?  Caster level means nothing for it, so it's the cheesiest spell ever to get scrolls of for 25 gp a pop.



I also agree that the spell is not overpowered, but casting that aside:  your post just made me realize that for a scant 750g, you could have a wand of _true casting_.  Now there's an item worth its weight in...  well, gold pieces.  

Seriously, _true strike_ is balanced in that a standard action for one attack is a lot to give up, but if you only have 3 high-level spells, what's an extra round to cast them just to make sure they go through?  Seems like a good investment to me.  Not to mention that you could prepare quickened versions for 5th level spells for extra goodness.


----------



## Felon (Jul 2, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> _Spell vulnerability_ is probably broken on a level comparable to _power word pain_, making it so obviously overpowered that no one in their right mind would even consider asking whether or not it is, in fact, as stupid as it sounds.
> 
> Of course, being that there was a thread a while back on _power word pain_, I realize the flaw in that reasoning, but I think I'm funny, and nothing you can say will change my mind, so its probably not worth it to point that out to me. Really. People have tried. I'm very dense.



OK, that deserves a ROFLMAO. Here you go.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 3, 2007)

evilbob said:
			
		

> I also agree that the spell is not overpowered, but casting that aside:  your post just made me realize that for a scant 750g, you could have a wand of _true casting_.  Now there's an item worth its weight in...  well, gold pieces.
> 
> Seriously, _true strike_ is balanced in that a standard action for one attack is a lot to give up, but if you only have 3 high-level spells, what's an extra round to cast them just to make sure they go through?  Seems like a good investment to me.  Not to mention that you could prepare quickened versions for 5th level spells for extra goodness.




I just realized, reading my post again, I accidentally quoted something completely unrelated!  Never even heard of that Irresistable thing!  *Ninjas post*

As to what you said, yes, the wands of True Casting were the best investment our party ever made, and are frequently used when we get surprise rounds.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 3, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I notice _spell vulnerability_ hasn't been mentioned. It's also into the SC, it's a level lower, and it lowers SR by an amount equal to caster level (max +15). Note that since it actually lowers the SR, so not just the caster benefits. Unlike _assay resistance_, however, there's a save.




I consider Spell Vulnerability a horribly weak spell, especially when Assay Resistance and True Casting exist.  Most things w/ SR will have good will saves (monks, outsiders, other casters, etc...), so it's rather self-defeating.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 3, 2007)

People complain about SR at high levels, but seriously, you got to have something to hinder those high level wizards!!

I mean wizards can alter reality, summon bad ass creatures, see the future, change the weather, alter time, travel to other planes, etc etc. So what if there spells have a bit more trouble getting through than a fighter's attack. The fighter's attack is all he has!! And besides one spell gets through at high levels and its often game over.

If you want beat SR, there are two feats in the core to do it. With a +4, your going to beat SR most of the time. We don't need spells that make SR irrelevant.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 3, 2007)

I have to agree that making SR easy to defeat makes the high level wizards overshadow the fighter even more than he already does.  It's another good reason why Assay Spell Resistance changes the game in a negative way.

Ken


----------



## zlorf (Jul 3, 2007)

If i wanted to stack the deck against spell casters, i would just play Dnd in a antimagic room 

Seriously, i actually like the idea of the caster keeping there spell if they miss because of SR, i cant see anything wrong with it.  Otherwise i also like the idea of the spell improving as you go up levels and maxing out at +10. So the mage/cleric misses 75% of time, i would still play one  Yes creature also get saves most of the time, but i still come back to CR of the monster.

Now im going to argue against myself because im crazy. You could say what about DR, surely creature CR's are based on the fact they have DR  and look how easy that is to bypass...yes you have a point there. Maybe just get rid of SR and DR and the game would
pretty much be the same after 10th lvl or whatever. 



Btw im not trying to stack the deck, i was wondering why suddenly SR became fairly trivial
and insignificant.  I just wonder who makes these spells up, is it a frustrated spell caster from some long ago campaign who his friend used to laugh at because his spell fizzed every 40% of the time and vowed to get revenge by getting a job at WOTC and slipping this spell unders the editors noses?

Btw whats wrong with missing 40% of time?  So you have no problems with feats that may
allow someone to hit all the time in melee ? Gee's what a fun game Dnd would become.  
*yes if going over the top*

I'll run with and see how it goes, i'll get some feedback from the other player and see how
they view the spell after the campain ends. If another DM veto's it because its not to his taste and the players are happy with it..cool. I would still play a spellcaster, sometime i dont
mind relying on a bit of luck from the dice, makes it more exciting when you been the odd's 

Cheers
Z



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> That is actually a really good feat, well worth mentioning. But in the scenarios I'm hearing, the DM just wants to stack the deck so that some uber no-save spell probably fails. Taking 10 doesn't help if you need over a 10.
> 
> OK, stop here for a second. Consider what that cleric (or, better yet, wizard) would be going through without assay resistance. He either packed a bunch of summon monsters and other no-SR spells, which makes the matter moot, or he packed yes-SR spells and is going to fail 40% of the time.


----------



## DarkJester (Jul 3, 2007)

I think Assay Resistance is fine. If a caster feels he needs to blow a 4th level spell slot to have his spells most effective then more power to him. I rather have him cast this spell before a fight with a BBEG than to go into the fight and have half of his spells be totally ineffective, even before saves! 

If I were to change anything about the spell I'd increase the casting time, but I think it is tolerable as swift with it effecting only 1 target.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 3, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> "Even worse"? I'm interested in your reasoning here.




because it effectively means the caster can instantly (no real opportunity cost since it is a swift action) get the benefit of effectively ignoring SR for ALL their spells, not just certain damaging ones.


----------



## evilbob (Jul 3, 2007)

I wouldn't go so far as to call it "all" their spells.  For each spell you want to go through, you're going to need a 4th (or higher) level slot.  In games where you know you're only going to have one or two encounters - yes, this seems pretty powerful, because blowing your wad isn't going to hurt so much.  But when you have many encounters per day, it severely restricts the "endless" ability to use this spell.

But then again, if a mage gets to use all their spells in a single encounter, they're going to outshine everyone else, anyway.

Honestly, I'm still in the camp that says after the _orb_ spells, something like this is a welcome addition to all the evokers/enchanters/etc. out there.  I don't think it's unbalanced to allow a caster to spend two spells to have a greater chance that one will work.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 3, 2007)

evilbob said:
			
		

> I wouldn't go so far as to call it "all" their spells.  For each spell you want to go through, you're going to need a 4th (or higher) level slot.  In games where you know you're only going to have one or two encounters - yes, this seems pretty powerful, because blowing your wad isn't going to hurt so much.  But when you have many encounters per day, it severely restricts the "endless" ability to use this spell.




The original poster quotes a duration of 1 round/level, so that's all the spells for that encounter (you don't need to cast it once for each of the spells you want to use, just once per encounter).

I don't think that a good way of solving one bad problem (orb spells) is to introduce another bad problem (assay resistance). Better to just get rid of the first problem. After all, if allowing bigger heads on tennis rackets upped the speed of the tennis ball too much, you wouldn't expect them to 'fix' it by tacking on another change like reducing the pressure of the tennis ball, would you.

Oh wait...


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 3, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I don't think that a good way of solving one bad problem (orb spells) is to introduce another bad problem (assay resistance). Better to just get rid of the first problem.




QFT, AMEN!!


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 4, 2007)

evilbob said:
			
		

> I wouldn't go so far as to call it "all" their spells.  For each spell you want to go through, you're going to need a 4th (or higher) level slot.  In games where you know you're only going to have one or two encounters - yes, this seems pretty powerful, because blowing your wad isn't going to hurt so much.  But when you have many encounters per day, it severely restricts the "endless" ability to use this spell.



 As Plane Sailing points out, assay resistance has a duration, so it's not just one spell.  Limiting it to one spell would certainly make it okay in my book (I think).  And, using this spell only once a day is a significant advantage.  As an example, how about giving the fighter the ability to lower his target's AC by 10 (no save, no SR) as a swift action and then allow him to take full attacks for 1 round / level.  That's an analogy of what Assay Resistance does.


----------



## Marshall (Jul 4, 2007)

Y'all seem to be forgetting just how ineefective certain schools of magic get. The main effect of assay is to take away, more like reduce, one of the 4 levels of armor that critters have versus spells. 
I'm sorry if I dont feel bad about getting thru SR when I still have to contend with saves, resistances and outright immunities.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 4, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Not a big fan of reiteration, but...let's forget what ideas other parts of D&D are designed with and confront the reality: Spell Resistance *is* trivially circumvented. Summon monster, elbemental orbs, melf's acid arrow, arc of lightning, blast of flame, and any number of other SR-ignoring spells make it simplicity. All this spell does is put lightning bolt back in the running.




I don't think this is true. If we look at the items you list separately and your conclusion, they don't all add up:

Summon Monster: 1 round casting time, limited summon selections, and frequently hampered by the other defenses of spell resistance monsters (DR, etc).

Elemental Orbs: Remember these were added the same time as Assay Resistance. They have no impact on the pre-Assay Resistance game design paradigm.

Melf's Acid Arrow: This sorry waste of a second level spell slot doesn't even contribute to making SR trivial.

Arc of Lightning, Blast of Flame, etc: Again, these were added at the same time as Assay Resistance. Without them, defeating SR is not trivial. And the original design paradigm did not include them.

And now for conclusion at the end: Assay Resistance does nothing for lightning bolt. Assay Resistance is a single target spell while lightning bolt is an area which is not worth its third level spell slot unless it usually catches two or more opponents. Assay Resistance may help Scorching Ray, dismissal, finger of death, magic missile, etc against SR, but it doesn't do much for area effect spells.



> Can't say it's a very compelling arguement to suggest that a spell (or some other mechanic) is an overpowered option because it could infringe on the near-monopoly that a feat (or some other mechanic) previously had.
> 
> There is a rather egregious assumption here that Assay Resistance requires a meager cost,  that it can always be at hand just like Spell Penetration. 4th-level spells are just sand off a beach? Every time you fight a monster with SR, this spell would have to be recast. I don't see the niche for Spell Pen disappearing, just shrinking.




This depends upon the level and the caster, but in general, it's quite right--and it doesn't address the other significant factor: Casting time. Swift actions are an increasingly scarce resource and the caster who uses nerveskitter, swift fly, greater mirror image, or casts a quickened scorching ray may not have the swift action left to cast this spell. Especially at higher levels (which is where you start being able to afford to use a 4th level spell to make your other spells better against a single target from a very limited range of targets), the choice to cast nerveskitter before combat or assay resistance in the first round is not an obvious one. Similarly, the choice to use your quickened attack spells or assay resistance in the first round is not obvious unless you have non non-resistance targets and/or you know that you have less than a 60% chance of penetrating the resistance.



> Maybe I'm not playing enough 20th-level characters these days, but...no, it would stink if it only lasted a round. Expend a 4th-level spell just to improve the chance of making an SR check? That's poop.




I'll disagree here. High level combats are often over very quickly. A 4th level spell slot is easily worth it in order to make sure that you don't lose your finger of death or wrathful castigation to spell resistance. (The question is much more one of the opportunity cost of the action). As a player, I would expect it to benefit, on average, less than two spells per casting anyway. There would be the odd times that I used it to nail a pit fiend and had to keep hammering for several rounds. However, I would expect the times when I used it to ensure nailing one of multiple foes (who would then be killed before I acted again) or when the spell it boosts eliminates the foe, or my best move in the subsequent round to be an orb spell anyway to bring down the average number of spells benefitting from it significantly.


----------



## Felon (Jul 4, 2007)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> I don't think this is true. If we look at the items you list separately and your conclusion, they don't all add up:
> 
> Summon Monster: 1 round casting time, limited summon selections, and frequently hampered by the other defenses of spell resistance monsters (DR, etc).
> 
> ...



Your dismissal of the orbs, arc of lightning, and blast of flame is kind of puzzling. You think that because they were added at "the same time" as assay resistance removes them from consideration. That's a bit of a non sequitor, as it actually strengthens the design decision behind introducing assay resistance. The net effect is that with the induction of those conjuration heavy-hitters, assay resistance shored up the stuff that came before it. 

To refer to summon monster as "limited" due to the selection of monsters is also kind of odd. The summon monster spell is in fact as open-ended and flexible as a single offensive spell can get. If you want a weapon for every occasion, you'd be hard-pressed to beat SM's.

And last of all, saying assay resistance does "nothing" for lightning bolt is flat-out incorrect. It will help penetrate the SR of the creature you're assaying. That you deem it an inefficient use of a spell does not equate to it doing "nothing".

Melf's arrow is not the damage-dealer that scorching ray is, to be sure. But it is a long range spell, which wizards are lacking at that level, and of course it was at one time a good spell for beating SR, before the lesser orbs came along. The damage always was a little too low, and I suspect that the general disfavor for it and other "damage-over-time-spells" was one of those lackluster conjuration attack spells that nudged the designer's towards giving conjuration spells a bit more "oomph". Of course, they over-oomphed in many people's opinions.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 4, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Your dismissal of the orbs, arc of lightning, and blast of flame is kind of puzzling. You think that because they were added at "the same time" as assay resistance removes them from consideration. That's a bit of a non sequitor, as it actually strengthens the design decision behind introducing assay resistance. The net effect is that with the induction of those conjuration heavy-hitters, assay resistance shored up the stuff that came before it.




However, while evocation vs conjuration balance may have been somewhat restored, it shatters the balance that SR brings to high level casters. As has been mentioned before, the problem isn't that SR is too hard to beat at high levels, the problem was conjurers suddenly becoming the gods of the game.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 4, 2007)

*Somehow, this seemed relevant*

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0437.html

2nd through 4th panels.  I bet V wishes for Assay Spell Resistance.


----------



## Grog (Jul 4, 2007)

I wonder how many people arguing against this spell have actually played a high-level arcane spellcaster.

Because let me tell you, it is incredibly frustrating to watch your spells bounce off your enemies like ping-pong balls because of the SR and incredibly high saving throw bonuses that many high CR monsters possess. If there's something out there that helps deal with that problem, I'm all for it.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 4, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> I wonder how many people arguing against this spell have actually played a high-level arcane spellcaster.
> 
> Because let me tell you, it is incredibly frustrating to watch your spells bounce off your enemies like ping-pong balls because of the SR and incredibly high saving throw bonuses that many high CR monsters possess. If there's something out there that helps deal with that problem, I'm all for it.




I'm sure your fighter really sympathizes with you when you stop time, figure out the future, and go invisible when he's facing the big nasty. I have played a high level caster, and there's so many more things a wizard can do then a fighter. Considering you can easy take out a creature with one high level spell, I have no sympathy when you don't beat SR


----------



## Felon (Jul 5, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> However, while evocation vs conjuration balance may have been somewhat restored, it shatters the balance that SR brings to high level casters.



I don't see it bringing any balance to casters. As I've pointed out in the past, "lopsided" is not "balanced". The thing is, SR is a big, fat all-or-nothing, and yet DM's hang all their hopes on it keeping their bad guys safe from instant defeat by a single spell. So, really what they're hoping for is a lot of "nothing", at least for the first few rounds, and apparently a lot of them begrudge the notion of it being bypassed. Might as well just say all spells past a certain level require a coin flip.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jul 5, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Your dismissal of the orbs, arc of lightning, and blast of flame is kind of puzzling. You think that because they were added at "the same time" as assay resistance removes them from consideration. That's a bit of a non sequitor, as it actually strengthens the design decision behind introducing assay resistance. The net effect is that with the induction of those conjuration heavy-hitters, assay resistance shored up the stuff that came before it.




My argument is that their introduction to the game later indicates that SR was not initially intended to be largely inconsequential--nor was it initially inconsequential. Only the advent of the orbs and arc of lightning (and to a lesser degree, blast of flame), along with assay resistance made it easily bypassed by many groups. And of that group of spells, I think arc of lightning and the orbs are by far the most significant. Even without assay resistance, the conjurations alone make it relatively easy to bypass SR.

But the fact that the conjuration spells already do that doesn't mean that assay resistance won't do it.



> To refer to summon monster as "limited" due to the selection of monsters is also kind of odd. The summon monster spell is in fact as open-ended and flexible as a single offensive spell can get. If you want a weapon for every occasion, you'd be hard-pressed to beat SM's.




Yes and no. It is a very flexible spell, but you don't always have the option to summon something that will be useful. For instance, this weekend, I was playing my cleric (who doesn't quite have the flexibility of an arcane summoner, but still has a lot of flexibility (being neutral good). Even so, with two summon monster VIIs prepared, I looked through the list and, when it came to fighting the advanced ice devil or the marilith that our party faced, I realized that there wasn't much of anything on the summon monster list that would be a helpful summon. Everything had either too low an attack bonus or had spell like abilities that would most likely fail against its spell resistance.



> And last of all, saying assay resistance does "nothing" for lightning bolt is flat-out incorrect. It will help penetrate the SR of the creature you're assaying. That you deem it an inefficient use of a spell does not equate to it doing "nothing".




OK, it doesn't do absolutely nothing for lightning bolt. However, in the cases where you would use assay resistance with a lightning bolt, your caster is much more likely to simply use an orb spell or arc of lightning. Since my experience is that most casters will generally have orbs or an arc of lightning prepared as well as the lightning bolt, fireball, etc, assay resistance generally doesn't increase the use of arc of lightning in practice, even if, in theory, it would benefit.



> Melf's arrow is not the damage-dealer that scorching ray is, to be sure. But it is a long range spell, which wizards are lacking at that level, and of course it was at one time a good spell for beating SR, before the lesser orbs came along. The damage always was a little too low, and I suspect that the general disfavor for it and other "damage-over-time-spells" was one of those lackluster conjuration attack spells that nudged the designer's towards giving conjuration spells a bit more "oomph". Of course, they over-oomphed in many people's opinions.




Maybe. Of course, they haven't been consistently over-oomphing everything. For instance, I used to like the vitriolic sphere spell even though it was damage over time. When they de-oomphed it in the spell compendium, that was when I stopped liking it.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 5, 2007)

In fact, I play wizards almost exclusively, though I've recently branched into playing beguilers.

As a wizard, you have more options than any other PC.  If you face monsters with high SR, you can divide the battlefield with a wall of force, buff the party with haste or other spells, use glitterdust, or summon creatures, to name a few.   Fighters have far fewer options when they encounter a creature with high DR.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> I wonder how many people arguing against this spell have actually played a high-level arcane spellcaster.
> 
> Because let me tell you, it is incredibly frustrating to watch your spells bounce off your enemies like ping-pong balls because of the SR and incredibly high saving throw bonuses that many high CR monsters possess. If there's something out there that helps deal with that problem, I'm all for it.


----------



## zlorf (Jul 5, 2007)

Its about compremise not about going from one extreme to another.
I agree maybe casters have it tough against  SR. Maybe 2 feats arnt worth it to get +2 (or so) to your roll. You already made a good sugestion about keeping your spell if it doesn't bypass SR or was that sacasm? Maybe it need some extra thought but its a start.

Btw have you ever DM'ed? If not you should try 

Cheers
Z



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> I don't see it bringing any balance to casters. As I've pointed out in the past, "lopsided" is not "balanced". The thing is, SR is a big, fat all-or-nothing, and yet DM's hang all their hopes on it keeping their bad guys safe from instant defeat by a single spell. So, really what they're hoping for is a lot of "nothing", at least for the first few rounds, and apparently a lot of them begrudge the notion of it being bypassed. Might as well just say all spells past a certain level require a coin flip.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jul 5, 2007)

This is true even without SR... a lot of high level wizard spells kill or capture an opponent  by their nature.  If I cast Hold Monster, either we win, or I accomplished nothing.

Because of this, it's bad adventure design to rely too much on a single BBEG.  

I actually think that in 4E, all spells should have an 'ablative' effect.  For example, a failed Hold Monster might inflict 'damage' to a creature's Will save that doesn't 'heal' until the end of the encounter.

Ken





			
				Felon said:
			
		

> I don't see it bringing any balance to casters. As I've pointed out in the past, "lopsided" is not "balanced". The thing is, SR is a big, fat all-or-nothing, and yet DM's hang all their hopes on it keeping their bad guys safe from instant defeat by a single spell. So, really what they're hoping for is a lot of "nothing", at least for the first few rounds, and apparently a lot of them begrudge the notion of it being bypassed. Might as well just say all spells past a certain level require a coin flip.


----------



## zlorf (Jul 5, 2007)

Yes i agree.
Any monster that is incapasitated for even 1 round will get the  beaten out of them.

Unfortuanately im using a Module and like most modules they dont include many of the new spells, feats, classes etc. Yes i could rewrite the NPCs, monster etc but i only really have time to read the adventure, plan tactics, read up on spells and abilities, not to rebuild the module. I will start swapping a few spells per NPC. What cleric wouldn't want Superior Resistance (+6 to all save for 24 hours)

The Players didnt like the rule about  keeping the spell if it doesnt beat the SR. They said
it doesnt keep in tradition with the game as a spell caster. Funny that was pretty much my point SR  and the Assay spell in the first place.

Cheers
Z




			
				Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> This is true even without SR... a lot of high level wizard spells kill or capture an opponent  by their nature.  If I cast Hold Monster, either we win, or I accomplished nothing.
> 
> Because of this, it's bad adventure design to rely too much on a single BBEG.
> 
> ...


----------



## mikebr99 (Jul 5, 2007)

It's a div spell... would mind blank and/or nondetection (on the target) block the "understanding of how to overcome your foe's resistance to your magic"? 

Would a target under the effect of mirror image get a chance to have the assay resistance attached to one of the figments?

Would Blinking stop AR if I was Ethereal at the time?

etc.

Mike


----------



## Nail (Jul 5, 2007)

If Assay Resistance was moved to a casting time of 1 Std Action, I suspect most of the opposition to this spell would evaporate.  We all know that the real commodity during combat is actions.  Who ever has the most wins.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 5, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> If Assay Resistance was moved to a casting time of 1 Std Action, I suspect most of the opposition to this spell would evaporate.  We all know that the real commodity during combat is actions.  Who ever has the most wins.




Reminds me of the 3.0e haste spell... it wouldn't have been a bad spell IMO if it had taken, for example, 1 full round to cast it. Unfortunately as it stood there was no opportunity cost for casting it (because you started getting extra actions that very instant!).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 5, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> I wonder how many people arguing against this spell have actually played a high-level arcane spellcaster.
> 
> Because let me tell you, it is incredibly frustrating to watch your spells bounce off your enemies like ping-pong balls because of the SR and incredibly high saving throw bonuses that many high CR monsters possess. If there's something out there that helps deal with that problem, I'm all for it.




1) Rogues have to come up with alternative ways of overcoming undead/plant/construct/elemental encounters. Wizards have to come up with alternative ways of overcoming extra-high SR encounters and Fighters have to come up with alternative ways of overcoming extra-high AC encounters. It is a design feature (or at least -was- a design feature originally )

2) I've never seen wizards shut down by the SR of a foe. Have a slightly tougher time of it, yes, but shut down completely? No.


----------



## Felon (Jul 6, 2007)

zlorf said:
			
		

> Its about compremise not about going from one extreme to another.
> I agree maybe casters have it tough against  SR. Maybe 2 feats arnt worth it to get +2 (or so) to your roll. You already made a good sugestion about keeping your spell if it doesn't bypass SR or was that sacasm? Maybe it need some extra thought but its a start.



It was half-serious, but there are way too many problems with a reclaiming a spell that penetrates SR. For instance, if my lightning bolt fails to fry a mind flayer, then getting it back depends on whether or not its umber hulk slave was caught in the path. 



> Btw have you ever DM'ed? If not you should try



Yes indeed, I play one week (an evoker in RHoD, currently), and DM the next (Expedition to the Demonweb pits at the moment). Life is good....for now.


----------



## Felon (Jul 6, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> 1) Rogues have to come up with alternative ways of overcoming undead/plant/construct/elemental encounters. Wizards have to come up with alternative ways of overcoming extra-high SR encounters and Fighters have to come up with alternative ways of overcoming extra-high AC encounters. It is a design feature (or at least -was- a design feature originally )



Well, I think that sort of -for-tatting is not fun for anybody ("I was useless last fight, now it's your turn..."), which is why we have a thread going right now about the myriad options available to allow a rogue to sneak attack undead and constructs. And it's why we have this thread about the reduced impact of SR. Designers are wising up methinks.

And note that for rogues and fighters, there is no waste of resources when their attacks aren't effective (beyond the waste of the action itself). Spells are a different matter.



> 2) I've never seen wizards shut down by the SR of a foe. Have a slightly tougher time of it, yes, but shut down completely? No.



As has been said, SR isn't a huge obstacle to someone who's prepared for it. There's not even much of a cost associated with such preparations (like lessened overall damage output). That's why assay resistance isn't a huge deal. It just puts certain spells back in the running.


----------



## Felon (Jul 6, 2007)

zlorf said:
			
		

> What cleric wouldn't want Superior Resistance (+6 to all save for 24 hours)




I think Superior Resistance is +6 to the first save you make within the next 24 hours.


----------



## zlorf (Jul 6, 2007)

That came evident last night.

A socceror who as we know gets heaps of spells, if they starting picking spells with swift and immediate actions certainly get the upperhand in most situations.

Cheers
Z




			
				Nail said:
			
		

> If Assay Resistance was moved to a casting time of 1 Std Action, I suspect most of the opposition to this spell would evaporate.  We all know that the real commodity during combat is actions.  Who ever has the most wins.


----------



## zlorf (Jul 6, 2007)

it reads as all day. You can make the standard resistance spell permanent if you what, it normally last for a minute.  No mention of just for your next save in the description for Superior.

Cheers
Z



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> I think Superior Resistance is +6 to the first save you make within the next 24 hours.


----------

