|
Post by Wolfgar on Jun 25, 2007 12:04:31 GMT -5
Since we seem to be fighting more creatures with magic resistance and Winthrop actually has 50% magic resistance ( if he would ever use the sword), I think if would be good to understand all of the case when magic resistance applies. Here are some situation: -fireball, lightning bolt -walking through wall of fire, ice, stone, iron, force -walking into a stinking cloud, cloud of steam, area of webbing, rock turned to mud. -silence applied to 15' radius - can they still be heard outside of it? hear what is happening outside of it? hear other things inside the area? -inside of a darkness area - can they see as normal? can they be seen as normal? -illusions - do optical/auditory effects of a magical creation automatically cause a check against magic resistance or only when they are attacked directly? -invisibility - do they see invisible creatures, effective negating the magic of the invisibility spell that normally hampers their sight? -side effects from special weapons - vorpal blade, swords of wouding, sharpness, life stealing, arrows of slaying, thunder clap from hammer of thunderbolts, net of snaring, rope of entanglement. Is there a general rule like anything that gets a saving throw gets magic resistance? Or is it any effect magical in origin gets a check? Is there some sort of direct causality relation? For example you would check against the fireball but not against the burning oil ignited by it. Here is a link to some explanation of spell resistance in d20 systems, how similar is this to first edition?
|
|
|
Post by venger on Jun 25, 2007 13:04:23 GMT -5
Do they all have to roll magic resistance when their own clerics cast Prayer and Bless? I know they can choose to waive their magic resistance roll, but is that an active choice?
Do they get magic resistance against the effects of our Prayer(s) and Bless(es)?
Being able to walk through a wall of stone or iron because it is "magical" and they have "magic resistance" seems wrong. Same with seeing invisible.
Taking no damage from a fireball or ice storm seems right.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jun 25, 2007 13:09:11 GMT -5
We've discussed a bit of this when we were planning the ill fated second assault on Karmack's tower. You'd alerted us to Pfiffwin's intention to use an illusory dragon and I asked what would happen if the mage cast minor globe. I think we decided that the illusion is magical, but the vision of it isn't. Thus, you'd see the illusion, but once it entered the globe you'd know it was fake.
How this applies to a creature with magic resistance is unclear. The easiest way is to treat magic resistance like a globe of invulnerability.
Also, what's the deal with friendly spells? Are they resistant to prayer or a cure spell?
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Jun 25, 2007 14:00:56 GMT -5
What is the difference between a wall of fire and wall of stone if they are both magic? Could we drop a wall of stone (or ice) on someone with magic resistance and they would take non-magical damage as a result?
I think illusions should only be checked once a successful attack occurs. So when 6 elven archers attack a bunch of drow, only those archers that "hit" a drow would cause the hit drow to use any magic resistance. Until then the drow should continue to attack them without any idea that they were fake.
With regards to friendly spells the d20 site says the resistance has to be lowered for the whole round for them to take effect. I think this is a reasonable position but you could take a hard line in our game and say they don't have the ability to lower their shields as it were. Magic resistance is an inmate resistance to all forces of magic. Dwarves don't get to choose when magic items work for them why should other creatures be able to control their anti-magical abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Jun 25, 2007 15:04:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by venger on Jun 25, 2007 15:10:50 GMT -5
What is the difference between a wall of fire and wall of stone if they are both magic? Could we drop a wall of stone (or ice) on someone with magic resistance and they would take non-magical damage as a result? A magic resistant creature shouldn't be able to pass through a wall of stone or iron- it would be like saying it couldn't ride a summoned Mount.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Jun 25, 2007 15:20:19 GMT -5
Another thing - MR works against spells, but what doesn't it against? How is it against spell-like abilities like Ogre Magi's cones of cold and Dragon's breath? Should it work against magic items? A wand of fireballs would clearly be treated the same as the Fireballs spell... but what about the wand of steam? There's no "Cone of Steam" spell - so shouldn't the wand work against them?
How about potions? Dell has a slippery potion - if he pours it on the floor, do some Drow just walk over the slick surface as if it wasn't there?
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Jun 25, 2007 15:50:37 GMT -5
A magic resistant creature shouldn't be able to pass through a wall of stone or iron- it would be like saying it couldn't ride a summoned Mount. That rule is from the book - admittedly, a 2nd edition book. I agree, we don't want to make MR into a rolling dispel magic, because that would be annoying.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Jun 25, 2007 19:17:09 GMT -5
Another thing - MR works against spells, but what doesn't it against? How is it against spell-like abilities like Ogre Magi's cones of cold and Dragon's breath? Should it work against magic items? A wand of fireballs would clearly be treated the same as the Fireballs spell... but what about the wand of steam? There's no "Cone of Steam" spell - so shouldn't the wand work against them? How about potions? Dell has a slippery potion - if he pours it on the floor, do some Drow just walk over the slick surface as if it wasn't there? I think in these examples of yours magic resistance should work. But could I see them with my Wizard's Eye???
|
|
|
Post by Dead Greyhawk on Jun 25, 2007 20:25:44 GMT -5
For what it is worth, I have been running MR as follows:
1. Magic Resistance works against all items being used or worn. This is akin to the dwarven resistance to rings, where if the ring doesn't work, you take it off and put it on again. The case in the game has been Stern Sterling Quintus's magical boots of flying that took him a series of times to activate, cursing them as they didn't work. This would not apply to basic protection or damage bonuses, as they are not being applied to the creature, but to their items. Chain +2 is chain +2 regardless who it is worn by. A drow trying to use a wand may have failure depending on MR, barring extenuating circumstances.
2. MR works against all damage spells, area or not. As paraphrased from the Dragonsfoot post, a fireball's heat is as real as a wall of stone's stone or an ice storm's ice.
2a. MR doesn't affect the spell as a whole, just the creature's experience. Drop a fireball on a bunch of drow and they each have to roll MR. Any regular creatures mixed in among the fireball would suffer as normal.
3. MR negates area spells where they impinge on the MR creature. Silence 15' r. and stinking cloud would simply not touch the MR creature. Others might still be affected.
4. MR doesn't apply to beneficial spells writ large. Drow priests can heal, bless, and prayer away. Dispel Magic is iffy, but I'd probably rule on context.
5. MR makes certain spells fail while the MR creature fiddles with them. Wizard Lock, Hold Portal, etc. fall into this category. The spell stays intact, but not while the MR creature is interacting with them. I think the Mount spell could fall in this category, and I'd likely make a MR roll to fall through the mount.
6. MR doesn't apply to external things that are in the same frame of reference, but not directly impinging on the MR creature. An invisible person is invisible. Clairvoyance sees them, as does wizard eye.
6a. Illusions are affected by MR only when the illusion affects the MR creature. We rolled against the summoned elves only after they started widely shooting at the drow, and then we only targeted those drow that failed their MR and their save afterwards. The MR roll occurs when they are impinged on, not when they see the illusion.
7. MR doesn't protect you against indirect effects. Magically destroy the earth under a MR creature and the MR creature falls. Use Push spell to topple stuff on a MR creature and the MR creature takes damage. Oil lit by fireball burns you.
8. MR applies against magical spells. I include spells generated by item, or spell-like powers clearly derived from a spell. I hadn't thought much about basilisk gaze or dragon breath.
9. MR needs to be checked as long as the MR creature is in the area. Put a wall of fire on a MR creature and the MR creature needs to check each round until they leave the wall of fire.
I'm not a fan of the esoteric uses of MR, like walking through walls, and generally don't use them. I'm also not a fan of the destruction of your beneficial spells with my MR (the protection from evil up in a puff of smoke example). I prefer to view them as beneficial spells cast on you, and therefore never in contact with the MR creature.
Minor globe and globe of invulnerability are different in that you have a physical space to do things with in these spells. The webbing in them is not sticky, for example, and can be torn apart. That is not the case for a MR creature, the webbing doesn't exist for them, but the spell is not disturbed.
Weapon effects are not affected by MR. A vorpal blade cuts a MR creature's appendages just fine.
That's what I have been doing. If you see problems with this ruleset, I'm happy to adjust them.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Jun 26, 2007 14:20:40 GMT -5
Summoned creatures would fall under rule #5?
|
|
|
Post by venger on Jun 26, 2007 14:52:33 GMT -5
5. I think the Mount spell could fall in this category, and I'd likely make a MR roll to fall through the mount. That seems a little silly to me. I figure the Mount spell would summon a non-magical horse... and not actually create one out of magic... But it's all good.
|
|
|
Post by Dell on Jun 26, 2007 15:31:03 GMT -5
5. I think the Mount spell could fall in this category, and I'd likely make a MR roll to fall through the mount. That seems a little silly to me. It's to prevent our dropping a summoned mount on a magically resistant creature's head.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Greyhawk on Jun 26, 2007 21:30:11 GMT -5
Summoned creatures would fall under rule #5? I think this depends on the nature of the summoning. Animal summoning or monster summoning spells, as I read them, bring actual "real" animals and monsters. They are not magical in and of themselves. MR would be of no protection against them. Mount, Phantasmal Killer, and Shadow and Demi-shadow monsters are purely magical constructs. MR would be protection against them. I think the demi-shadow monsters would do their 1 hp damage attack successfully though. Elementals are summoned from another plane, but once they get here, they are doing regular old damage.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Greyhawk on Jun 26, 2007 21:31:31 GMT -5
I figure the Mount spell would summon a non-magical horse... and not actually create one out of magic... Early on we decided that mounts summoned by the Mount spell didn't panic in combat or throw the rider when the mount was hit, because they were magical constructs. The MR argument follows from that decision.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Jun 29, 2007 11:59:52 GMT -5
6a. Illusions are affected by MR only when the illusion affects the MR creature. We rolled against the summoned elves only after they started widely shooting at the drow, and then we only targeted those drow that failed their MR and their save afterwards. The MR roll occurs when they are impinged on, not when they see the illusion. I think it is correct that the magic resistance has a chance of negating illusions that interact directly on the MR creature. However I don't think that is the same as the MR creature knowing that it is an illusion. The saving throw against mind affecting magic is the mechanism by which the creature knowingly is able to distinguish an illusion from reality. For instance, an illusion of magic missiles is created - the MR creature would check magic resistance to see if they are affected, if they make that check then they don't know if the magic missiles were illusory or not. In the case of illusions of archers that aren't even hitting there should certainly be no indication of the illusory nature of the archers. Only on a successful hit should magic resistance be checked. If that fails then the normal saving throws would be rolled. If magic resistance passes then a saving throw may be reasonable with possible bonuses for a seemly physical attack not doing any damage. For an illusion of a magic effect I would argue the MR creature couldn't tell and hence wouldn't get a saving throw. IMHO I think the effect of the illusion of the elven archers was greatly dimished by imply that magic resistance equates to knowledge of illusion - the drow, driders and spiders should have collectively paid more attention to them possibly sparing some the party.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Jun 29, 2007 12:18:50 GMT -5
For an illusion of a magic effect I would argue the MR creature couldn't tell and hence wouldn't get a saving throw. if the spell fizzles on their magic resistance they shouldn't be able to tell whether it was illusion or regular magic but they should get a savings throw if it defeats their magic resistance- otherwise why would they get a save against a real spell that defeated their magic resistance? maybe im confused
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Jun 29, 2007 12:48:27 GMT -5
The quoted sentence is part of the explanation of the preceding sentence. You are saying the same thing as I am. Yes, you are confused. :)
|
|
|
Post by venger on Jun 29, 2007 13:33:44 GMT -5
The quoted sentence is part of the explanation of the preceding sentence. You are saying the same thing as I am. Yes, you are confused. :) Then what you saying makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Oct 15, 2010 11:02:01 GMT -5
In the Monster Manual (and players handbook) it says elves have 90% magic resistance to the sleep and charm spells. I don't think we have ever adjusted this for the level of the caster. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by venger on Oct 15, 2010 13:12:38 GMT -5
It just says "resistance".
Also, it makes elves immune to low level casters.
So I say nay.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Oct 15, 2010 16:03:31 GMT -5
My point is that the MM explicitly lists "90% to sleep and charm spells" under the magic resistance column. If it was a non-standard magic resistance then the book would of have listed "Special, see below".
I like the idea of a high level magic user or cleric having a better chance at beating down the will of an elf. So low level characters can't. It was unlikely to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Oct 15, 2010 17:26:10 GMT -5
My other issue was half elves gaining a ton of resistance at low levels.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Oct 15, 2010 20:50:44 GMT -5
That is a good point. Maybe you could adjust it by the relative levels like dispel magic. Drow magic resistance sort of works that way. Probably not worth tinkering with.
Can anyone think of another example of partial magic resistance?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Greyhawk on Oct 20, 2010 9:48:45 GMT -5
I'd likely chalk this up to the authors trying to fit the woven resistance into a category. A quick cross reference would be to look at the language in the PHB for elves and see if it is described as magic resistance or not.
On your second point, while I can think of a bunch of creatures with immunities to magics, like undead, I am struggling to think of a creature with a partial immunity to a spell akin to elves and sleep.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Greyhawk on Oct 21, 2010 11:42:23 GMT -5
Looks like most folk at Dragonsfoot wouldn't treat it as magic resistance, but no one is coming up with similar cases for other monsters. Dragonsfoot thread
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Oct 24, 2010 7:45:12 GMT -5
Do elves have sleep/charm resistance in the basic or original box set? Is this a carryover from one of those editions? Was there a concept of magic resistance in those earlier versions of the game? (I found some pdf's of the original edition. No mention of either MR or sleep/charm resistance. Also the Basic rules mention elven resistance to ghoul paralysis but nothing about sleep/charm resistance.) Interestingly, according to the wikipedia, the Monster Manual was published before the Players Handbook. If that is the case then you could argue that the MM should take precedence. It wasn't the case that the authors where trying to fit the MM to what was in the PHB. Rather the authors were repeating in the PHB what was listed in the MM.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Sept 2, 2012 15:32:07 GMT -5
Turn Undead is not affected by magic resistance.
The disruption effect of a mace of disruption is not affected by magic resistance.
A ghoul's paralyzing poison is not affected by magic resistance.
Ghast stench is not affected by magic resistance.
Level drain is not affected by magic resistance.
Undead disease (mummy, heucuva, etc.) is not affected by magic resistance.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Sept 2, 2012 15:38:04 GMT -5
8. MR applies against magical spells. I include spells generated by item, or spell-like powers clearly derived from a spell. I hadn't thought much about basilisk gaze or dragon breath. Doesn't work against basilisk gaze or dragon breath. Or other monster powers that aren't specifically spells or spell-effects. Demon fear (as wand) effect- yes. Lamia's wisdom draining touch - no. 'm not a fan of the esoteric uses of MR, like walking through walls, and generally don't use them. No walking through walls.
|
|