Design Philosophy Q: Should Spell/Power Resistance Exist?

[malboro_urchin]

It's really no worse than AC.  You either get hit or you don't.  So really, this question should be further extended to AC, and possibly saves as well.

I disagree with this statement. SR is a binary defense against spells. AC is a binary defense against attacks. Spells, of course, are far more limited; you're given a per day usage of each spell. If you fail the CL check, your spell is gone. If you miss with a physical attack (against AC obviously) you don't lose the capability to attack; you just attack again next round. Basically, I don't think your comparison works because someone can attack all day, but spells are far more limited in the form of castings/day.

[veekie]

^^
Disagree for entirely different reasons personally. Only some things have SR, which is the only way to resist a number of spells. Thus there are spells which cannot be resisted at all by certain foes.
On the other hand everything has AC. Physical attacks are thus, always resisted.

[malboro_urchin]

^^
Disagree for entirely different reasons personally. Only some things have SR, which is the only way to resist a number of spells. Thus there are spells which cannot be resisted at all by certain foes.
On the other hand everything has AC. Physical attacks are thus, always resisted.

I think I understand what you're saying: spells with SR: Yes and no save allowed, correct? I think the problem is, as I'm sure others have pointed out, is that SR is in an awkward design-space position. Attacks have to get through AC and occasionally miss chance (that is, did the attack hit or not?). If the attack fails, try again next round; you don't lose the ability to attack.

Spells have to get through saves (often with either negated effects, or even a different effect entirely on a successful save) and SR (requires a caster level check, completely different from the enemy having to beat a fixed DC with a save; failure to pierce SR results in the spell being negated entirely). If you, as the caster, don't succeed in piercing either defense, you've lost the full effectiveness of that spell slot; if you've only prepared one casting of that spell, you've lost the spell until you next rest. I'm no designer, but if it were my decision, SR would either be far more common in lieu of saves or nonexistent. I think that for such a limited resource, one form of resistance is enough.

[SneeR]

Saying that multiple binary defenses against a limited resource when referring only to spells vs. attacks is inaccurate.

In D&D, the only resource you have is time. What you can do in one round is all that matters. The ability to fire another rocket next round is irrelevant to the fact that you have failed to deliver your rocket this round, and you have an entire round's volley of rockets to swallow before you can try again.

A spell has much more effect when it hits than when an attack does, even a full attack. I feel comparing the two is unfair and obfuscates the issue of spell resistance: sometimes spells just don't do anything to dragons.

If you are going to compare melee and magic, you need to be ready to renovate the entirety of the problem, which is the system. To that end I would make spells just as cheap as attacks and lower their effects to attack gradual defenses so everyone is on an equal playing meta.