Magic-user Level vs. Magic Resistance

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Ok, for those who have not played 1E, magic resistance was handled a bit differently. It was not a fixed number as it was in 2E. In other words, if a dragon in 2E had 85% magic resistance, its magic resistance was always 85% whether it was facing Elminster or some 1st level spell slinger.

In 1E, it varied by caster level. It all centered on an 11th level wizard. If a monster was listed as having 85% magic resistance, that was the percentage of magic resistance against an 11th level wizard. For every level of the wizard lower than 11th, the monster added 5% magic resistance, and for every level above 11th, the monster subtracted 5%.

So for example, if our dragon with 85% magic resistance in 1E went up against an 18th level wizard, his magic resistance was only 50% (7 levels above 11th level, times 5% = 35% subtracted from the original 85%).

If the dragon faced a mere 8th level wizard, his magic resistance was 100% (3 levels below 11th times 5% = 15% added to 85% = 100%).

So low level wizards were less effective against magic resistant monsters, while higher level wizards eventually became more effective against magic resistant monsters.

I'm not sure which method I prefer. I've used both. On one hand, it makes the monsters tougher at lower levels, but less tough at higher levels (if you use the 1E variable method). On the other hand, I do like the idea that a dragon is x% resistant to magic, and that holds no matter how powerful the wizard (if you use the 2E fixed method). Of course, it also makes sense that a wizard like Elminster should be more likely to affect a dragon with magic than some 1st level beginner.

Also, by removing the variable and also capping spell damage (in 2E), this severely weakened wizards who faced MR monsters. Wizards are far less effective against MR monsters in 2E than in 1E, overall, once they hit the mid-levels.

In 1E, an 18th level wizard facing a dragon listed at 85% MR only had to overcome 50% actual MR, plus his spells did 18d6 damage.

In 2E, an 18th facing a dragon listed at 85% MR had to overcome 85% actual MR, plus his spells only did 10d6.

On average, the 2E wizard is 35% less likely to affect the dragon and does on average 25pt less damage when his spells do make it through.

I think I prefer removing the stupid spell damage caps but keeping MR at a fixed value. That's usually the way I do it and have done so for a long time now.

What do the rest of you think?

[Mira]

I have never used the damage caps, so I have to go with that right away anyhow

I also don't think caster level should have any effect, but I think SPELL level shoud. I think the magic resistance should be listed as the resistance vs a 1st level spell (perhaps) and that for every higher level of the SPELL, it has a better chance of getting through. So that a higher level caster has a better chance of getting through than a lower level caster, but only because they are using higher level spells. (makes sense to me that it should be easier to get a Delayed Blast Fireball past resistance than Magic Missle)

Mira (Never under-estimate your ability to over-estimate your ability)

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Mira, I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. More powerful (ie higher level) spells should be (in theory at least) more powerful than low level spells. I've always been coming from the theory that high level wizards are more adept at using magic and hence have more power, since a higher level wizard's fireball does more damage than a low level wizard's (another reason I find damage caps ridiculous).

The hard part is that I think both methods make sense. So, how to integrate them if I decide to use it?

While I generally tend to prefer monsters to have fixed magic resistance (I hate it when a wizard can drop a dragon's MR from 85% to 50%), it does seem to unbalance the wizard class when you assign fixed MR. Why? Because a 1st level wizard has the same chance of affecting the dragon as an 18th-level wizard using the same spell. And that really doesn't make much sense. Merlin takes his brand-spanking-new apprentice on an adventure and they both have the same chance of hitting the dragon with magic missiles? Doesn't add up.

One problem with using the spell level is that once a wizard hits 18th level, he can use 9th level spells which would reduce MR by 45% (if we use 5% per level of spell above 1st). That's 10% more reduction than using the wizard's level (35% reduction at 18th level).

If we use a lesser percentage (say 3% per spell level), we get odd numbers like 27% off MR or 18% off MR. It's easier with clean numbers in sets of 5 and 10 (20% off, 35% off, etc).

Also, going by the level at which wizards gain new spell levels, using the spell level vs MR would allow wizards to better affect MR monsters at even lower levels than they did in 1E.

For example, using Mira's method, a wizard using a 4th level spell going up against a monster with 50% MR would reduce the monster's MR by 15%. It would effectively have a 35% MR vs that wizard's 4th level spell. Wizards gain 4th level spells when they hit 7th level.

Using the 1E method, that 7th level wizard would actually be going up against a monster with 20% more MR! Since he's 4 levels below 11th level, we add 20%, giving that same monster a 70% MR.

So the two methods vary wildly, rendering a monster with a base 50% MR essentially a monster with either 35% or 70% MR depending on whether we use the 1E method or Mira's method.

My next question becomes how much MR should we be able to reduce? If dragons are such powerful, magical creatures, should a mere mortal wizard really be able to reduce his MR by almost half? And for creatures with lower levels of MR (say 25% - 35%), they effectively lose that advantage altogether once a wizard hits his mid-levels (or once we get to mid-level spells using Mira's suggestion). That's one of the main reasons I turned to fixed, constant MR. A monster that had 25% MR became essentially totally vulnerable to magic once it went up against a 16th level wizard. Using Mira's method, it's totally vulnerable to any spell of 6th level or above (ie a 12th level wizard).

Not sure how to account for that.

This should be an interesting puzzle to figure out!

[Beowulf]

I'm a fan of 1E & 2E- each has things I like about it. Be be honest, my campaigns are "1.5E", basically an equal mix of both.

[Mira]

Using Mira's method, it's totally vulnerable to any spell of 6th level or above (ie a 12th level wizard).

See, I like that idea, I have no problem with that at all. Seems to me that the more powerful magics (why should MR have a huge affect on a Wish spell for example?) SHOULD be able to bypass MR more easily.

It's like using a bow and arrow or a ballista vs a dragon. The dragon is immune to the arrows, but not to the ballista. Who is firing it doesn't matter for purposes of whether it CAN affect it or not.

Mira (I Work Hard Because Millions On Welfare Depend on Me!)

[Varl]

Mira, I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. More powerful (ie higher level) spells should be (in theory at least) more powerful than low level spells. I've always been coming from the theory that high level wizards are more adept at using magic and hence have more power, since a higher level wizard's fireball does more damage than a low level wizard's (another reason I find damage caps ridiculous).

I also like Mira's idea on spell levels affecting MR more than the caster level. After all, it is magic resistance, not caster resistance, and it also makes MR universal across the board regardless of who or what might be casting a spell or spell-like effect.

One problem with using the spell level is that once a wizard hits 18th level, he can use 9th level spells which would reduce MR by 45% (if we use 5% per level of spell above 1st). That's 10% more reduction than using the wizard's level (35% reduction at 18th level).

But that's a good thing imo, and an extra 10% MR reduction is okay to me because it is a 9th level spell. This system would also work towards resisting faith magic too.

If we use a lesser percentage (say 3% per spell level), we get odd numbers like 27% off MR or 18% off MR. It's easier with clean numbers in sets of 5 and 10 (20% off, 35% off, etc).

I actually like that MR might not be fixed to increments of 5%.

Also, going by the level at which wizards gain new spell levels, using the spell level vs MR would allow wizards to better affect MR monsters at even lower levels than they did in 1E.

I'm okay with that too.

My next question becomes how much MR should we be able to reduce? If dragons are such powerful, magical creatures, should a mere mortal wizard really be able to reduce his MR by almost half?

I just thought of another thing: the spell Lower Resistance. I think it's in the UA. It's a spell specifically designed to lower a creature's MR, so any house rules made must include this spell as well, and any necessary changes it may need.

But as far as the original question goes, I don't have a problem with a mere mortal of any level being able to use magic to reduce a creature's innate MR, but I do think perhaps a creature's age or HD could be some kind of additional buffer against reduction if you wanted older creatures to be able to resist more, so to speak. Heh.

And for creatures with lower levels of MR (say 25% - 35%), they effectively lose that advantage altogether once a wizard hits his mid-levels (or once we get to mid-level spells using Mira's suggestion). That's one of the main reasons I turned to fixed, constant MR. A monster that had 25% MR became essentially totally vulnerable to magic once it went up against a 16th level wizard. Using Mira's method, it's totally vulnerable to any spell of 6th level or above (ie a 12th level wizard).

Interesting. How I'd account for it is the creature may be blessed with MR, even low MR like 25%, but once it starts trying to resist 6th level or higher spells, that 25% MR isn't strong enough to resist the power of spells of that magnitude.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Beowulf wrote:

I'm a fan of 1E & 2E- each has things I like about it. Be be honest, my campaigns are "1.5E", basically an equal mix of both.

Same here!

My games are always (since 2E came out) a mixture of 1E/2E.

Mira wrote:

See, I like that idea, I have no problem with that at all. Seems to me that the more powerful magics (why should MR have a huge affect on a Wish spell for example?) SHOULD be able to bypass MR more easily.

I could see that with wishes or other very high powered magic. But we're talking about a wizard being able to use a delayed blast fireball and reduce the monster's MR by 30%, which seems a lot to me for what is basically a glorified fireball. We're talking even relatively low level wizards (8th/9th level) being able to reduce MR by 20% - 30% with relatively weak spells. I'm just not comfortable reducing it that sharply at such an early level I guess.

It's like using a bow and arrow or a ballista vs a dragon. The dragon is immune to the arrows, but not to the ballista. Who is firing it doesn't matter for purposes of whether it CAN affect it or not.

That's a really good analogy! I suppose my argument is that the players get the ballista too early and too easily, so to speak.

Varl wrote:

I also like Mira's idea on spell levels affecting MR more than the caster level. After all, it is magic resistance, not caster resistance, and it also makes MR universal across the board regardless of who or what might be casting a spell or spell-like effect.

I think Mira may have had an epiphany of genius on that one! The more I think about it, the more I like it, though I do think it needs to be changed from deducting 5% per level above 1st. Just like how wizards were based on 11th level and subtracted/added depending on whether they were above or below that level. Maybe starting with 4th level as the base? Add MR for lower level spells, subtract for higher levels?

But that's a good thing imo, and an extra 10% MR reduction is okay to me because it is a 9th level spell. This system would also work towards resisting faith magic too.

My only problem with that is balance. I think the game was designed so that MR didn't go too low too early on. In 1E, a wizard below 11th level was less effective against MR creatures. At 11th level, they were at their base. Only when wizards hit 12th level or higher could they lower the opponent's MR. If we go with Mira's idea but start with any spell above 1st level subtracting MR, then mere 3rd level wizards are deducting MR and by the time they're 8th or 9th level, they are whittling down the creature's MR by the same amount as a 15th or 16th level wizard in 1E. I think that's really unbalanced.

I think it's a matter of figuring out which level of spell starts reducing MR, just as 1E used 11th level of wizardry as the "base". But yes, Mira hit on sheer genius. I want to start using that in my games now!

I actually like that MR might not be fixed to increments of 5%.

I admit I would prefer 2-3% per level instead of 5%, but I could live with 5%, as long as we set the base at 4th or 5th level (ie 4th or 5th level spells have no effect on MR, lower levels add to MR, higher levels subtract from MR).

I'm okay with that too.

What I don't like about it is that it sorta renders some MR creatures with lower levels of MR sorta useless, because they're then so easily affected.

I just thought of another thing: the spell Lower Resistance. I think it's in the UA. It's a spell specifically designed to lower a creature's MR, so any house rules made must include this spell as well, and any necessary changes it may need.

Ah, I'd forgotten about that one too! Yeah, that's also going to need consideration.

But as far as the original question goes, I don't have a problem with a mere mortal of any level being able to use magic to reduce a creature's innate MR, but I do think perhaps a creature's age or HD could be some kind of additional buffer against reduction if you wanted older creatures to be able to resist more, so to speak. Heh.

Agreed. I just don't like the idea of a 3rd level or 4th level wizard being able to bring down the MR of a Great Wyrm Red Dragon!

Interesting. How I'd account for it is the creature may be blessed with MR, even low MR like 25%, but once it starts trying to resist 6th level or higher spells, that 25% MR isn't strong enough to resist the power of spells of that magnitude.

Again, my issue is simply that we now have wizards of 8th or 9th level being able to whittle down MR as well as a 15th or 16th level wizard used to in 1E. Also, they don't get a penalty at earlier levels, so that really upsets the challenge, balance, and xp in all fairness.

I think it's entirely workable if we just start the MR reduction at a particular spell level, and add below that level/subtract above that level. In other words, just substitute spell levels for wizard levels and use the same mechanics.

Hmmm.

[Mira]

I don't think I'd use the listed MRs as being against 1st level spells, as you pointed out, that's a little too easy. you can state that it's vs 4th or 5th and adjust accordingly, I was just suggesting the concept. But what I'd do is just add 20% to all MRs rather than state it was against 5th level spells, it just makes it easier to work with (ie, it's easier for me to mentally add the 20% before I start with the reduction for higher level spells)

This makes MR function a bit more like the Globes of Invulnerabilty, those creatures with a really high MR will be immune to lower level spells, but can be affected by higher level ones (although unlike the Globes, it's not automatic) Of course, in my game, spells can be cast using higher level slots, so that a Magic Missle could be considered a 3rd level spell if cast using a 3rd level slot. There might be cases where a mage would want to do that, such as overcoming MR

Mira (Shin: A device for finding furniture)

[Varl]

I think Mira may have had an epiphany of genius on that one! The more I think about it, the more I like it, though I do think it needs to be changed from deducting 5% per level above 1st. Just like how wizards were based on 11th level and subtracted/added depending on whether they were above or below that level. Maybe starting with 4th level as the base? Add MR for lower level spells, subtract for higher levels?

Works for me. Have 5th level spells be the pivot point. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spells add to a creature's MR, and 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells deduct. 5th levels spells are a push, meaning the MR stays the same. I like that.

I think it's a matter of figuring out which level of spell starts reducing MR, just as 1E used 11th level of wizardry as the "base". But yes, Mira hit on sheer genius. I want to start using that in my games now!

See above. I think Mira hit a good idea here too. Now we just have to figure out how Lower Resistance plays into this. Hmm. I don't have the spell handy at the moment.

I think it's entirely workable if we just start the MR reduction at a particular spell level, and add below that level/subtract above that level. In other words, just substitute spell levels for wizard levels and use the same mechanics.

Agreed.

[McDeath]

Now I'm thinking of writing a table based on intelligence and level.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

When we work this out, we can write it up and put it out as a supplement for the BIP site. An alternative MR vs. spell system. Nice!

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Varl, I can't seem to find the spell you're referring to. I know what you're referring to, I just can't recall where it is.

Mira, you're right about just boosting everything 20%, but then some monsters would be over 100% MR. Which I don't see as a problem myself, but it might confuse people.

"How can that dragon have 105% MR?"

That kinda thing.

I think centering it on 5th level spells (ie no change at 5th level, add MR for lesser spells, lower MR for higher level spells), as Varl suggested, works.

One problem I see though is that priests get screwed because they can only lower MR by 10% if we go by spell level as opposed to caster level (since their spells only go up to 7th level), compared with 20% for wizards (they get 9th level spells). Maybe priests, having divine magic, get a better bonus per level? Another wrench to yank out of the gears!

[garhkal]

I have never used the damage caps, so I have to go with that right away anyhow

I also don't think caster level should have any effect, but I think SPELL level shoud. I think the magic resistance should be listed as the resistance vs a 1st level spell (perhaps) and that for every higher level of the SPELL, it has a better chance of getting through. So that a higher level caster has a better chance of getting through than a lower level caster, but only because they are using higher level spells. (makes sense to me that it should be easier to get a Delayed Blast Fireball past resistance than Magic Missle)

Mira (Never under-estimate your ability to over-estimate your ability)

I disagree, i feel it was good that it got tied to caster level. BUT for home games i make it 3% vice 5% per level difference, that the MR is modified by.

[Varl]

Lower Resistance should be (it better be!) in the mage spell compendiums.

Yep. I just looked. It's in the 2nd mage compendium page 526 or in the Tome of Magic.