Spell Resistance

[Armitage]

I had been thinking about a way to do D&D-style Spell Resistance in Hero System.

i.e. there's a chance that a spell cast on a resistant target will completely fail, depending on the strength of the resistance and the skill of the caster.

 

This method suddenly occurred to me, assuming a magic system that requires a skill roll to cast spells.

 

Spell Resistance: Change Environment (-1 to Power Skill Roll), Area Of Effect (1m Radius; +1/4), Persistent (+1/4), Personal Immunity (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1), MegaScale (1m = 10,000 km; +2) (16 Active Points); Only Affects Spells Directly Targeting The Character (-2), No Range (-1/2).

Total cost: 4 points, each additional -1 adds 4-5 real points.

 

Essentially, anyone casting a spell on the character would need to make a Power Skill roll with a penalty to affect him.

 

The MegaScale Area of Effect is to deal with spells that use MegaScale to hit a target anywhere in the world.

Personal Immunity is so the character can cast spells on himself without having to drop the resistance.

The "Only Affects..." Limitation is because the power only affects one or two casters performing a specific action, not every spell caster in the world at all times. Some tweaking of the language could also cover the fact that direct-damage conjurations ignore spell resistance. The cost is a little low for the effect. Maybe a -1 Limitation would be better. That would change it to 6 Real Points and 6-7 points per additional -1.

 

Thoughts?

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

That is a very interesting approach. You might want to make it Inherent so it can't be dispelled.

[Armitage]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

That is a very interesting approach. You might want to make it Inherent so it can't be dispelled.

 

I had considered that, but in D&D there are specialized spells that reduce or negate Spell Resistance, usually intended for battling demons and devils.

Maybe Inherent as a Naked Advantage with the -0 Limitation Does Not Protect Against Specialized Transmutation Magic, or simply declare it a campaign rule intrinsic to the Spell Resistance rules.

 

EDIT: Now that I think about it, an Inherent Power can't be turned off, except with significant END cost at the GM's option. Spell Resistance can be turned off at will should the character desire to be affected by an ally's spells.

[djkester]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

I had considered that, but in D&D there are specialized spells that reduce or negate Spell Resistance, usually intended for battling demons and devils.

Maybe Inherent as a Naked Advantage with the -0 Limitation Does Not Protect Against Specialized Transmutation Magic, or simply declare it a campaign rule intrinsic to the Spell Resistance rules.

 

EDIT: Now that I think about it, an Inherent Power can't be turned off, except with significant END cost at the GM's option. Spell Resistance can be turned off at will should the character desire to be affected by an ally's spells.

 

Since its a negative on the roll of the caster to get the spell off you could also model the Specialized Transmutation Magic to gain a roll against Spell Resistance. Since its seems to me to be an advantage to the Transmutation Magic spell.

[MorpheousXO]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

Another way, which I believe is one of the options on killer shrike's site, is to make the magic work off a skill roll, but make it an opposed skill roll vs. the skill Spell Resistance. That way if you want a spell that ignores spell resistance, it's just a standard RSR, no opposing roll or anything.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

Another way to do this is to add "Requires a Power Skill Roll (Subject to Skill vs. Skill)" on all magic powers; thus, anyone with a Power: Magic skill can roll against anyone casting at them. This is how I did this in my FH games, isn't exactly spell resistance, more like counterspelling, but achieves the same effect.

[Outsider]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

An interesting approach to spell resistance. Do you intend that casters trying to cast on the resistant character will have a higher change to trigger any Side Effects they may have taken on their spells? If you intend the special effect of the resistance to be that the opposing caster gets the spell off, but it just bounces off of the target, then you may have an additional limitation available. "Casting failure caused by the skill modifer does not result in Side Effects being triggered"

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

Well, the idea is that the spellcaster casts a spell at a target who, through his own knowledge of magic or an inherently magical nature, can resist magic; the spell is cast either way. If the caster fails to win the skill vs. skill contest, the spell is cast, charges and/or endurance are spent, side effects occur, etc.

 

I suppose you could work counterspells a bit differently (I would not; again, I see a counterspell as the defending caster casting a spell that counters the spell cast - both casters are actually completing their spells.)

[Markdoc]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

The problem with this is that it affects the caster's spell roll, so it doesn't model D&D style spell resistance at all (though it's an interesting idea for a spell sink who actually disrupts casting: I may well use that )

 

In D&D, the spell still goes off and takes its normal effect - it just specifically doesn't affect the spell-resistant target. So if the party is fireballed, everyone gets a little crispy - except the spell-resistant guy. If the party runs through a blade barriers, it isn't dispelled, it just doesn't affect spell resistant guy: everyone else bleeds. Last off spell resistance to spells simulated by affecting the casting roll would have no effect on spells once they were cast: so if the caster uses a spell like spiritual weapon, he casts it (not attacking anyone, therefore spell resistance should have no effect) and then three rounds later attacks spell resistance guy - at which point the spell may fail, in D&D. As it stands, affecting the spell casting and the "Only targetting the caster" means that spell with a duration or area affects (and there's a lot of those in D&D) will affect the spell resistant guy normally.

 

In this case, I'd use the much-maligned desolid trick:

Spell resistance: Spell resistance: Desolidification , Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates; +1) (100 Active Points); Custom Modifier: only vs spells and spelllike abilities (-1), Requires A BOD Roll ((Note: roll is modified by attacking power); -1), Cannot Pass Through Solid Objects (-1/2) (100 points active, 25 points real)

 

The way this works is that any time spell-resistant guy is attacked with a spell or spell like attack, he makes a roll, with appropriate minuses for the power of the incoming spell. If he fails the roll, the spell takes effect. Otherwise the spell passes right through him without effect. He can allow himself to be affected, just by deliberately failing the roll.

I've based the roll off BOD, since a) pretty much any spell resistant creatures/things have BOD and that way no specific skill roll is required. You can buy up the roll by buying up BOD with the -1 1/2 limitation: only for spell resistance. This has the side effect that really big monsters will start with a higher roll and tiny creatures like færies a small roll, but since you can buy it up or down ... no biggie. As GM, you set it where you want it anyway.

Spells which are unaffected by spell resistance, should buy "not affected by spell resistance" for a +1/4 advantage added to the spell (That's costed as Affects desolid: only vs spell resistance -1)

Last off, since we are modelling D&D spell resistance here, I have given the desolid a healthy -1 1/2 limitation, since it specifically affects spells: not magic items, not supernatural abilities like Dragon breath, vampire's energy drain or a Swordsage's ki powers - and not even all spells.. It pretty much only affects human/human-like spellcasting. If you wanted a more generic anti-magic ability drop it back to -1.

 

cheers, Mark

[Maccabe]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

Magic Resistance: Force Wall (ED), Self Only,Only vs Magical Attacks, All or Nothing, Persistant.

 

That way you can set the Resistance equal to [2.5 x ED], thus 4 ED= 10% Resistance [ I play-tested this]

Magcial Attacks Only doesn't cover things that effect ED like breath weapons

All or Nothing means that low powered spells [those less then say 4DC] will NOT affect the character but "higher level" ones will FULLY effect them

[Markdoc]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

The problem with force wall (or barrier, in 6E) is that it does nothing to stop mental attacks or adjustment powers, or indeed, as written, physical magic attacks. Since it has no PD, the first physical attack that did 1 BOD would take it down (you should add transparent to cover this).

 

cheers, Mark

[Outsider]

Re: Spell Resistance

 

Well, the idea is that the spellcaster casts a spell at a target who, through his own knowledge of magic or an inherently magical nature, can resist magic; the spell is cast either way. If the caster fails to win the skill vs. skill contest, the spell is cast, charges and/or endurance are spent, side effects occur, etc.

 

I suppose you could work counterspells a bit differently (I would not; again, I see a counterspell as the defending caster casting a spell that counters the spell cast - both casters are actually completing their spells.)

 

 

I was actually addressing the original poster in my comment, but I didnt make that at all clear, sorry. In the case of your 'requires skill vs skill' limited spell system, it seems pretty clear that increased incidence of Side Effects is an intended consequence. No problem there as the character there buying and casting the spell is getting a limitation for it.