Should Spell Resistance be made to stack with itself?

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

SR is broken. It doesn't work as intended. It both does not stop "SR: Yes" spells, and is actually a detrimental rather than useful quality.

I'm assuming its own weakness has been fixed, ie. choosing to override your own SR for only an instant anytime you feel like it, without wasting actions. Now don't  when the party cleric can't beat your SR to heal you.

Furthermore without a high CL (the irony abounds), SR is damn near impossible to get to CL39 pre-epic. Alas a simple red wizard, a full caster with a few items, or even a freaking gish with the right spells or feats makes the check trivial.

The first step to help out this poor mechanic is to let it stack with itself. PC SR is more rare than dodge bonuses after all. I appreciate reasons for "No"s and how far you would think to help SR in the case of a "Yes."

[The_Mad_Linguist]

If it stacks, it's fairly easy to get a stupidhigh SR with a couple templates.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

I'm listening on the templates. Also I'm curious what "stupid high" is. Last I checked it was fairly low opportunity cost to beat an SR of 80, without any of the big guns.

[Rebel7284]

I say keep SR as is.  This allows those who want to play evokers, actually do it without adding another hurdle.  It's already hard enough to justify anything that's not a conjurer or transmuter.

[LordBlades]

Most of the good things don't bother with SR anyway. Allowing SR to stack only nerfs some mediocre-ish stuff that can't ignore it.

[Prime32]

I'd throw it out and replace it with globe of invulnerability type effects, or something that reduces caster level. The latter works better if spell DCs are changed to the standard (10 + half level + ability mod) formula.


EDIT:
Maybe SR14 reduces the level of a spell by 1 and its CL by 2, before the save DC is calculated. Every additional point of SR increases the CL reduction by 1, and if it's an even number reduces the spell level by 1 (SR13 is just -1CL, SR15 = -3CL/-1LV, SR16 = -4CL/-2LV). If a spell ever passes below CL1 or lv0 it is negated. Evocation spells ignore 1 point of CL loss, since they are closer to raw energy to begin with.

And you can lower it as a free action of course.

[Sunic_Flames]

I think the Tome does this by taking the highest SR, dividing any others by 3 (rounded down) and then adding them together.

And Evocations should just fucking be SR: No.

[Mixster]

I like Primes idea better than just allowing it to stack.

If you could stack it, A lot of templates would get a lot better at least.

Oh, and I consider an SR of 40 at level 10 to be pretty high. Since at that level you need at least 2 spells to penetrate it, unless you are focused on it, and forcing your opponents to use two rounds of buffing is pretty worthwhile.

[Arkzein]

It already does! You know, if you're a Forsaker.

[Unbeliever]

Would a less labor intensive way of doing the stuff that Prime suggests be something akin to energy resist? Something like where you would knock X points off any damage caused by a spell or maybe get s bonus to save vs non-damage dealing spells or even a save vs effects that don't usually allow them. That seems to be, in effect, what the caster level etc penalty amounts to.

Although I don't know how this would affect the game in general with all the SR related items and abilities.

[snakeman830]

I'd say the first step in fixing it is having it be a non-action to lower and raise it for recieving beneficial spells (or any other spell that you for some reason wish to have).

[Nytemare3701]

My proposed fix for SR:

Every 4 points of SR gives you +1 to saves vs spells, +1 deflection AC vs spells, and +Energy Resist 1 per damage die from spells.

[the_shadowmind]

I support the SR acting as a reduction effect agaisnt magic. Whether is it like globe of invulnerability like Prime32 suggested or the way Nytemare3701  suggested.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Prime's method and other more calculation-intensive overhauls aren't bad, they just make work and don't solve things like maze.

It already does! You know, if you're a Forsaker.

I purposely didn't mention forsaker. I thought about adding something like the only way to get SR past 50 is by destroying all your magic items to that CL irony line. I thought it best to not say anything about it so more people would stay on topic.

Globe of invulnerability is actually more powerful than SR at low levels. Where should the tiers lay? SR5 ignores cantrips and orisons, SR10 ignores 1st level spells, SR90 ignoring 9th level spells? I'm fairly sure SR60 isn't possible RAW without CL-based SR, so it might be an okay fix in addition to SR stacking...

[Zaxter]

I'm listening on the templates. Also I'm curious what "stupid high" is. Last I checked it was fairly low opportunity cost to beat an SR of 80, without any of the big guns.

I'm curious on this. How do you beat SR 80 without "any of the big guns?" What does it go up to with the "big guns?" Best I can think up is Circle Magic (CL 40) + Assay Spell Resistance (+10) + True Casting (+10), which is only a +60 on your check, so you'd still need to roll a 20 to beat SR 80 and isn't exactly "low opportunity cost." Or Greater Consumptive Field, but no sane DM is going to allow that.

I'd say the first step in fixing it is having it be a non-action to lower and raise it for recieving beneficial spells (or any other spell that you for some reason wish to have).

+1

[ninjarabbit]

I preferred 2nd Edition's spell resistance where you ignored a certain percentage of spells thrown at you. For example if you had SR:20 that meant you had a 20% chance of ignoring any particular spell.

I also think you should have the option of lowering SR as a free or swift action for a round so you can be buffed and healed without worry.

[Bauglir]

I'd say if you're going to stack it without changing the system, and want a faster calculation method, start with the creature's highest source of SR and then all other sources are treated as 10 lower before stacking, since they all include the "+10 to account for average rolls" bonus. Not a cumulative 10 lower, of course. But, I dunno exactly. I'd probably want to work on something else entirely, but that's a lot of work.

[Bozwevial]

I'd say if you're going to stack it without changing the system, and want a faster calculation method, start with the creature's highest source of SR and then all other sources are treated as 10 lower before stacking, since they all include the "+10 to account for average rolls" bonus. Not a cumulative 10 lower, of course. But, I dunno exactly. I'd probably want to work on something else entirely, but that's a lot of work.

Frank and K reverse-engineered a mechanism for stacking multiple sources of SR. You designate the highest source as primary, then add amounts to it based on your secondary sources:

If the source is less than 6 + your CR, you add +1.
If it's 6 + CR or more but less than 11 + CR, add +2.
If it falls between 11 + CR and 15 + CR, add +3.
If it's 16 + CR or more, add +4.

So basically, each secondary source adds (SR-CR)/5, rounded up, maximum 4.

[Maat_Mons]

Circle Magic (CL 40) + Assay Spell Resistance (+10) + True Casting (+10)

Don't forget spell vulnerability (Spell Compendium 200). 

[AndyJames]

I'm listening on the templates. Also I'm curious what "stupid high" is. Last I checked it was fairly low opportunity cost to beat an SR of 80, without any of the big guns.

I'm curious on this. How do you beat SR 80 without "any of the big guns?" What does it go up to with the "big guns?" Best I can think up is Circle Magic (CL 40) + Assay Spell Resistance (+10) + True Casting (+10), which is only a +60 on your check, so you'd still need to roll a 20 to beat SR 80 and isn't exactly "low opportunity cost." Or Greater Consumptive Field, but no sane DM is going to allow that.

Orb of Acid, Lesser.