Transfering Pregnancy

[The_Universe]

Okay so why do the father's genes stay?
I know the whole it's transfering mothers and thus should be the mother's set of DNA... but after the first split isn't it kind of just all the kid's genes?

In real life, that's the case, which is why in the 3rd level version, the kid is unchanged. Since the higher level versions are EVEN LESS realistic than magically teleporting a fetus, I added "features" to the spell that the receiving mother might want. If you're stealing a kid, odds are you'll want it to be *your* kid, not hers.

For the full tranfer, to keep it still interesting with the half templetes what about a random roll 50% to see which set of genes it retains. Or even unbalanced % infavor of the father's genes staying. Or for full transfer it becomes like a clone retaining none of the previous genes?

This may just be unduely complicating things, and so feel free to simply glance over and ignore

You could certainly do something like that, if you chose. The reason that the father doesn't change in the spells is because the father remains the same, even as the baby grows in a new mother. SOMEBODY had to fertilize the egg, and even if the child is altered to conform to the mother, the father's part remains.

But there's certainly nothing wrong with making a stolen child a clone - totally fatherless. This could be how hags reproduce?

 

[Angel Tarragon]

A question just popped in my mind, due to a player. She plays an orc and wants to steal the fetus from an elven maiden and placa it in her own womb. Should I allow this?

 

[The_Universe]

A question just popped in my mind, due to a player. She plays an orc and wants to steal the fetus from an elven maiden and placa it in her own womb. Should I allow this?

Are they both PCs? If so, I'd say it's probably not a good idea.

Is the orc "Good"? If so, I'd probably say it's not a good idea.

In my own campaign experience, most Players would rather have their characters dead than have their children stolen and altered.

 

[ARandomGod]

The one thing that bothers me is that fort save DC. It's incredibly high. Even the DC15 one. I personally imagine this type of spell will involve at least one commoner. The main uses I can really see for this spell involve people who can't really make such a save except for with a lucky roll (or two, depending).

With such a high level spell I don't see that the fort save is needed. Or if you really want to keep it, have the effects be a strain, unconciousness or something.

 

[The_Universe]

Well, when I was writing these, it occurred to me that (as with most high level magic) commoners never get access to it because they can't afford it. This kind of thing is pretty much the sole purview of the idle rich, royalty, and adventurers - it's unlikely that there's a kindly old spellcaster performing baby-switches for the peasantry.

But, feel free to lower the Fort. Saves. It lends the spells a different kind of danger - and the ease will make it an "easy solution" for the idle rich. The lower level version with lowered saves practically guarantee that no noblewoman will ever have to bear her own child, while still almost guaranteeing that she can produce valid heirs.

It's a set of spells with wide-reaching social effects.

 

[ARandomGod]

Well, when I was writing these, it occurred to me that (as with most high level magic) commoners never get access to it because they can't afford it. This kind of thing is pretty much the sole purview of the idle rich, royalty, and adventurers - it's unlikely that there's a kindly old spellcaster performing baby-switches for the peasantry.

But, feel free to lower the Fort. Saves. It lends the spells a different kind of danger - and the ease will make it an "easy solution" for the idle rich. The lower level version with lowered saves practically guarantee that no noblewoman will ever have to bear her own child, while still almost guaranteeing that she can produce valid heirs.

It's a set of spells with wide-reaching social effects.

Of course commoners never get access to it from the purchasing side. But I see the nobility and adventurers potentially using it all the time. And they do not us it on each other! No, why would they? Mid to high level fighter female pregnant? Hire a commoner to finish the term. Royalty? They invented the wet nurse, this is just one step farther. However, most of the non-evil scenario's I can see one of the targets is a commoner. The one getting the new baby, of course. Sure it could be two adventurers, two females in a party, one is dying and there is no spell preped to save that life, but this spell (for some reason) was prepared and it can save the baby's life... well, no, I don't buy that.

What's the spell designed for if not to help nobility not have to bear children? Possibly the occassional evil child thief? I suppose that's possible. And it's alternative. An unconcious subject is automatically considered willing, we could have someone transfer an early pregnancy INTO a noble female, who would then have it transferred out, and now your progeny is the one noted as the heir apparent. Nice.

But even with the DC20 saves, I suppose really all that happens is the pregnancy fails, and if you do this within the first couple of weeks or so, it's easy just to get pregnant again next month. I imagine there are fertility spells in abundance for the idle wealthy. Heck, with the proper fertility spell, you could get several children at one time, and attempt to transfer them all to a commoner. Some will fail but so what?

Also what if the 'mother' doesn't really care if the child lives or dies? It's a slightly more expensive abortion spell (or possibly the only one?) and it doesn't have near the taint of just killing the child. Perhaps there's a spell with an even higher save DC for the discriminating customer?

 

[Quickleaf]

Cool spell idea!
I couldn't help but notice the similarity to the legacy spells I posted up here a while ago (see the pdf document at the link below).

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=135205

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Are they both PCs? If so, I'd say it's probably not a good idea.

Is the orc "Good"? If so, I'd probably say it's not a good idea.

In my own campaign experience, most Players would rather have their characters dead than have their children stolen and altered.

No, they are not both PCs. And the Orc is Chaotic Neutral with evil tendencies.

 

[The_Universe]

No, they are not both PCs. And the Orc is Chaotic Neutral with evil tendencies.

Then I'd probably allow it (if it were me) based on the understanding that this would be enough to nudge the orc from CN to CE. And I'd make sure that the theft of the pregnancy had wide-ranging consequences. Just stealing a normal, living baby might be enough to spark a blood war between orcs and elves. Something like this is a thousand times worse!

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Thanks for the thoughts. Definetely helps.