Why Does spell Reasearch Have Such a High Cost?

[Merlion]

My honest opinion is that you want to develop a repritiour of custom spells and you're pissed because game mechanics don't let you do that. Well even the greatest jazz musician had to learn the standards first.

Valid opnion but your mistaken. my two big beefs are 1 I feel it discourages players from researching new spells and 2 I feel the rules are self contradictory...wizards can get spells for free every level. So why in fact do they EVER have to pay for ANY spell or scribing or anything else? Yes I know its a balance issue and I agree. but I think the costs for researching a new spell are to high. If I just wanted a repitoire of custom spells I still could if I really wanted to believe me. I just dont think research should be as expensive as it is.

 

[Merlion]

.

Fighters don't get to invent their own feats. Rogues don't get to invent new skill categories. .
Why not?


and like any increase in PC power, needs to come at the expense of some other in-game resource. .

How does having one more balanced spell in your spellbook at a cost of say 500gp/spell level rather than 1k/spell level really even constitue an increase in PC power?

 

[Merlion]

.

Now for some specifics.
As noted, there is a BIG difference between getting those first 2 spells, and researching totally new ones. It is assumed that while reading/meditating/whatever, you came across some new spells that someone else has already put in the effort/time/money to develop. Sort of like learning about someone elses discovery; a lot easier than making the discovery.

By your very logic, since it is 'innate'; how could they possibly research anything?? By that logic, they shouldn't even be able to choose their spells, they should be random.

[
Makes sense to me. A fifth level wizard can barely handle casting a 3rd level spell, and you want him to research inventing a totally new one?? I think it would be a logical rule that you can only research 2 levels below what you can cast.


BTW, at your suggested 100gp/lvl cost, that means that in general, it is cheaper to invent a spell, rather than buy it.


I dont remember suggesting that spell research should cost 100/gp per spell level. I remember suggesting maybe it should cost 100gp MORE per spell level than scribing a spell does.
As to the 5th level wizard..from one point of view your right. actualy the way wizard magic is often depiced in DnD, really no wizard below 15th level or so should be able to create a new spell AT ALL.
Sorcerers: thats your opnion, and thats perfectly fine. I disagree which is really what all the arguements on this thread boil down to

 

[Tar-Edhel]

If their is a cost it should be only marginaly more than the cost to scribe a spell into your spellbook. I mean mechnacialy your paying a lot for nothing. your paying 1k GP per spell level for a balanced spell.

I'd gladly pay 1k/level for a new spell... 9k for a spell equivalent in power to Wish, Shapechange or Time Stop? Anytime baby!

Let's use an analogy from the real world... Biomedical reserch. You can buy most medecine in a pharmacy for less than a few dollars (Note that I said most... some medecine are very expensive).

Now, ask you typical biomedical company the cost for developping a new medecine. Billions of dollars are spent just to improve painkillers.

Research is a lenghty and costly process. It is so in the real world, it should be the same in DnD worlds (IMO, that's where YMMV). If not, as mentionned, people will start creating new spells instead of buying existing ones.

Last but not least, you are not paying 1k/level for nothing. As already pointed out, you pay 1k/level for a spell that no mage can counterspell without Dispel Magic, a spell your ennemies will not be expecting and for hich they might not have defenses. Tha's nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Merlion]

Well you've all provided me with a lot of reasons for why their is A cost to spell research. their all good, all valid. some of them are basicaly opnions and I happen to disagree with some of them, but thats fine.
I realize their does have to be A cost. I just dont think it should be quite as much as it is.
Also I do not accept all this "behind the scenes income" and "behind the scenes" research stuff to explain a wizards 2 "free" spells. If I was running a game I wouldnt let players get money for something they arent actualy doing. to make the way things work with wizards make any consistent since, IMO, DMs need to both allow AND require that wizard players have "research down time" and actualy role play it, to represent those 2 new spells if their going to get them for free when you have to fork out considerble cash for spells by any other means. IMO. thank you all

 

[Merlion]

Ohh and I'm sorry but sorcerers..as I see them and IMO as they are presented in the PHB needing components for any but a few spells(such as the mirror for scry) is not something I can accept. Likewise with spell research. and most of the balance arguements I have heard with wizards break down with sorcerers anyway...they already get shafted in developing new spells just by their nature...they can only know a very few spells and can only develop new ones when they aqquire new slots. Therefore if I was running a game sorcerers would have to pay very little...perhaps a little gold for meditiation incense or some such...if anything at all to research spells. Same for Bards although they'd be more likely to have a small cost...throat gargle and lute strings etc...

 

[Tar-Edhel]

Also I do not accept all this "behind the scenes income" and "behind the scenes" research stuff to explain a wizards 2 "free" spells. If I was running a game I wouldnt let players get money for something they arent actualy doing. to make the way things work with wizards make any consistent since, IMO, DMs need to both allow AND require that wizard players have "research down time" and actualy role play it, to represent those 2 new spells if their going to get them for free when you have to fork out considerble cash for spells by any other means.

If you have the fighter role-play the fact that he gets new feats or learns to fight with a new weapon, the rogue role-play the acquisition of new skills and so on, I see no problem with your way of handling spell research.

If not, then you are shafting the wizards in your campaign.. IMHO.

 

[Merlion]

Well I'm a general advocate of giving a little time between adventures to actualy portray characters gaining new abilities. When its just glossed over it just kind of doesnt feel right to me.
And the fact that wizards can get 2 spells for free per level while I understand all the reasons, rankles at my sense of logic when its so expensive and time consuming to aquire spells any other way.
And come on would you really let a player have "income" for actions that he's not actualy doing as some have suggested should be assumed with wizards?

 

[Tar-Edhel]

And come on would you really let a player have "income" for actions that he's not actualy doing as some have suggested should be assumed with wizards?

I can't remember reading anything about wizards getting income for something he's not actually doing. What I read were suggestions on how to make profit out of your research (I don't feel like going through this thread once again to make sure no one really did suggest that wizards should get mone for nothing. If some did, I don't agree with them )

But again, does the fighter new feat 'rankles' at your senses as well? Or do you have him roleplay the new feat's acquisition?

Might I respectfully suggest that you may not be playing the right RPG? IIRC, your last thread was to oppose to aligments restrictions for Monks and Paladin. This one is about changing the rules for spell creation and sorcerers.

Don't get me wrong, there nothing bad about adjusting the rules to have them reflect the world as you see it. And I am certainly not saying that they are perfect as written. But you seem to be in the process of a quite thourough re-writing of the rules...

Piece of advice: be careful. You might be one hell of a Dm and an expert role-player... But WOTC had hundreds of people benchmarking those rules.

 

[Merlion]

Well the fact that they are revising the rules set shows that WoTC believes they can...have have made...mistakes. And house rules are pretty common. I will grant you their are some things about DnD I dont really like...or rather that I often dont like. Magic in DnD is very rigid. its not bad, and I like it but I'd like to have other options.
If you want the truth the thing is I like DnD a lot, and the other alternatives all have maybe one thing thats quite a bit better, but I hate everything else. DnD is SUPPOSED to be custimizable anyway...people do it all the time. thats why theirs a "House Rules" forum on this site. some of the people over there really have heavily reworked things, but its still DnD.
Most of my beefs are largely RP/storyline/flavour related. Especialy the alignment stuff. thats not a game balance issue. the alignment restrictions especialy are holdovers from earlier editions of the game. And interestingly in the polls I've done about that and related simliar subjects...most people agree with me.
As I've said so many times before, their is and can be no "perfect" RPG. However I think DnD/D20 comes about as close as possible. Its a good base and a few refinements can make it near-perfect for just about anyone.