Why Does spell Reasearch Have Such a High Cost?

[Drawmack]

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

So in your campaign everyone must train for skill points, fighter's must train for their feats, rogues must train for their class abilities, bards must study under a teacher to learn new songs that allow new spells, etc, etc - if not then you're shafting the wizard. If so then think of the analogy like this. The wizard researching a new spell is like the fighter developing a new feat (which could be done in game a new fighting style). What would you require timewise and moneywise for the fighter to develope a new fighting style that is not based on any other fighting style in existence?

You don't understand why it costs 1k/level. You understand the cost but now why it's so high. Okay let me see if I can address that issue.

Scrolls (general prices) - single use item
1st = 25 gp
2nd = 150 gp
3rd = 375 gp
4th = 700 gp
5th = 1,125 gp
6th = 1,650 gp
7th = 2,275 gp
8th = 3,000 gp
9th = =3,825 gp

with a brand new spell what you are getting is in essence a scroll that can be used everyday that your enemy will not be able to easily counter at least for a little while.

is 1k/level really that much to pay when you consider what you're paying for a scroll?

 

[Tar-Edhel]

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.

We finally agree, on this and the rest of your post. I am glad you took my advice and suggestion as they were meant: respectful advice and suggestion, nothing more.

As I mentionned, I have no problem with re-working the rules. I've done it in the past and I'll most certainly do it again in the future.

But our gaming group finally concluded that the glitches in the rules were easier to live with than house-rules and endless heated arguments around the game table.

To each is own

 

[Drawmack]

Most people who heavily modify the system don't call it DnD. For example I work on a fan project called Backara. It's a low magic d20 setting. We refer to it as a d20 variant and not as DnD. Not because of the licenses but because we have modified the system to much, the learning curve to play backara is too high to call it the same game.

 

[Merlion]

Well I am just going to say this. I havent done a lot of research and done the math and things. I just would like to see the research rules/costs reworked somewhat. Perhaps have it be more like scrolls..a set price for a given spell level. or if the DM is willing to do it, assign each spell a cost based on its complexity etc.
And yes as I already said I dont think training should bog down the game but especialy for some classes..and to some degree with all...abilities shouldnt just be gained..unless the current game situation is such that it would drasticaly reduce the enjoyment or progression of the game to wait for down time. thats kind of my point as with so many things a lot of stuff is probably best handled on a case by case basis.

 

[Merlion]

We finally agree, on this and the rest of your post. I am glad you took my advice and suggestion as they were meant: respectful advice and suggestion, nothing more.

As I mentionned, I have no problem with re-working the rules. I've done it in the past and I'll most certainly do it again in the future.

But our gaming group finally concluded that the glitches in the rules were easier to live with than house-rules and endless heated arguments around the game table.

To each is own

Now if only more people around here could adopt an attitude like that. I tend to respond defensively in thease situations largely because most people on thease boards tend to react very forcefuly to any suggestion of an alteration of the rules...and usualy without even a nod to the fact that it is a game, a game of imagination and can be played however anyone chooses, and called whatever anyone chooses. Despite the fact that all of thease things are mentioned and ENCOURAGED in the core rulebooks themselves.

 

[Petrosian]

Ok, my opinion...

The reasons for high coist and time for "custom spells" is a matagame decision to make it unpalatable so as to discourage it. The various game balances only work, only have been tested, with the known quantities. Sometimes, within the game, decisions were not made for 'in game world sense" but for "as a game sense". In 3.5e for instance they are already saying they wont publish "make my weapon silver" type spells so they can keep designer dr working.

Now, that said, within the game the development and learning of magic spells, like many class abilities, is handled abstractly by experience points. optional rules allow you to apply training times or costs. Spells beyond the base normal set amount per level are treated as if they were magic items to a degree, with a time and cost involved.

For my games, i have established that magic research is an ongoing thing. The spells in the PHB et al are just the most commonly available. When a player decides he wants a cold fireball or a cone of fire as a third level spell, i do not make him go thru arduous research and city libraries... instead i make two determinations... "is this a reasonably common spell" and "does he know anyone who could have access to it." Then we proceed from there.

 

[Merlion]

Wow I find myself agreeing with Petrosian again
Both on the reason, and somewhat on the solution. I just dont like it when they impose "solutions" to problems that should be handled on a campaign by campaign basis.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

FWIW, I agree with you Merlion and Petrosian.

The rule is a metagaming, roleplaying restriction. A no-no double-whammy.

I let my players learn spells that they have devised with no extra cost or money. I don't see what difference it makes to my game world if the spell is in D&D3E rule book 1 or not.

--Simplifing Spikey

 

[Merlion]

FWIW, I agree with you Merlion and Petrosian.

The rule is a metagaming, roleplaying restriction. A no-no double-whammy.

I let my players learn spells that they have devised with no extra cost or money. I don't see what difference it makes to my game world if the spell is in D&D3E rule book 1 or not.

--Simplifing Spikey

~dances happily~ Dear lord after all those posts finaly another person who truly agrees with me. I was begining to wonder if I was actualy crazy. You've made my afternoon spikey. I'm guessing you havent experienced any balance problems with the way you do it?

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I almost 20 years of very sporatic gaming, no, I've never had a problem with it.

The "balance" lies with the DM's discression, not some dumb rule about how much it costs.

--Joy-bringer Spikey