Rookie Wizard building a spell book

[missmvicious]

Ok... so, those who haven't read the former thread, I'm rebuilding my Wizard from level 1 to level 5 so I can have it ready for the next session. I've pretty much fixed everything, so all I need to do now tie up the loose ends.

I'm reading on pages 178 - 179 that there are 3 ways to learn new spells:

1. Gain 2 spells each level: did that
2. Spell copied from another's spellbook or scroll: did that
3. Independent Research. <-- Intriguing...

"A wizard also can research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell... The (DMG) has information on this topic under Creating New Spells in Chapter 2."

I looked at DMG, Ch 2. All I found was notes on the part I took out of the quotes. I'm not all that interested in making custom spells, but the idea of figuring out how to duplicate other existing spells interests me greatly, especially since I won't always be conveniently close to another spell-caster who can lend me a book or a scroll to study from.

How is this done?

My theory:
I have to see and hear another Arcane caster cast a spell and pass a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level?). If I succeed, I can identify a spell being cast. Then I spend an amount of time trying to figure out exactly how the other spell-caster did it.

Is that correct? If so, how much time does it take to research a spell that way? I doubt I just instantly understand all the subtle nuances of the spell the first time I pass the SC check (not complaining if that's the case).

[jiriku]

AFAIK, there aren't any rules in 3.5 prescribing how long it takes to research a spell. I seem to recall one week per spell level having been the rule in earlier editions of the game.

You shouldn't need to see and hear someone cast a spell in order to research it - the gestures and words used to cast a spell are only a tiny part of the spell's actual casting (PH 178), so seeing them wouldn't grant you any special familiarity with the spell. Since the DMG lists no dice rolls required to successfully create a spell, you and your DM will have to create them if you want to insert a chance of failure into your spell research process. I'd suggest that requiring a minimum number of ranks in Spellcraft equal to the level of the spell, or perhaps the minimum caster level of the spell, would be reasonable. There's really no point in requiring a skill check during research, as any wizard with decent ranks and Int would simply take 10 and automatically pass any fair and reasonable DC.

[missmvicious]

Huh...

Ok, I guess WotC just forgot to put that one in there.

I guess I'll talk this over with the DM. 1 day per spell level sounds fair, I suppose.

Thanks!

[Calanon]

AFAIK, there aren't any rules in 3.5 prescribing how long it takes to research a spell. I seem to recall one week per spell level having been the rule in earlier editions of the game.

I've always done that for spells gained outside of levels (You automatically get the spells for leveling up, but spells you want to add to your book from schools or stolen spellbooks are 1 day * Spell level) If its 1 week per spell level then the Wizard would probably take MONTHS just to learn gate or Disjunction or Meteor swarm :smallannoyed: that always seemed ridiculous to me. I usually change it back to the 1 week per spell level if its a high magic campaign.


You shouldn't need to see and hear someone cast a spell in order to research it - the gestures and words used to cast a spell are only a tiny part of the spell's actual casting (PH 178)

For a Wizard knowing the somatic, Verbal, and Material components are literally the most important part of learning Wizardry, Knowing the base principles of the spell are the primary roots of actually understand the spell.
When you perform a Counterspell against an enemy caster you are doing a 6 second research to see if you know enough about that spell to make it fizzle out. Spells casted without gestures or words are MUCH more difficult to cast (Silent + Still Spell = +2 spell level increase) however for material components it takes little to no effort ignoring those :smallannoyed: (Hurr durr ima grab a spell component pouch and call it a day!)

Although you do not need to see/hear someone cast a spell, it does help to have had some experience counterspelling said spell (Since you know how to make the Spell Fizzle, I'm sure you can work backwards and figure out how to cast it a little bit easier)

[Adrayll]

One week per spell level is typically a good rule (maybe with daily spellcraft checks?) I'd hazard to say to make it work similar to crafting.

[Big Fau]

Page 91, XPH. It provides rules for making a power, which likely can be applied to a spell.


Do note, these rules as written destroy any boundary between Arcane, Divine, and Psionic abilities (not that there was much of one to begin with). I do not advocate these rules, I'm just pointing them out.

[Gavinfoxx]

I think there are rules in the PHB or the DMG for researching new spells...

[jiriku]

If its 1 week per spell level then the Wizard would probably take MONTHS just to learn gate or Disjunction or Meteor swarm :smallannoyed: that always seemed ridiculous to me. I usually change it back to the 1 week per spell level if its a high magic campaign.

While it's true that spending less than a tenday is more convenient for the adventuring types, from a more "realistic" perspective, a wizard who researches a new spell is advancing the state of the art, and that's a difficult thing that one ought not be able to cram into a week's vacation between adventures. Moreover, since crafting a powerful masterwork item like mithril full plate takes many weeks, and crafting a powerful magic item like a ring of elemental command takes many weeks, it seems fair to me that crafting a powerful new 9th level spell should also take many weeks. But again, the rules don't address it, so it's entirely up to the DM to decide in this case.


For a Wizard knowing the somatic, Verbal, and Material components are literally the most important part of learning Wizardry, Knowing the base principles of the spell are the primary roots of actually understand the spell. When you perform a Counterspell against an enemy caster you are doing a 6 second research to see if you know enough about that spell to make it fizzle out. Although you do not need to see/hear someone cast a spell, it does help to have had some experience counterspelling said spell (Since you know how to make the Spell Fizzle, I'm sure you can work backwards and figure out how to cast it a little bit easier)

This is interesting any flavorful, and as a recommendation for how the DM might homebrew some rules, it's useful. However, it is entirely something that you made up. The recommendation I gave has the advantage of being supported in the rules. The DM certainly has the right to modify or ignore the rules as needed, but since the OP was researching the rulebooks, I thought an answer founded on the rulebooks would be a decent place to start when replying. Not to diss your approach, I think we're just coming at it from different directions.

[Gavinfoxx]

I could've sworn that there were rules that DID ACTUALLY address this in the PHB or DMG...

[jiriku]

I could've sworn that there were rules that DID ACTUALLY address this in the PHB or DMG...

There are, but the rules address everything about researching new spells except how the character does it. A fairly major oversight, really. :smallbiggrin:

[Gavinfoxx]

Aren't there rules about libraries that give bonuses to Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft checks and such like that? Do any of those talk about spell research?

[Flickerdart]

Spell research is basically just code for "if you want to homebrew new spells, this is how".

[killem2]

This is from the dm book:

Researching Original Spells
If you decide to allow characters to develop original spells, you
can use these guidelines to handle the situation.
A spellcaster of any kind can create a new spell. The research to
do this requires access to a well-stocked library, typically in a large
city or metropolis. Research requires an expenditure of 1,000 gp
per week and takes one week per level of the spell. This money
goes into fees, consultants, material component experimentation,
and other miscellaneous expenditures. At the end of that time, the
character makes a Spellcraft check (DC 10 + spell level). If that roll
succeeds, the character learns the new spell if her research produced
a viable spell. If the roll fails, the character must go through
the research process again if she wants to keep trying.
A viable spell is one that you allow into the game. Don’t tell the
player whether you think the spell is viable when research begins.
(That’s the point of the research.) However, feel free to work with
the player before the research begins and give him guidance on the
parameters under which an original spell might be acceptable in
your game.
Research to create new spells is always in addition to any other
research involved for gaining spells that are already part of your
campaign (if you decide to also require spell research for the new
spells that casters are entitled to as they attain higher levels).
The number of spells that sorcerers and bards can know is
strictly limited; members of those classes can never exceed these
limits even through the research of original spells.



Also combined with:


CREATING NEW SPELLS
Introducing an unbalanced spell does more damage to your
game than handing out an unbalanced magic item. A magic
item can get stolen, destroyed, sold, or otherwise taken away—
but once a character knows a spell, she’s going to want to keep
using it.
When creating a new spell, use the existing spells as benchmarks,
and use common sense. Creating a spell is actually fairly
easy—it’s assigning a level to the new spell that’s hard. If the
“best” 2nd-level spell is invisibility, and the “best” 1st-level spell is
charm person or sleep, and the new spell seems to fall between
those spells in power, it’s probably a 2nd-level spell. (Sleep, however,
is a strange example, because it’s a spell that gets less useful
as the caster gains levels—compared to a spell such as magic missile
or fireball, which gets better, up to a point, for higher-level
casters. Make sure spells that only affect low-level creatures are
low-level spells.)
Here are some pieces of advice to consider.
• If a spell is so good that you can’t imagine a caster not wanting
it all the time, it’s either too powerful or too low in level.
• An experience point (XP) cost is a good balancing force. An
expensive material component is only a moderately good
balancing force. (Money can be easy to come by; an XP loss
almost always hurts.)
• When determining level, compare range, duration, and target
(or area) to other spells to balance. A long duration or a large
area can make up for a lesser effect, depending on the spell.
• A spell with a very limited use (only works against red dragons)
could conceivably be one level lower than it would be if it had
a more general application. Even at a low level, this is the sort of
spell a sorcerer or bard never takes, and other casters would
prepare it only if they knew in advance it would be worthwhile.
• Wizards and sorcerers should not cast healing spells, but they
should have the best offensive spells. If the spell is flashy or
dramatic, it should probably be a wizard/sorcerer spell.
• Clerics are best at spells that deal with alignment and have the
best selection of curative and repair spells. They also have the
best selection of information-gathering spells, such as
commune and divination.
• Druids are best at spells that deal with plants and animals.
• Rangers and paladins should not have flashy attack spells in
the manner of magic missile and fireball.
• Bard spells include enchantments, information-gathering
spells, and a mixture of other kinds of spells, but do not include
powerful offensive spells such as cone of cold.
Damage Caps for Spells
For spells that deal damage, use the tables below (one for arcane
spells, one for divine spells) to determine approximately how
much damage a spell should deal. Remember that some spells
(such as burning hands) use a d4 for damage, but fireball uses a d6.
For clerics, a d8 damage die counts as 2d6 for determining the
maximum damage a divine spell can deal.




I'm going out on a limb and guessing at levels 1-5 unless your DM is pretty generous, you couldn't afford creating a new spell (like original), but you could possible learn from other wizards.

[jiriku]

That's a good find! What page did you pull that first section from?


Don’t tell the player whether you think the spell is viable when research begins. (That’s the point of the research.)

Note: This is godawful terrible advice for a DM and should never be followed. The rest of the section looks legit, though.

[missmvicious]

Hmm... that does make a lot of sense, but it also kills the point of researching a pre-existing spell. If I have to be in a large city or metropolis to research a spell, then I would probably be near a spell-caster who would sell me some spells.

I'm nowhere close to researching the heavily guarded secrets, like 9th level spells, so I suppose it's safe to say that I can just pay the local wizard some GP, scribble some notes onto my spell book a la Vaarsuvius-right-before-the-epic-battle-with-the-hobgoblins and drop the study time from 1 week per level to 1 day per spell.

The setting I'm in alone could teach my character a thing or two about magic, and I'm hoping to exploit that in order to fatten my spell-book quicker.

We're in an enchanted tropical rainforest not far from my hometown. Everything... I mean everything is magical. Every time I cast "Detect Magic" even in the dead of night, I can see every detail of the world around me in "Blue-vision" (the color my DM has decided Detect Magic makes magic auras look.) Then, as I reach the 3rd round, everything breaks up into a kind of infra-red spectrum that detects magical auras and schools rather than heat signatures. It my head it looks awesome.

I started getting the idea that I should maybe start collecting things from the forest that had interesting or powerful auras: insects, moss, water, etc so I could research them later. It started as an RP thing for my character. But now that I know I don't just have unmitigated access to all the spells my level can cast, I'm starting to think maybe this research can be more than just fluff. Maybe it can help me learn new spells as well.

If there's a rule for that, then I'd like to present that to the DM. He can't find one. But if not, then I'll just petition my cause to him and see what happens. He doesn't allow for much home brew shenanigans, but he's cool with player-suggested house rules as long as the entire group agrees with them.

Here's what seems to make sense to me, based on what you guys suggested:

1. Look up XPH pg 91 for guidelines to spells: We don't have it, but maybe I can ask the Playground for relevant excerpts.

2. It should take way longer to research a spell than it should take to be taught one. 1 week per spell level seems to be the consensus.

3. I can learn from spells I see and hear, or I can just figure stuff out on my own. (DM would decide the bennies of each, I suppose, but I'd think it would shorten the research time if I didn't have to figure out the V and S components because I already watched someone do them.)

4. GP must be spent to research a new spell. 1,000 GP sounds a little steep since I'm not hiring a consultant and I have Eschew Materials as a Feat; maybe I can haggle a bit. Does 300 GP a week for "miscellaneous expenditures" sound reasonable?

5. I must pass a Spellcraft check in order to successfully finish my research. If not, we go back to the drawing board.

As a barter token, instead of paying so much GP to learn a spell, I'm going to throw in a spell failure chance to reflect the difference between a spell gleaned from a proper education and a spell gleaned from experimental research. (Channeling Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon here: Jade Fox's rough, unrefined power vs. Master Li Mu Bai's perfected and polished skill. Maybe this spell failure effect would last until I either level up or use it successfully X number of times.

Thoughts? The more fully-baked the house rule is, the more likely it can be brought to vote at the next session. Our DMs policy is that he reads all of his house rules 1 week before the first session, and thereafter doesn't impose any of his own new house rules after the first session begins (so that he doesn't accidently make unfair and biased rulings) unless a situation comes up that will stall the game if he doesn't rule. Any other house rules have to be suggested by the players and voted on and adjudicated by the DM. If the group feels that the rule is fair (not house-ruling a PC into divine ascension, in other words) then we get to add it to that session and all proceeding sessions. If it survives the campaign, then it gets canonized into our standard list of house rules.

I'm kind of excited. I like it when my house-rules get canonized. :smallbiggrin:

So... thoughts on the house rule I just came up with? Does that cover the ground fairly, with respect to the spirit of RAW, or should I tweak something.

[Gavinfoxx]

Man... you need to get access to Arcane Sight or Greater Arcane Sight asap...

[killem2]

Sorry I should have cited the pages.

Page 198 DM guide (3.5)
Page 35 DM Guide (3.5)

I was only posting as reference for the topic at hand, I personally have never had to deal with this aspect of D&D yet.


That's a good find! What page did you pull that first section from?



Note: This is godawful terrible advice for a DM and should never be followed. The rest of the section looks legit, though.

Yeah I agree, I don't think I could ever follow through with that. Seems like a dickish move.

[missmvicious]

Man... you need to get access to Arcane Sight or Greater Arcane Sight asap...

:smallconfused: Hmm... looking up the spells.

:smallfrown: Hmm...

:smallcool: COOL! I would like that spell very much! Thank you!