Spell Research to Duplicate Pre-existing Spells?

[Yorae]

Just thought I'd ask for an opinion - in the playground's various opinions, is it kosher to replicate spells that already exist via new spell research?

For example, do you think a wizard could spend a week's research and 1000gp to research a 1st level spell that is identical to Shield of Faith?

I mean, obviously they shouldn't be able to replicate something like Cure Light Wounds, since that's far outside the flavor, but in the above case?

[Twilightwyrm]

Depends on what spell it is honestly. For instance, I am perfectly fine with a wizard replicating Animate Object, for instance, since it can be thematically appropriate to a wizard. Shield of Faith...I'm not quite so sure in that case. The fact that it is faith based seems to indicate divine origin, which, except for selective cases, does not fall into the domain of a wizard.

[redzimmer]

Perhaps when a spell of a divine nature is replicated it should involve a monetary, physical or XP sacrifice.

This would amount for the lack of "faith" replace with self-sacrifice.

For example, a CLW could be replicated, if the caster we to lose the equivalent 1d8+5 hp.
Or for a replication of Aid, the caster sacrifices 10 xp per spell level of HP and associated bonuses.

Instead of the power invested by a deity or other power, the arcane caster invests him/herself into the spell.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Just thought I'd ask for an opinion - in the playground's various opinions, is it kosher to replicate spells that already exist via new spell research?

The wording Pathfinder rules on spell research seem to support it.


For example, do you think a wizard could spend a week's research and 1000gp to research a 1st level spell that is identical to Shield of Faith?

I don't see why not, so long as you refluffed it.

[Slipperychicken]

I think it's reasonable to let a Wizard replicate existing non-Wizard spells, albeit with some significant drawback, like a costly material component and/or spell level increase as appropriate (Bard spells would be two or three levels higher, Cleric would be one or two). Higher level spells (level 5 or up, after adjustment) which do not appear on the Wizard list could not be researched.

I would be very wary about allowing this, since Wizards already have a tremendous spell list, and ways to get pretty much any effect they want. It can also blur the lines between casting classes, fluffwise. It also raises the question of why Wizards don't have every spell in the game on their list, if someone could have just researched it before. WotC had reasons for not giving Wizards every spell on their list.

The DM should use great discretion, and disallow spell-research whenever it would step on other casters toes.

[NichG]

I don't like the idea of mushy class boundaries for casters, so I'd lean against allowing duplication of a spell that isn't on their list. Basically casters are so versatile already that they can do 'nearly everything' - turning that into 'literally everything' worsens an existing bad problem (that said, I've always thought it'd be feasible to break Wizard down into 'one school of magic only' subclasses, and each of those would be perfectly playable on its own when you include all the spells that have been published)

I've recently been toying around with a 'systematic' set of guidelines for spell research. Basically, you can invent a new spell by A. Changing a material component of an existing spell, or B. Combining two spells that you can cast into a new spell, resulting in a spell that somehow synthesizes those two components into a new, but related effect. So basically you couldn't just say 'I want Bear's Endurance, but I want it to be a sacred bonus instead of enhancement'. You might be able to do it as an Insight bonus by combining with, say, Moment of Prescience though, but because MoP is an 8th level spell the result would be an 8th or 9th level spell - not because thats the balance point for that effect, but because you made it in a screwy way.

[jackattack]

Yes.

But I think the resulting spell should have some basic differences that make it slightly less useful, but maybe a bit flashier.

For example, Create Food and Water is a divine spell that has the potential to feed 60 people three square meals (or one large meal) of "simple fare... highly nourishing, if rather bland." I would allow a wizard to create a Feast spell that provided one "fine" meal and drink per level -- one third (or one ninth) as much effect, a more enjoyable meal. I might also throw in a craft skill check (cooking) for good measure, or restrict it to food the caster has eaten before (so he knows what it tastes like).

A lot of spells restricted to classes appear in literature (classic and modern) ascribed to what we would consider a different character class, and there are also spells restricted to classes that make complete sense for other classes (like allowing a court wizard to conjure up a meal fit for a king).

[planswalker]

that one is explicitly left up to DM purview. Therefore, it's up to your dm.

In general, I'd say no. That's not the intention of that rule as I read it. and "RAW" arguments for guidelines like this will quickly devolve into everyone taking the words written, picking their favorite definitions and interpreting it to mean what they want and is a useless discussion. There are no hard and fast rules about that.

I don't tend to use that rule at all, as I feel it's been outdated by the wealth of non-core spells out there. I can see how, when there were only Core spells in 3.0/3.5, there was some need to homebrew a lot of spells to help differentiate spellcasters. But I've found that there are enough different published spells out there that I haven't ever been unable to find a spell appropriate for my needs.

using the custom spell research rules to cheeze up giving yourself spells off someone else's list rubs me all kinds of wrong ways.

[Togo]

I see no problem with researching a spell that is already similar to existing spells on your own list. If you can describe sheild of faith in terms of existing wizard spells, then go right ahead and design a spell similar to existing wizard spells, that works like shield of faith. And as a DM I'll put a level and limits and so on on the spell that will, at best, make it inferior to sheild of faith in almost every way.

One of the problems with doing even this is that once you have your spell that's now available to wizards, you can then base magic items off that spell and get magic item effects that previously weren't available to wizards.

I'd show similar caution in allowing spells that duplicated other classes class abilities, or even feat chains. Part of the point of the class structure in D&D is to make sure that characters pay well over the odds for abilities that are a special feature of someone else's class.

[Curmudgeon]

Generally only if the spell is consistent with the class. Shield of Faith isn't at all consistent with the Wizard class, so I would never allow that addition. If a player wants that spell they'll need to pick up some divine spellcasting. Now, for a Druid or Ranger (already divine spellcasters), it would be reasonable if modified with a significant material component like a 50 gp holy text. ("Being at one with nature" isn't the same as having faith in a protective higher power, so a significant profession of faith should be required.)

[Psyren]

Put me in the "no" camp, for the same reason that I wouldn't allow a psion to research Planar Binding. As I often say, full-casters are powerful enough without reading each other's cliff-notes.

[Diarmuid]

I think it's fine...but my group usually uses the suggestion from the 2E Tome of Magic (I think) that says is you're simply recreating a spell off your list it needs to be at least 1 level higher for you (pending DM approval). The "or higher" was in place in 2E because at the time clerics only got up to level 7 spells while wizards got 9's so there was some potential for serious discrepency.

[eggs]

I don't see why a Wizard shouldn't be able to research a spell that grants a scaling deflection bonus to AC, but I think it's sleazy to have a direct copy of Shield of Faith.

With some minor nerfs (adding a spell level, or bumping the numeric values down a bit), I'm fine with this sort of thing, but a direct translation is a bit much.