Risks of Spell Research

[Palanan]

Has anyone used a variant in which conducting spell research poses some hazard to the researcher?

And should there be a risk in developing a new spell? The more I think about it, the more it stands to reason there would be some danger involved. Even well-informed tinkering with the fabric of reality can sometimes give you a nasty rug burn.

:smalltongue:

[Kazudo]

Has anyone used a variant in which conducting spell research poses some hazard to the researcher?

And should there be a risk in developing a new spell? The more I think about it, the more it stands to reason there would be some danger involved. Even well-informed tinkering with the fabric of reality can sometimes give you a nasty rug burn.

:smalltongue:

It would depend pretty heavily on what kinda spell we're talking about. A cantrip? Level 1-4? Nah. Not really. 5-9? Yeah, something. Typically I reach back to 2nd ed when it comes to things like that. Whenever a player researches a spell, if they fail the prerequisites by a certain amount (but not by enough to outright fail altogether), then it appears to work but upon being used there's a % chance of spectacular failure, typically along the lines of cursed magical item effects (omitting certain ones, naturally)

[Agincourt]

As for whether there should be a potential drawback, I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I like the flavor of it. It gives some depth to magic and its nature.

But on the other hand, magical research is not something my group tends to do often. I'm not sure if that is typical, but many characters can come and go before one of them decides to research a spell and this would make that even less of an option. Also, this would be one of the few areas where D&D magic seems to have the sense that wielding magic can be dangerous for the wielder as well as the target. Generally, spells do just want the caster wants them to do.

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder, there is a variant rule called spellblights, and these can afflict you if you're unlucky under a variety of circumstances. One of these circumstances is if you roll badly on creating a magic item, so I see no reason not to extend that to developing a new spell as well.

[icefractal]

I think the question is what benefit the magic research gives you, and if that's good enough to make dangerous side effects justified.

IME, custom spells are usually held to the same standards as normal spells, so you couldn't, for example, make a custom spell that was like Haste, but better, and still 3rd level. In that case, why throw in additional risks? The character isn't gaining any more power than they would normally have, just some personalized flavor, and adding additional penalties will make that unlikely.

Now if custom spells are actually better than normal spells, even by a relatively minor amount, then the research is a power gain, and adding dangers to it is fair play. Of course, then you have the issue of sharing those custom spells.

[Kazudo]

I actually did run a game that used "reverse metamagics" as optional feats, saying that you COULD get haste as, say, a 2nd level spell, but it came with an inherent spell failure chance of something like 25% per spell level and had to be prepared as metamagic that morning, with each option levying an additional penalty depending on what you went with.

[Psyren]

I think the question is what benefit the magic research gives you, and if that's good enough to make dangerous side effects justified.

IME, custom spells are usually held to the same standards as normal spells, so you couldn't, for example, make a custom spell that was like Haste, but better, and still 3rd level. In that case, why throw in additional risks? The character isn't gaining any more power than they would normally have, just some personalized flavor, and adding additional penalties will make that unlikely.

Now if custom spells are actually better than normal spells, even by a relatively minor amount, then the research is a power gain, and adding dangers to it is fair play. Of course, then you have the issue of sharing those custom spells.

The question arises though - if a custom spell isn't better than what they already have access to, why are they researching it in the first place? I'd love to see a case where a character is intentionally spending the time, money (and in 3.5, XP) to research something worse than what he can do without research.

[MadGreenSon]

Might also make for an interesting rule/setting if spells that you research and create yourself will just work better for you than anyone else.

Guy who invented Haste? His Haste was better than anyone else's since. (The ultimate Swiftblade?)

If you go into Mordenkainen's own Magnificent Mansion? Welcome to the Pleasuredome! :smallbiggrin:

Bigby's pimp Hands were stronger than yours.

Why do you think Halaster was able to throw an unbreakable Halaster's Teleport Cage around Undermountain?

Gods help you if Mordenkainen feels like throwing a Disjunction at you...

Might be fun to make it so that if someone invents a spell, there will be the "everyone version" and the "inventor version" that's just a bit better because the inventor of the spell will always understand it the best and feel the spell more than someone who just comes along and learns it.

I'm not suggesting a whole level of difference or something completely OP, but a tweak or two for the inventor might make spell research more attractive, explaining why you see so much about it in the fluff, but never in games from PCs.

[Zaq]

Basically, that depends on what the effect is going to be at the table.

If you're ("you" in this case being the generic "you," or perhaps even a generic GM) just using it as a backdoor to screw over a PC who wants to engage in spell research, then that seems mean-spirited to me. No, this isn't a case of turning "no" into "yes, but . . .". It just isn't. Or at least, that's not how it's supposed to work.

I mean, I'm torn. Does it go like this?

PC: "I want to research a new spell [ed. note: that the GM would normally find within the bounds of acceptability]."

GM: "Okay, but spell research is dangerous, and you'll have a chance of stuff going wrong."

PC: "That's fine."

*Downtime occurs*

PC: "Okay, I'm researching my spell now."

GM: *roll roll roll* "Oops, looks like the spell exploded on you, and now you've got a penalty to CL when you cast illusion spells. And no new spell."

PC: "Well, shucks and dang."

--alternate universe--

GM: *roll roll roll* "Okay, you research the spell."

PC: "Hooray."

Because that's probably closest to okay in my mind, but I'm not sure if it actually makes the game better. If you think it does make the game better, then by all means, have fun.

Or would it be more like this?

PC: "I want a new spell."

GM: "Okay, go ahead. You research your new spell."

PC: "I cast my new spell."

GM: *roll roll roll* "EVERYTHING IS NOW ON FIRE and also you're allergic to your familiar, who cries big fat tears of loneliness because you can't hug him anymore."

PC: "**** you, GM."

--alternate universe--

GM: *roll roll roll* "Okay, you cast your new spell. This time."

PC: "Hooray."

Then that's just being mean. Perhaps in an exaggerated and hyperbolic manner, but you get my point, I hope.

Basically, when does the failure come into play? Is it just a cost associated with spell research, guaranteed to happen? Something that MIGHT come up when researching a new spell but might not? Something that has a chance of happening every time a new spell is cast?

I guess the point is to start from your at-the-table goal and work backwards. If you want to give spell research a chance of failure, that's one thing (though I would caution against using such tactics as a means of weakening spell research, since "well, it might not have ever hit the table at all, so it's okay for it to be more powerful than usual" is not much of an excuse once the OP spell is at the table and being cast with abandon). If you want to make a new spell have an extra level of failure once it's being actually cast, that's an entirely different balance issue, and it actually kind of does justify a higher power level. If you just want a backdoor method of screwing over a player whose custom spell might prove to be more powerful than you're expecting, stop right there, and find another method. Because that's just going to lead to bad blood.

What's the goal of making spell research "risky"? How do you want that to affect your game? That's the real question.

[Deophaun]

Spell research is never going to be risky for the simple fact that it's a Spellcraft check. Spellcraft checks are easy to pump, and you can just take 10 on it anyway. Heck, by RAW, a level 2 Wizard with an 18 Int and 5 ranks in Spellcraft can take 10 and hit the DC necessary to research a level 9 spell.

[Keneth]

Yes. And it's also a decent plot hook.

While I encourage spell research in my games, the checks are also pretty hard to make, and the spell may end up being different. Or the spellcaster may end up being different. :smallbiggrin:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Agincourt
Also, this would be one of the few areas where D&D magic seems to have the sense that wielding magic can be dangerous for the wielder as well as the target.

Indeed. I'm not coming to this with any particular agenda, other than curiosity; but I do like the notion that magic, especially upper-level magic, can be dangerous for all concerned.

As much as I like 3.5, much of the magic ends up having a rather perfunctory, utilitarian feel. One way to think about this, perhaps, is that the standard spell list in the PHB represents the minimum safe magic for each spell level--the tried-and-true standard effects. Researching something that goes beyond that envelope...might have consequences; one never knows. After all, there may be a reason the spell you're researching isn't already in wide circulation....

Again, I'm not approaching this with any particular goal in mind, just wondering.


Originally Posted by Psyren
In Pathfinder, there is a variant rule called spellblights, and these can afflict you if you're unlucky under a variety of circumstances.

Interesting, thanks. Is this in the CRB, or Ultimate Magic?


Originally Posted by MadGreenSon
Might also make for an interesting rule/setting if spells that you research and create yourself will just work better for you than anyone else.

And this is a very cool idea, thank you.




Originally Posted by Zaq
If you just want a backdoor method of screwing over a player whose custom spell might prove to be more powerful than you're expecting, stop right there, and find another method.

I'm really not sure what it says that this honestly never occurred to me.

[Psyren]

Interesting, thanks. Is this in the CRB, or Ultimate Magic?

Ultimate Magic; they're also online (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/spellblights) if you'd like to take a look.

[Palanan]

Thanks very much for the link, also looks interesting.