| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 01:32:22
In the next campaign Im running Im going to limit my players to spells in the PHB. If they want to use spells from other books than have to get them from other Wizards or characters can research them themselves.
Has anyone seen a method for determing the success of researching spells?
If not I was thinking of using something like this
1d100 + Spell caster* level + Arcane/Religion Skill modifier - Level of the spell being researched
*Multi class characters with spell casting levels dont stack
For example Bob a 6th Wizard wants to develope Giants Wrath (A 3rd level Wizard spell from Spell Compendium)
Bobs Knowledge Arcane Skill modifier is 10
Bob rolls percentiles and gets 63
63+6+10= 79-3= 76
Spell success table
1-25 Major Failure
26-50 Minor failure
51-75 Minor Success
76-100 Sucess
Major Failure: An explosion occurs dealing 5d6 of damage to Bob and anyone else in the room with him all equipment in the room is destroyed
Minor Failure: It doesnt work. All equipment ok and there isnt an explosion
Minor success: Bob has successfully researched Giants wrath but he hasnt quite got the gist of it. The spell is now avaliable but its a 4th level spell instead of a 3rd
Success: Complete success Bob may now memorise Giants wrath as a 3rd level spell it will be known in the setting as Bobs Giant wrath
Bob also gets 300xp for successfully creatiing a new spell (100xp per level of spell researched)
|
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Beirnadri Magranth |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 18:02:19
what is the problem with how they do it in the rules? having it require a feat DRASTICALLY reduces the power of wizards!!!! |
| Fletcher |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 16:21:48
One thing I am currently trying in my campaign is the following. Any spell in the PHB is available, anything that is region specific can be found if you travel to the region.
To create a new spell, I made it a FEAT. Craft Spell. Just like any of the other craft feats.
So far only one player has decided that it is worth it to put a feat into the ability. It seems to be working, and the players don't seem too disgruntled over the limitation. Some even seem to agree with it. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 03:00:15
I wonder if we'll see something on this sort of stuff in Power of Faerun.....
Hopefully Mat Smith will reveal some PoF stuff in Febuary and beyond |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 02:57:00
You run again into bookkeeping, if you say a certain spell is cast at a higher level. A difference to keeping track of a fireball reseached needs a level 4 slot instead of three, The bookkeepimg might not be too much of a problem, but that will depend on how many spells are reseached.
Yes a sucess could in effect make a spell specised, but then you and player needs to keep track of them.
There clearly could be a better scheme to learn spells without spellcraft or knowlegde that provide an incentive to spend time to try to develpe magic. The type of thing you re talking about are requiring players to try to import splat book spells. The risks should balance the benefits, the design should be of one that reduces paperwork. Which is why I look for pay a cost and you get to add to spell book (or known spells) if you suceed, you get a better chance to add to spell book (or known spells) on retry. Using the KIS concept that is compatible with d20 system. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 02:37:36
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Hmmm maybe change Major failure to a roll on the Wild Magic table?
Err Wild magic can be worst then death sometimes. I would lose Major failure unless you include a Major sucess for a good roll. A 20 (or 75 or better) the spell is always maximised or some other indication of sucess that compensates better for the risk of failure. I clearly would charge something for reseach and I would not award ex points for sucess, in your example 300 ex. pts. for a 6th level spell slingermatters little and under 3.X system the award of points for creation of magic has been eliminated.
Hmm perhaps Major success could be: You always cast this spell as if you where one level higher |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 02:20:38
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Hmmm maybe change Major failure to a roll on the Wild Magic table?
Err Wild magic can be worst then death sometimes. I would lose Major failure unless you include a Major sucess for a good roll. A 20 (or 75 or better) the spell is always maximised or some other indication of sucess that compensates better for the risk of failure. I clearly would charge something for reseach and I would not award ex points for sucess, in your example 300 ex. pts. for a 6th level spell slingermatters little and under 3.X system the award of points for creation of magic has been eliminated. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 02:12:48
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
This a quick reaction, knowledge ranks could be a modified though I would increase base DC and the ability should be available to all spell casting classes on an equal base.
Spellcraft is the proper skill for this, not Knowledge(arcana); see page 19 of Tome and Blood.
"Synergy
If you have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (arcana), you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks.
If you have 5 or more ranks in Use Magic Device, you get a +2 bonus on Spellcraft checks to decipher spells on scrolls."
Okay not from ToM, but a core rule that I disagree with. Clearly when reseaching a new spell, the Bard, Cleric, Ranger and Soceror should be on an even standing. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 02:10:33
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well older editions had spell research, not sure I have seen any 3.X rules yet, except the Epic rules (seeds and all of that).
I am not sure I would use a d100 for resuslts and your foumular allows for a score of greater then 100.
Also the idea of making a third level spell forth level hods problems.
I would removemajor spell failure, the game design infers that arcane casters are always trying to learn spells, which explains why gaining a level they know more spells and half the time they can cast a higher spell slot.
It would be cleaner to use a learn not learn formular, it gets rid of some of the bugs I see.
Reseach time = 1 day per spell level (0 level still requiring one day)
Material cost 50 gp X spell level (0 level cost 25)
Reseach sucess DC 20 + spell level vs d20 + stat modifier (Int, Wis, Cha depending on class).
Can not take 10 or 20 on the check.
Retry: Yes with a +1 nodifier to DC check, stacks (that is if you fail twive you get a +2 to check).
This a quick reaction, knowledge ranks could be a modified though I would increase base DC and the ability should be available to all spell casting classes on an equal base.
The time for reseach and cost might alsi might need to be adjusted. I do not believe you should kill a first level mage for reseaching a spell and getting a roll of 1.
Hmmm maybe change Major failure to a roll on the Wild Magic table? |
| Beirnadri Magranth |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 02:01:35
do u people think that there is a Faerunian style of researching spells? like would there be any traditions already for how to go about it? it seems like an intersting way to add flavor to the campaign setting |
| Arivia |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 02:00:59
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
This a quick reaction, knowledge ranks could be a modified though I would increase base DC and the ability should be available to all spell casting classes on an equal base.
Spellcraft is the proper skill for this, not Knowledge(arcana); see page 19 of Tome and Blood. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 01:58:57
Well older editions had spell research, not sure I have seen any 3.X rules yet, except the Epic rules (seeds and all of that).
I am not sure I would use a d100 for resuslts and your foumular allows for a score of greater then 100.
Also the idea of making a third level spell forth level hods problems.
I would removemajor spell failure, the game design infers that arcane casters are always trying to learn spells, which explains why gaining a level they know more spells and half the time they can cast a higher spell slot.
It would be cleaner to use a learn not learn formular, it gets rid of some of the bugs I see.
Reseach time = 1 day per spell level (0 level still requiring one day)
Material cost 50 gp X spell level (0 level cost 25)
Reseach sucess DC 20 + spell level vs d20 + stat modifier (Int, Wis, Cha depending on class).
Can not take 10 or 20 on the check.
Retry: Yes with a +1 nodifier to DC check, stacks (that is if you fail twive you get a +2 to check).
This a quick reaction, knowledge ranks could be a modified though I would increase base DC and the ability should be available to all spell casting classes on an equal base.
The time for reseach and cost might alsi might need to be adjusted. I do not believe you should kill a first level mage for reseaching a spell and getting a roll of 1. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 01:58:00
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
This is one of those things that suffers from really bad organization in the 3.5 DMG-it's one of those bits they just decided to stick somewhere random. I had to look in Tome and Blood and the 3.0 DMG(!) to get a clue where it is. See page 198 of the 3.5 DMG.
Ah thanks.. Hmmmm I think I like my idea better. A DC 10+ spell level Spellcraft check is a little to simple |
| Arivia |
Posted - 30 Jan 2006 : 01:47:25
This is one of those things that suffers from really bad organization in the 3.5 DMG-it's one of those bits they just decided to stick somewhere random. I had to look in Tome and Blood and the 3.0 DMG(!) to get a clue where it is. See page 198 of the 3.5 DMG. |
