|
Okay, so especially with the new research rules, technically a sorcerer or oracle can as per RAW if they take the money and time learn to cast every spell in the game.
Now, I think that's just crazy so I house rule that you can still learn them, but you have to spend one of your granted spells or take like a favored class bonus to learn them. So if I was crazy and gave a level 1 sorcerer a million gold, they could not research every level 1 spell to add to their spells known.
But, I wanted to see what others think. Am I being too draconian? Should I allow a sorcerer to theoretically have 'known' every spell in the game, or do you go even further and not allow research to add spells to your list?
At the end of the day, it won't actually increase their spells/day limit and would even make them more likely to burn slots instead of saving them. I myself wouldn't really have an issue with it.
Care to link to these new rules? The Core Rulebook says " A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time she attains a new level in her class and never gains spells any other way. "
No, not every spell. If I think a spell is appropriate to that class theme or if a player wants an alternate version of an existing spell that their class already has I allow it.
Sorcerers can actually create new spells, but since they can not immediately "know" the spell they have to wait until they level up. However in my games I allow them to learn the spell immediately since I would also allow a wizard to immediately pen the spell into his spellbook.
The rule has already been clarified but I will add something about the spirit of the rule. That is, is it to powerful to give a player that many options on spells.
In my games the players never have long lengths of time doing nothing, they might get a day of two but never a week as is the minimum for a level 1 spell. If they ever did spend a week doing nothing then the campaign and world would keep moving without them, with all the consequences that would bring.
The other thing, and this comes down to how far you are willing to deviate from the book, is money. If you do not give out lots of money, but give out the items the money would buy, like a master work flaming sword instead of giving the player 1500 gold. If the wizard has no money to pay for the research or doing so would put them in serious debt or left with no cash then it balances out. While the wizard might get 1 extra spell, the other classes just bought a kickass item that may be better than the spell, or they used that money to bribe their way into positions of power or whatever you want really.
so to sum up, I would allow it if they had the time and money to do it but they never do in my games. I do not see it as to powerful as their are ways around it depending upon your play style and how far you are willing to deviate from the book.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't take this the wrong way but I feel bad for your players. Essentially they HAVE to keep doing what you want them to? No breaks to craft items, no breaks to sit down and plan things? Making due with only what you give them with no options to get "just that right item" if you don't want then to have it?
There may be times a group flounders or needs to be pushed, as well as times it is good for the plot to be on a schedule/timer. But all the time? No thanks and I know my group would feel the same way.
On topic, how is researching a spell OP and game breaking again? Oh right, the game isn't fun unless the PCs are vastly limited in options and what they can do...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played a magus that used spell research and had big discussions about the research rules with a friend about them.
Do not use the rules in Ultimate Campaign. As I explained in this thread, the rules were not well thought out and the math completely falls apart beyond the first spell level. A 4th level spell requires over 11k, 28 days, and 56 skill checks that you cannot take 10 on. Whoever wrote these rules obviously did not playtest them at all.
The GameMastery Guide has the best rules for spell research. It does allow a spontaneous caster to create a spell, but it doesn't allow them to cheat their spells known cap. That should be obvious. Spell research is supposed to let you customize your spellcaster.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I notice a lot of people in this thread like to point out that the rules say only wizards can do spell research... Something that has been beat with a dead horse many times over the years and the developers are probably getting tired of saying "All spellcasters can do research"
And no, I'm not going to link any of the many threads that have discussed whether a witch, bard, oracle, magus, sorcerer or cleric can research new spells. They are super easy to find.
Plus, if you are using a book published in 2014 and it contradicts a book published in 2009, then you can't say "Well, this book published in 2009 says this..." because there are exceptions and changes made as new books come out, and the older books don't get magically rewritten or even errataed, since Paizo doesn't even consider errata until a new printing is needed. If you want to have the core rulebook set in adamantine and deny all contradictions and changes in later books, might as well just play a core rulebook only game... and stay away from the forums and FAQ.
|
|
Yeah, despite a few comments I don't think that's really under contention. The only debate is how it works for spontaneous casters - do the actually bypass the spells known limits - or do they just use it to add to the spells they could pick from for spells known - either at the next opportunity or retraining.
Yeah, not a lot I guess but a few. As for the debate, it was determined in another thread (with I think it was James Jacobs saying yes, that's how it's written) that given the time and money using the Ultimate Campaign rules, a sorcerer CAN bypass the spells known limitations. That's why I made this thread separate from that one, so as not to derail that topic about discussion of the Ultimate Campaign rules overall (the thread was more about summoners getting some spells at a lower level and players abusing the research rules to get spells on their list earlier than normal.)
So, by the RAW... a sorcerer can have every spell in the game in their spells known, but is that RAI (JJ said it was, but he always makes clear he's Creative Director, not a rules guy... so don't try to use his quotes to convince me or any other GM) or as I feel it should be, not RAI?
I don't ban the practice of a Wizard doing Wizardly things, but I hedge matters so that there is some control over the process.
1. The Wizard must have encountered the spell, a scroll, writings, circles, etc in some way to know it exists. I seed a lot of custom spells in this way to keep Wizards from trying to power play me.
2. The Wizard must have access to sufficient materials for the level of spell they're trying to research/develop. If the location doesn't have the economy to support a 1500G purchase, then it can't support a 1500G spell research project. This means that even if they have a couple weeks off, it may take them months away from the party to travel to a suitable location. The wizard is retired from the adventure if they are not ready by the time the others in the party are. This is a useful tool if they're going to miss a session, but should discourage this activity during brief break times.
3. Spells over 3rd level require access to advanced facilities normally held by arcane communities (circles, universities and the like) or resources built up over the course of several years. 1,000 copies of the Farmers almanac doesn't a level 5 spell make. You need access to the work of a large number of other spellcasters, their annotations. Sometimes these places can be found, such as an old necromancers' study, but they're never suited for work above the owners level.
4. Any *fully* custom spell requires a full review and won't be immediately granted during that play session. This gives me time to mull it over. By default, the answer is an up front "No, but i'll get back to you next time about it if I change my mind." This also includes any non-core content I have not explicitly included in my campaign. This is a flat rule that goes for any non-core content which I haven't explicitly allowed.
5. Custom spells and attempts to 'invent' unencountered spells can only be done once per level and require an intelligence check DC 10+spell level on top of the normal process. This is a DM roll, and failure by 10 or more means the resulting spell is a backfire/mishap variant of your choosing. This is an otherwise functional (if not hazardous/useless) spell and does consume space in the appropriate spellbook.
Note: Wizards should accumulate large numbers of spells, rituals, quirky cantrips (eg. Erric Tal's Dysfunction), and other things so that they eventually are forced to either lug around multiple spellbooks, or invest time and resources into a place where they can keep their 'master copies'. A lot of time should be spent transcribing spells into travelling spellbooks (etc) so that they aren't virtually useless if they lose their main spellbook (or if it's stolen). In fact, this should happen at least once in their career for good measure. Any spellbook is a very enticing target for thieves and spellcasters alike.
The more creative the DM is in feeding Wizards fun stuff, the less inclined they may be to seek out things beyond their level up benefits.
Most importantly, let players know that the loot and spell tables are not shopping lists. It's the GM's responsibility to not let the tribbles run the granary, or you wind up with a problem you can no longer control.
So, by the RAW... a sorcerer can have every spell in the game in their spells known, but is that RAI (JJ said it was, but he always makes clear he's Creative Director, not a rules guy... so don't try to use his quotes to convince me or any other GM) or as I feel it should be, not RAI?
Only rules as written in the Ultimate Campaign book. As I explained earlier, you shouldn't put much stock in Ultimate Campaign's rules because they're obviously lazily made. The GameMastery Guide's rules differs completley from UC's rules and are more in line with those suggested by the Core Rulebook. GMG's rules do not allow a sorcerer to break their spells known limit. Spell research simply allows a character to create a new spell. The character has to add the spell to their spellbook or spells known the normal way. Spell research is meant to give some flavor and customization to your character. It's not meant to let a spontaneous caster cheat their spells known limit. If the game intended it that way, they'd let sorcerers learn spells from scrolls and there would be no point to items like the Page of Spell Knowledge.
I've allowed it as a GM before and I've not had troubles with it. For spontaneous casters, I don't allow them to create spells at their current maximum spell level. Otherwise, I simply sit down and discuss it with the player from the perspective of "What do you want this spell to do?", we discuss casting time, material components, schools, saves, spell resistance and such, then I find the nearest equivalent spell and use it as a baseline. The player takes some time in game, expends the appropriate amount of resources and we're good to go. I generally do not allow arcane casters to research things that would normally fall clearly in the purview of divine casters, or vice versa. Most of the time, what I end up with is a player saying "I want to play a goblin magus, but I'm tired of shocking grasp. All the alternative spells require dedicated builds to be on par with shocking grasp, or are just so much worse. Could I do shocking grasp, but instead of shocking, fire?" And I say "Sure, the spell is called Hungry Flame. It's shocking grasp, but fire damage. Spend the appropriate amount of gold, take the appropriate amount of time." Usually I er on the side of making a spell slightly underpowered for it's level as opposed to overpowered, and I make it clear that if the player is planning for a specific metamagic feat combo, specific brand of cheese, or whatever else, they have to be upfront about it beforehand.
So far it hasn't caused my games to implode and at least one of my players has made some fairly cool and flavorful spells. I even ended up developing a feat for "Chromatic Wizards" after one player's entire spellbook of chromatic inspired spells. It's been fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played a magus that used spell research and had big discussions about the research rules with a friend about them.
Do not use the rules in Ultimate Campaign. As I explained in this thread, the rules were not well thought out and the math completely falls apart beyond the first spell level. A 4th level spell requires over 11k, 28 days, and 56 skill checks that you cannot take 10 on. Whoever wrote these rules obviously did not playtest them at all.
Clipped to highlight.
If I could, I would carve into a stone tablet,"Number one, thou shall not make any rule that requires 5 or more checks to succeed."Then I would bring it to conventions and try to get game designers to have their pictures taken with it.
And no, I'm not going to link any of the many threads that have discussed whether a witch, bard, oracle, magus, sorcerer or cleric can research new spells. They are super easy to find.
"I want to have a discussion about this obscure possible exploit. You have to do the work to figure out what I'm talking about if you want to join this discussion." This is what I'm getting from what you're saying. :/
At any rate, given some of the other helpful replies here, I've determined that you're referencing the Ultimate Campaign 'Research a Spell' downtime activity.
My opinion still hasn't changed, though. Spontaneous casters cannot exceed their limit of spells known based on class and level. If you want them to in your game… I don't think it would be game breaking. The Ultimate Campaign rules are expensive. If your spontaneous caster has enough disposable income to buy every spell, their ability to learn them is not the problem.
Oh, and for further reference, the GameMastery Guide rules mentioned are in Chapter 5 (Rewards) under PCs Controlling Rewards > Research and Designing Spells on page 114. This doesn't appear to be on the PRD.
The Ultimate Campaign rules are expensive. If your spontaneous caster has enough disposable income to buy every spell, their ability to learn them is not the problem.
And if you're content to have your sorcerer do fourteen skill checks per spell level that you cannot take 10 on...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only rules as written in the Ultimate Campaign book. As I explained earlier, you shouldn't put much stock in Ultimate Campaign's rules because they're obviously lazily made. The GameMastery Guide's rules differs completley from UC's rules and are more in line with those suggested by the Core Rulebook. GMG's rules do not allow a sorcerer to break their spells known limit. Spell research simply allows a character to create a new spell. The character has to add the spell to their spellbook or spells known the normal way. Spell research is meant to give some flavor and customization to your character. It's not meant to let a spontaneous caster cheat their spells known limit. If the game intended it that way, they'd let sorcerers learn spells from scrolls and there would be no point to items like the Page of Spell Knowledge.
Okay, so that's a vote for not allowing it by the RAW of the Ultimate Campaign rules, that's what I'm asking.... what do people think of THOSE rules...
I for one think breaking the spells known is kinda WTF, but I wanted to see what others thought.
Don't take this the wrong way but I feel bad for your players. Essentially they HAVE to keep doing what you want them to? No breaks to craft items, no breaks to sit down and plan things? Making due with only what you give them with no options to get "just that right item" if you don't want then to have it?
There may be times a group flounders or needs to be pushed, as well as times it is good for the plot to be on a schedule/timer. But all the time? No thanks and I know my group would feel the same way.
On topic, how is researching a spell OP and game breaking again? Oh right, the game isn't fun unless the PCs are vastly limited in options and what they can do...
Eh...keeping things moving makes it easier to just tell a story and not stop so the crunchmasters can chew on the rules for a few days. Building challenging encounters for OP players does not contain the same level of fun for every DM. DMs who love to create crunchy games should pair themselves with crunch players and vice versa. When a group of friends want to play together but possesses vastly different playstyles, compromises must be made.
As to how this relates to the OP? Giving Sorcerer's every spell violates one of the essential limiting factors of the class - spells known. Mythic has the same issue - my Sorcerer can cast any spell in the game for 1 Mythic Power, and as a Swift Action! Crazy. My Sorcerer is ridiculous now. My DM still gets to save(and succeeds constantly!), but I have the full array of Pathfinder spells at my disposal. It's obnoxious.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And no, I'm not going to link any of the many threads that have discussed whether a witch, bard, oracle, magus, sorcerer or cleric can research new spells. They are super easy to find."I want to have a discussion about this obscure possible exploit. You have to do the work to figure out what I'm talking about if you want to join this discussion." This is what I'm getting from what you're saying. :/
At any rate, given some of the other helpful replies here, I've determined that you're referencing the Ultimate Campaign 'Research a Spell' downtime activity.
My opinion still hasn't changed, though. Spontaneous casters cannot exceed their limit of spells known based on class and level. If you want them to in your game… I don't think it would be game breaking. The Ultimate Campaign rules are expensive. If your spontaneous caster has enough disposable income to buy every spell, their ability to learn them is not the problem.
Ironically, in taking the time to do what I said I would not do because the "Only wizards can research spells" dead horse has been beaten to death, and copying and pasting as many threads about it as I could find, I found the very answer to my question here from Sean K. Reynolds.
2) No, a bard or sorcerer can't use spell research to increase the number of spells known. Spell research allows you to say, "I've leveled up and can learn new spells, but none of the printed spells are something I want to learn, so I'm going to research a totally new spell."
He also in this thread explains the intent behind the UC rules and when they are meant to be used, or when the GMG rules should be used instead.
The GMG method expands and clarifies the brief info presented in the Core Rulebook, and is a system where you make weekly checks.
The Ultimate Campaign method is designed for use with the downtime system, which is based on days rather than weeks.If you are using the downtime system, use the method presented in Ultimate Campaign. If not, use the Core Rulebook/GMG method.
That said, it really needs to be FAQed IMO, because it does tend to suggest that it allows sorcerers and oracles to bypass spells known, and many players (not just me) read it that way (even as most of us thought it was screwed up)
|
|
Eh...keeping things moving makes it easier to just tell a story and not stop so the crunchmasters can chew on the rules for a few days. Building challenging encounters for OP players does not contain the same level of fun for every DM. DMs who love to create crunchy games should pair themselves with crunch players and vice versa. When a group of friends want to play together but possesses vastly different playstyles, compromises must be made.As to how this relates to the OP? Giving Sorcerer's every spell violates one of the essential limiting factors of the class - spells known. Mythic has the same issue - my Sorcerer can cast any spell in the game for 1 Mythic Power, and as a Swift Action! Crazy. My Sorcerer is ridiculous now. My DM still gets to save(and succeeds constantly!), but I have the full array of Pathfinder spells at my disposal. It's obnoxious.
If I am not mistaken, that reply was to the guy above his post, not to me. If I am correct in thinking that, I agree with him completely. I'd never play with that guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
---Okay, so that's a vote for not allowing it by the RAW of the Ultimate Campaign rules, that's what I'm asking.... what do people think of THOSE rules...
I for one think breaking the spells known is kinda WTF, but I wanted to see what others thought.
You're absolutely justified to reacting that way. As Sean K Reynold says, spell research is meant to will new spells into existance, not cheat your class limitations. Ultimate Campaign's spell research rules should be FAQ'd, eratta'd, and completely rewritten. They and many other downtime rules were haphazardly made. One should take anything from the downtime rules with a grain of salt and a few shots of Tequila.
I not only allow my players to make their own spells, but I encourage it. My players do many downtime activities. The gunslinger recently built a galleon and commissioned a firearm research and development plant. He's traveling from city to city, searching for artificers to hire and build the most unique magitech guns the Inner Sea has ever seen. I don't use UC's downtime system, but I do the buildings and teams content. Those are pretty well done.
Do not use the rules in Ultimate Campaign. As I explained in this thread, the rules were not well thought out and the math completely falls apart beyond the first spell level. A 4th level spell requires over 11k, 28 days, and 56 skill checks that you cannot take 10 on. Whoever wrote these rules obviously did not playtest them at all.
I haven't read through the rules for spell research in quite a while, but my interpretation is that they were more like guidelines (it seemed awfully grey) for what a DM might allow a player to do to get a homebrew spell or spell not on their spell list. If that's the case then I would consider the extreme cost and difficulty a feature instead of a bug, in principle at least even if the actual implementation is poor (really 56 rolls?). If it was easy then someone would have already made and popularized an arcane version of -insert awesome divine only spell- by now.
That really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand, but in regards to the actual topic, spell research is incredibly hard and expensive it seems. With that in mind, sure Sorcerer, just add it your spells known if you are willing to go through all that.
Wow just wow.
The "logic" in this thread seems to be that the game designers must restate all core rules that are to be kept in place for clarity in the current/future products, otherwise someone will think that that table listing number of spells known was a suggestion......
They need to say once, that any restrictions not removed by these rules are still in force. They can add that to the errata.
If you have been on these boards long enough, you have heard me whine about a player wasting an entire night because the rules don't state,"You can't fumble the crit confirmation roll." A one only means you don't crit. You still hit normally. It has to be said.
To the OP: I would not allow it. If the player kept on arguing after I said no, their character would get hit by a 6D6 bolt of lightning from out of thin air. I didn't use to be that way, but one poor sport spoils it for everyone. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow just wow.
The "logic" in this thread seems to be that the game designers must restate all core rules that are to be kept in place for clarity in the current/future products, otherwise someone will think that that table listing number of spells known was a suggestion......
I agree that in that case it does need to be fixed.
Ultimate Campaign does say "When your days of progress equal the total number of days needed, the spell is completed and added to your spellbook or list of spells known."
It was just like the pre-FAQ "Snapshot" which said you can fire your bow because you threaten with it, however per RAW drawing ammunition is a free action and not legal outside of your turn. So common sense dictated that the feat was overriding that rule, even if it did not explicitly say so. The same logic was applied with the ultimate campaign rule over riding the sorcerer limit.
@ Kinderkin: The logic is more like when something contradicts a core rule it should be detailed as to how it breaks the core rule, and which rules still have to be followed. The UC rule implies that the spell is gained as soon as the work is not, not "when you level up" which is really when the spell is gain.
It should say something such as ---> Spontaneous casters have completed the research when their days of progress equal the total number of days needed", but they still may not add to the spell to their list of spells known until they level up.
I actually do see an issue that could use an FAQ, or at least a second pass. In the CRB it costs 1000 times spell level, in the UC it costs 100. Is that an intentional reduction in price or a typo? Because it REALLY changes things, and I'm not even sure how you would use magic resource for a 1st level spell, isn't 1 point worth like 200 gold?
...
That's per day. All downtime activities are done on a per day basis. Each day, you spend 100 gp per spell level and make two skill checks. It takes 7 days of progress per spell level to finish researching a spell. That means it costs a total of 700*(spell level)^2 gp and requires 14 skill checks per spell level to complete. You cannot take 10 on any of these checks and you risk losing days of progress.
That's why I highly discourage anyone from taking UC's rules seriously.
It's too powerful, and it doesn't work, but an "all-the-spells" sorcerer wouldn't be impossible to handle, just overpowered.
There's many overpowered and broken mechanics/rules can be "handled." That doesn't stop them from being broken or overpowered.
I think The Page of Spell Knowledge is badly broken. A sorcerer could have 100 of them in their backpack and doesn't have to actively use them. They are not even spinning around their head within easy reach of enemies.
You want to play a broken game, go ahead. As long as you're having fun.
Don't you have to read the page of spell knowledge to use it? I know that's been hotly debated. Even so, it's not as good as simply learning the spell because you have to have the page on your person and it can get destroyed
Don't you have to read the page of spell knowledge to use it? I know that's been hotly debated. Even so, it's not as good as simply learning the spell because you have to have the page on your person and it can get destroyed
Well, yeah, allowing sorcerers to buy unlimited spells known is worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think The Page of Spell Knowledge is badly broken. A sorcerer could have 100 of them in their backpack and doesn't have to actively use them. They are not even spinning around their head within easy reach of enemies.
You want to play a broken game, go ahead. As long as you're having fun.
Pages of Spell Knowledge are absurdly expensive, especially in bulk, so I really have no idea how you think they are over powered at all.
Pages of Spell Knowledge are absurdly expensive, especially in bulk, so I really have no idea how you think they are over powered at all.I think The Page of Spell Knowledge is badly broken. A sorcerer could have 100 of them in their backpack and doesn't have to actively use them. They are not even spinning around their head within easy reach of enemies.
You want to play a broken game, go ahead. As long as you're having fun.
In theory. In practice, some PCs have figured out how to sell a dungeon to the walls, and then sell every other stone block from the walls. Maybe you managed to enforce WBL. I would rather ban The Page of Spell Knowledge then try to enforce auto robbing characters.