Unreasonable cost for researching a cantrip?

[Frogsplosion]

so I wanted to be a fire focused blaster mage for a camapign coming up, and I asked my DM for a Firebolt cantrip that's identical to ray of frost or acid splash. He wants me to use the spell research rules which would cost an absolutely outrageous 500 gp and a week of time in game instead of starting with it.

First of all, it's a cantrip, it's going to be useless in two levels, and second it's turning cold or acid into fire damage, which is essentially a nerf because more things are resistant/immune to fire damage than anything else.

Do other DMs find this unreasonable? because I certainly do, Firebolt should already exist as far as I'm concerned.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Unreasonable? Probably. But spell research in general is opening the floodgates for a legion of potential abuses to the point many GMs (rightfully imo) just ban it outright as player options.

I'd honestly say count yourself lucky he's even allowing you to do this at all.

[Frogsplosion]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Unreasonable? Probably. But spell research in general is opening the floodgates for a legion of potential abuses to the point many GMs (rightfully imo) just ban it outright as player options.

I'd honestly say count yourself lucky he's even allowing you to do this at all.

what does wanting a cantrip that does 1d3 fire damage have anything to do with spell research? my point is it should already exist to start with.

[Tarik Blackhands]

But it doesn't. Logically you'd figure there'd be one for each element but there ain't so research is needed. Some GMs could just handwave you to pick the element for (element) splash once at char creation, this one didn't as he is fully within his rights to do.

[MageHunter]

Rich Parents Trait?

:)

I think there is a reason firebolt isn't a thing. Your have to ask a DEV.

[QuidEst]

I might allow it for free if you don't have anything that benefits from fire damage specifically and just want it for flavor reasons. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to charge full price for something the rules normally don't allow (researching a spell that is just an energy type change of an existing spell).

Many blaster approaches allow you to convert evocation spells to a particular damage type, though, so you can always go that route.

[Daedalaman]

Elemental bloodline sorcerers have the ability to change the type of energy damage a spell does to their element....or maybe its draconic...my sorcerer who can do that is crossblooded. One gives an extra point of damage to each die of a type that matches his element and the other gives the ability to change the type of energy damage dealt. I forget which is which.

[john mclaughlin 11]

there is a cantrip from 3rd it's called finger of fire 1d3 fire

[Lemartes]

Pay it, name the spell after your pc...then charge other wizards for copying it out of your spell book to recoup your costs. Become famous. Get groupies. ;)

[Daedalaman]

I think its a little ridiculous for it to be in game time. The 500gp sounds a little high for a 0 level spell, but its probably acceptable if you do what MageHunter suggests and use the Rich Parents trait. But I would argue that you should have been able to have paid for it and researched it before the game starts. Taking a week of in game time would derail the plot a lot in most campaigns and practically all of the APs.

[Phntm888]

Oitluke, Bigby, and Melf definitely had the right business plan.

If you knew a similar spell (e.g. ray of frost), I personally might discount you, but I would still have you spend minimum 300 gp. Think about what actually goes into that research: proper equipment for your workspace, materials, locating similar works done by other Wizards. Each failed iteration that does something incorrectly would cost materials, replicating the experiment until it works the appropriate way 100% of the time...while the game may hand wave all of that into a single roll, time, and a cost in gold, in the game world, researching a new spell is a major undertaking, even for something as simple as a cantrip. If it were simple, even at a gold cost, every NPC Wizard would have their own, unique spells that no other Wizard would know, and it would make encounter design a nightmare. Heck, every PC could have unique spells that upset the game balance in ways that the designers aren't prepared for.

[Decimus Drake]

I would argue that it is not essentially a nerf as the OP claims as don't think damage resistance occurs with much frequency at the low level where the cantrip would be useful though this is campaign dependant. In fact such a spell would be as though it were two cantrips in one; with the 1d3 damage of ray of frost/acid splash and the utility of spark.

[Dastis]

Ask if you can set things on fire with it from a range. If so its reasonable. If not grab jolt(ultimate cantrips post) then ask how come you can't set things on fire

[QuidEst]

Dastis wrote:

Ask if you can set things on fire with it from a range. If so its reasonable. If not grab jolt(ultimate cantrips post) then ask how come you can't set things on fire

Because there's a separate cantrip to light things on fire, so allowing it to set things on fire and do damage would be two cantrips.

[Cavall]

I don't think learning a new way to bend arcane energies in a week is very much to ask.

That being said he could make it a week per level, and a 0 being 3.5 days.

[MageHunter]

QuidEst wrote:

Dastis wrote:

Ask if you can set things on fire with it from a range. If so its reasonable. If not grab jolt(ultimate cantrips post) then ask how come you can't set things on fire

Because there's a separate cantrip to light things on fire, so allowing it to set things on fire and do damage would be two cantrips.

The actual magical explanation is that the fire is magical, and instantaneous, so it can't actually burn, merely harm. However a more continuous lasting flame could certainly do the trick, or spark.