One of the major compromises that all role-playing games make is that at some point the rules will have to sacrifice some degree of specificity in favor of playability. No game, after all, can model reality down to the most minute detail.
Indeed, one could say that the difference between RPGs is nothing more than the degree to which they balance the granularity of their model of the game world’s reality with how “game-able” their rules are.
Not all areas of this model are necessarily equal, of course. Certain things, such as combat, can be modeled to a much greater or lesser degree than others, such as economics. But perhaps the hardest things to model are those which have no analogue in our real world, a big example of that being magic.
That might sound counter-intuitive at first. After all, having no basis in reality means that we have the freedom to set it however we want in the game world, does it not? Well yes, it does…but this means that, having no existing model on which to draw (existing game systems now withstanding), we’re likely to make errors regarding its internal consistency, or worse, forget relevant parts of the system altogether.
One such forgotten element is, in D&D 3.X and Pathfinder, the ability to independently research and create new spells.
Re-Searching for Answers
The issue of (the lack of rules and guidelines, as well as in-character analogues for) spell research in D&D and Pathfinder isn’t a big deal, comparatively speaking. You can – and I suspect that many, if not most, of you have – run successful campaigns without this particular problem ever cropping up.
However, it is part of the background assumptions of the game world. Wizards, for example, are said to be researching new spells as they adventure, and that’s why they gain two new spells every time they gain a level. As a meta-game conceit, these are considered to be existing spells in the Core Rules or a supplement, but why do they have to be? Likewise, the presence of named spells (e.g. Bigby’s Interposing Hand, Mordenkainen’s Disjunction, etc.) is a pretty clear indicator that individuals have the capability to create new spells.
The problem with having these assumptions exist with no further discussion or backing is that, if a player decides to start examining them closer, they begin to fall apart. Suppose someone looked at the previous two examples, for instance, and decided that when he leveled up he wanted one of his new spells to be an original creation bearing his name, rather than a pre-existing spell. Now the problem is front-and-center, and the GM needs to figure out how to deal with it.
Now that we’ve established that spell research goes on in the game world, and that a lack of further details can be problematic, let’s look at some of the pitfalls of creating new spells, both from a meta-game and in-character view.
Balancing the Issues
From a meta-game standpoint, the issues with creating new spells seem to be twofold in nature, both of which are expressions of the fear that they’ll grant too much power to the spell-maker. The first is that the spell in question might be flat-out overpowered (e.g. “it’s a fireball spell, but it uses d12s for damage and has no saving throw. Oh, and it’s 1st-level.”). The second is that it could be used to break down the existing differences between spellcasting classes (e.g. “Yeah, it’s an arcane version of cure light wounds. Now we don’t need the cleric anymore!”).
Let’s speak to each of these in turn.
Insofar as inventing spells that are native versions of existing spells on other classes’ spell lists, this is something of a tempest in a teapot. The sheer mechanics of limited spells per day will do wonders to ensure that there’s no additional spell which, should a character acquire it from another class’s list, will turn them into an unstoppable powerhouse, or even dilute their role that much. After all, with all of the spells they need to prepare, how much will things change is a wizard prepares a single cure light wounds?
Likewise, on the issue of overpowered spells, this falls squarely within the realm of GM fiat. No matter what rules system (if any) is being used to adjudicate researching new spells, if the GM says that he or she doesn’t approve of the results, then that’s that (particularly since the GM can just come up with an in-game explanation for the failure of the research). In fact, Paizo wrote a guide for GMs to judge the power of original spells in their Ultimate Magic supplement.
From an in-game standpoint, it’s fairly easy to justify these meta-game decisions. After all, if a wizard wants to invent an arcane version of entropic shield, it’s more germane to ask “is there any reason to suggest that that’s not possible?” than for a reason to suggest that it is. Certainly, a wizard having such a spell wouldn’t be likely to unbalance the game.
Now, insofar as certain things like arcane spellcaster casting healing spells goes, there’s a section from my favorite blog that has some interesting ideas on the topic:
Also, note that what The Practical Enchanter says about spell design: it’s a combination of complexity AND power. People all too often ignore the Complexity because Power is obvious and flashy.
Now let’s look at the Cure Wounds series. Power-wise, those spells fit in at their given levels pretty closely. A given healing spell is usually weaker than a same-level attack spell, but they do scale with the spell level and somewhat with the caster level.
So now we know a more powerful caster does affect the spell. This may be important later.
Complexity-wise, healing is way overboard. That 1st-level spell can knit bones, restore organs, push leaked blood and fluid back where it does no harm, erase any chance of infection. If the individual is dying, it will erase all the ongoing damage to the nerves, brain and spine instantly.
[…]
Cure Light Wounds is at LEAST at fifth-level complexity. I’d say sixth for practical purposes. With a few hundred years of development and polishing it might be possible to get the spell down to fifth level.
So why is it so cheap? Well, remember that divine spellcasters get a hidden bonus. They have a deity, and probably an entire divine staff, processing, preparing, and weaving the spells. Druids get that same edge from nature gods or local spirits or some such. Those spellcasters may be storing and casting their healing spells, but they don’t have to do all the work.
While this is specific to the question of healing spells, it speaks to a broadly-applicable school of thought on the subject of why a spell can have different levels on different spell lists. This won’t always be the case of course (in fact, the article goes on to note that this will usually not be the case), but it helps set the tone for why the differences between arcane and divine spells are the way they are.
Given that, it seems safe to say that if the GM is involved in the process (particularly in determining the nature of the results of the research) and has some guidelines in mind for adjudicating the results of successful research, there’s comparatively little reason why researching new, original spells shouldn’t be allowed.
Next week, we’ll look at the question of actual rules for the research itself, and take in some of the differences between arcane and divine spell research.
