I'm not a fan of the level requirements for magic research throws, especially spell research. I feel the target numbers on page 117, and the cost in gold out of a lower level character's wealth, are sufficient balancing mechanisms. So I dropped that level requirement some time ago, and I do have a couple of players who I had guessed would take advantage of it.
What's actually happened is players look at their odds of success and pass on it entirely at low levels. As we are not rocketing towards name level, I'm considering two rules to make it worthwhile.
The first is, after a failure, continuing with the same project at the same cost in gold and time grants successive rolls a cumulative +2, so that if you continue you do so at a bonus. I'm fairly comfortable with this one.
The second I'm considering is including the cost of failed research in the xp award on a final success. This is the one I can imagine having unforseen side effects. Can I get away with using the full expenditure? Should I halve the value of those initial failed stages of research? Should I suck it up and play it by the book?
I too have considered cumulative bonuses for failure, after watching my party’s 5th-6th level mage spend months of research time to no avail. I think you could maybe get away with the XP award if you divided it over the total number of months spent on the project, rather than just the time for the successful final run.
if you wanted to maintain balance, you could give something like half the amount of XP normally given for both success and failure, but it would be a bit disappointing for consistently lucky mages.
The feast or famine situation can be a bit demoralizing, to be sure, but I suspect the reason it's that way in the book is A) to encourage you to spend extra gold on bigger libraries and workshops and precious materials B) because there should be an element of risk in something that grants XP. Now that being said, even if you agree with those ideas, you could feel that they go too far. That's up to you to decide.
You might find mage-types level a bit faster than non-mage types using your rules. However, if you have the Campaign Play supplement from Axiomis Special Edition you will find lots and lots of downtime activities for other players to do, and it'll work out fine.
if you wanted to maintain balance, you could give something like half the amount of XP normally given for both success and failure, but it would be a bit disappointing for consistently lucky mages.
[/quote]
That's a very good idea.
Edit: Unfortunately I had this out to my players already. And I was sitting here thinking of whether to let it ride, which I think I will, but then it crossed my mind that if I keep the full xp I could add in some kind of set-back for each failed roll. Mishaps from the PC almost work, but they're potentially a bit fatal for a caster who hasn't opted in to experimentation. I may rework a more mild version.
Anyway, thanks! Even not taking your good advice that was very helpful.
[quote="Jard"]
The feast or famine situation can be a bit demoralizing, to be sure, but I suspect the reason it's that way in the book is A) to encourage you to spend extra gold on bigger libraries and workshops and precious materials B) because there should be an element of risk in something that grants XP. Now that being said, even if you agree with those ideas, you could feel that they go too far. That's up to you to decide.
[/quote]
I wasn't puzzled at the reason, but practically, the +1 for a larger library or precious materials doesn't get anyone to take the plunge.
[quote="Alex"]
You might find mage-types level a bit faster than non-mage types using your rules. However, if you have the Campaign Play supplement from Axiomis Special Edition you will find lots and lots of downtime activities for other players to do, and it'll work out fine.
[/quote]
Was that ever Patreon and I overlooked it, or should I go straight to DTRPG?
Hi Dave, it absolutely was on the Patreon. If you're a patron you would have gotten it last month, or the month prior. Hit me up if you somehow didn't.