I noticed that, when experimenting, it seems slightly more advantageous to to take a risk modifier of +2 than +3. With a risk modifier of +2, a roll of 8 (11.1% likely) will give you a discovery, while with a risk modifier of +3, you need a 7 (10% likely). Is this intentional? An oversight? Or have I spent way to much time reading, rather than playing?
The Experimentation table has always been a problem in my game.
It does add flavour but it does not fully satisfy the experimentation experience. Atleast not for me 
I tried to create a house rule to replace the experimentation table but never was satifies with them either so we kept with the core rules.
remember that the +1 to +3 bonus only applies to the secondary table rolls not to the original roll. Or was this a house rule ... hmmmm...
The Experimentation table has always been a problem in my game.
It does add flavour but it does not fully satisfy the experimentation experience. Atleast not for me
I tried to create a house rule to replace the experimentation table but never was satifies with them either so we kept with the core rules.
remember that the +1 to +3 bonus only applies to the secondary table rolls not to the original roll. Or was this a house rule ... hmmmm...
I'm hoping that [color=darkblue]Covenants will have something on this with the Lab Rules.
There is no encouragement to Experiment in the RAW
(with or without that S&M bonus , 
)
Minor Breakthrough seems much the same.
If you have a Familiar and Cautious Sorcerer
(no books , atm , so may not apply)
then you can significantly reduce Botch dice for experimenting as well.
Have considered upgrading Inventive Genius to a Major Virtue ,
so as to encourage whacky , mad experimenting.
Or include a "Must Experiment" Story Flaw.
Unless you're a bonisagus seeking acclaim. I am considering exanding thsoe rules (or using similar ones) to cover Hermetic reputations in general.
5 Ed I don't have memorised well enought to be certain, but I think that it is now a core rule.
3rd/4th Ed we house ruled experimentation so that the first roll was dependent of risk but was something simple like
(Stress die + risk modifier)
Die Result
Botch Disaster
1-4 No extraordinary effects
5-6 No benefit
7+ Roll Again (simple die, no modifier) Result
1-3 Complete faliure
4-5 Modified effect
6-7 Side effect
8 Special event
9-10 Discovery
...so risk made something more likely to happen, but it was more random after that.
We also HRed the die rolling. Non of this complicated 2 is bad but 1 is good, 0 is really bad unless its really good (after a 1) stuff. KISS. 1 is always bad (check and use for botches etc), 0 is always good (10, roll again and add). The distributions are only marginally different really (except for spontaneous spellcasting, what really is the difference between rolling a 96 (1,1,1,1,6) and rolling a 46 (0,0,0,0,6)) and have the same average, follow a little more logically, and you drop some of the wierdness like no 1s, 11s, 13s, 17s etc, 8s being more likely than 7s...
The standard rules weren't (aren't) bad, although I definitely think our experimentation table was better than 4thEd version, just more comfortable for us to game with.
Corbon