D&D 5E 2 PC Wizards Copying Each others spell books

[FrogReaver]

It's not that I think wizards sharing spell books is a problem. I'm just surprised you don't see more 2 wizard parties because 2 wizards can basically double their spells known just by having another wizard PC in the party. Each wizard takes unique spells from the other wizard and then they copy each others spells whenever they get a chance.

Given that a wizards big thing is spells known, that's almost to large of a benefit to pass up IMO.

 

[Nevvur]

It's not that I think wizards sharing spell books is a problem. I'm just surprised you don't see more 2 wizard parties because 2 wizards can basically double their spells known just by having another wizard PC in the party. Each wizard takes unique spells from the other wizard and then they copy each others spells whenever they get a chance.

Given that a wizards big thing is spells known, that's almost to large of a benefit to pass up IMO.

Agreed, kind of. It's certainly a great benefit, but I wouldn't describe it as almost too good to pass up. It ups their potential utility quite a lot, but their actual utility is still fairly constrained by the number of prepared spells.

In any case, the players of wizards in my games don't switch out spells often that I've noticed. It's not for lack of choices, as I tend to be generous in doling out extra scrolls/NPC spellbooks with at least a few new spells. Nor is it for lack of diversity in obstacles. Rather, I think when my players go wizard, it's for thematic purposes (primary ability score Intelligence, 'the smart guy'), not to get all the spells on the list. For them, I think having a second wizard would feel more redundant than synergistic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you can find another wizard to copy the spells from. I mean if you don't have magic shops in your games, why would you have wizards sitting around? And rather than a paltry sum, maybe they require a unique spell from you. So if you don't have something they don't have, then they won't "trade".

Really?

Imagine you're a first level Wizard, and you're chatting up a cute girl (or boy) in the tavern, and you find out that he/she is also a 1st level Wizard, and the DM says that he/she will pay you 25 gold per spell to copy some of your spells. Would you take it?

(The answer might be: "this is sufficiently strange that I think there's a catch, so I refuse". But I would suggest that's only because DMs don't usually initiate interactions unless there is a catch. If this were an accepted part of D&D, instead of an unprecedented event, most people would say yes.)

And if you would let somebody copy your spells for gold, why wouldn't somebody else let you do the same?

And why wouldn't a non-spellcaster who comes into possession of a spellbook start a business "renting" it for this purpose, rather than just selling it?

Again, this depends on wizards being common enough. But I would think even if they are only as common as blacksmiths in 21st century America (as opposed to as common as, say, whale bone corset makers in 21st century America) that would be enough of a market. So in a very low magic setting, no. In everything else, yes.

As I argued elsewhere, sure you could start making up reasons on a case-by-case basis why this wouldn't happen. But it would be a pretty obvious case of the DM saying, "I don't want this to happen so I'm going to make up reasons." It would better (in my opinion) to introduce a mechanic that makes copying spells more complicated/risky than what RAW suggests.

Which would also (again in my opinion) make it more fun. If you find a spellbook it's not just "ok, we both copy all the spells into our books, and then sell it" (which raises the question of why the book is worth money if it's so easy to copy...unless you were starting a business renting it out...etc.). I'd rather you make a dice roll when you copy it, and if you blow the roll you ruin the spell. It just adds more interest to the whole endeavor, and makes spell books that much more valuable.

 

[FrogReaver]

Agreed, kind of. It's certainly a great benefit, but I wouldn't describe it as almost too good to pass up. It ups their potential utility quite a lot, but their actual utility is still fairly constrained by the number of prepared spells.

In any case, the players of wizards in my games don't switch out spells often that I've noticed. It's not for lack of choices, as I tend to be generous in doling out extra scrolls/NPC spellbooks with at least a few new spells. Nor is it for lack of diversity in obstacles. Rather, I think when my players go wizard, it's for thematic purposes (primary ability score Intelligence, 'the smart guy'), not to get all the spells on the list. For them, I think having a second wizard would feel more redundant than synergistic.

I just wanted to note that ritual spells when casting them as a ritual don't need to be prepared by a wizard.

 

[machineelf]

It's fine, don't sweat it.

Wizards studying and learning new spells is their thing. DMs probably make the mistake of not letting them learn new spells enough, not the other way around. Theoretically, wizards could or should learn most of the spells by 20th level anyway, and they still can only memorize so many on any given day.

 

[machineelf]

For those who missed the strange 'debate' in the thread titled "Wizards Spells", my contention was that if two PC wizards can copy each other's spellbooks for nothing other than standard costs, with no risk of mishap or other gating mechanism, the inevitable logical conclusion (for any medium or high magic world) is that spells (copied, not cast) should be purchasable for a small commission. (BYOInk, of course).

And while that isn't game-breaking, I for one would find it disappointing, in the same way that I find magic shops disappointing. I like the excitement of finding a spell book and wondering what nuggets I can add to my own book. If I can just buy whatever spells I want that's one less 'joy' in the game.

It depends on the nature of your campaign world. In my world, wizards are still kind of a rarity, especially wizards of any significant level. And they are not generally interested in making a little extra coin by selling their spells; they are more interested in their books and reclusive study. Now if you can find a wizard somewhere and you can convince her/him to let you copy some of their spells, then good on you, but it's not going to happen very often.

I agree that magic shops are disappointing.

 

[neogod22]

Here's the thing. Will a wizard let a stranger copy their spellbooks? Of course not. But the question do wizards ever do it? Of course they do. The thing about wizards is, they are all concerned with advancing their knowledge and understanding of magic and often times share that knowledge in order to advance. Why do you think magic schools and guilds exists? They understand that sometimes a fresh perspective is needed. A guild wizard will normally be able to get spells from their guild up to a certain level (usually up to level 5).

One thing I liked about Rifts spell point system was that it was easy to see how wizards would have to work together to cast some of the most powerful spells since the cost was way above most individual spellcaster's mana limit.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[ccs]

It's not that I think wizards sharing spell books is a problem. I'm just surprised you don't see more 2 wizard parties because 2 wizards can basically double their spells known just by having another wizard PC in the party. Each wizard takes unique spells from the other wizard and then they copy each others spells whenever they get a chance.

Given that a wizards big thing is spells known, that's almost to large of a benefit to pass up IMO.

The catch here though is that you need two playerswho both want to play wizards.... (or at least use arcane magic stored in a spellbook)

 

[Horwath]

Rarely seen.

Because you need classes to fill up different roles.

In 6 member party it would be viable.

But it would not be that good. you can prepare one extra spell per level, but you would gain 4 spells this way. When you get all your ritual spells there would be lots of spell never in use.

 

[ccs]

For those who missed the strange 'debate' in the thread titled "Wizards Spells", my contention was that if two PC wizards can copy each other's spellbooks for nothing other than standard costs, with no risk of mishap or other gating mechanism, the inevitable logical conclusion (for any medium or high magic world) is that spells (copied, not cast) should be purchasable for a small commission. (BYOInk, of course).

And while that isn't game-breaking, I for one would find it disappointing, in the same way that I find magic shops disappointing. I like the excitement of finding a spell book and wondering what nuggets I can add to my own book. If I can just buy whatever spells I want that's one less 'joy' in the game.

I find your logic faulty.
Because PCs & NPCs are not the same. PCs will do all manner of stupid things. Things that NPCs (even those with adventuring classes) would never do. For ex: Accepting a Drow (or some other monster) into the party & sacking out for a rest while the thing stands watch over them.