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

[FrogReaver]

Not being able to control what other people can say sure is a real bummer, amiright? #notalldictators

Thanks for another great example of the kinds of toxic posts we were talking about.

 

[jgsugden]

Wizards work fine whether they have the minimum spells in their spellbooks or have every wizard spell available in the game. It really isn't a balance concern, so you should feel free to do whatever will make for the best story.

In a situation like this, I like to look to the real world for inspiration. The closest analogy to spells is computer code. In the real world, you see some people that are willing to share code they write, while others don't want to share their code unless they are compensated - although once someone else gets their hands on your code, it is hard to keep them from spreading it around.

To translate that to the real world, I generally say that anything in the PHB can be found pretty easily as they are common spells that have 'entered the public domain'. I allow wizards to select any PHB spell as a spell they can gain when advancing a level - but in order to select a spell from another source, they have to explain to me where they gained access to the spell. Often this is something we roleplay out. I don't prevent them from selecting the spells, generally, but it sometimes gives us a story hook.

I also add a lot of spells to the game. I've had a book of 'personal' spells that I began in the 80s. I have converted them from AD&D to 2E to 3E to 5E, constantly adding more spells that I create or borrow from 3rd party sources. They're spells that my wizards created, spells that NPC wizards used, and spells that I put on scrolls. I find that having unique spells not found in the core books makes the game feel more immersive. Adding spells with a bit of mystery and uniqueness to them adds a lot to the game and makes it less of a 'cookie cutter' feel and more of a story.

 

[5ekyu]

Not sure what your point is.

Mine is that there is a great difference between magic weapons and spellbooks.

I have yet to see a single adventure where the author has "forgotten" to place magic weapons to loot, but in 5e it is not at all uncommon to find zero spellbooks.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

To be fair though, magic weapons are worthwhile to practically anyone who fights, classed or no. While spellbooks are only going to show when a few types of classes show up with maybe a few extra from folks with feats appropriate to setting.

I would expect in many settings to find much of the gear available as loot to be reflective of its frequency and utility in the campaign world.

So that wouls skew the finding of spellbooka v weapons depending on the GM setting and how rare he sets permanent magic items in general.

Also, spell books may simply not be as durable if its included in the pile if treasure type loot as opposed to the "npcs stuff they use" loot.

Just saying that to me the relative frequency of spellbooks as loot vs magic weapons andother gear does not come across as oversight in general.

As GM that does not seem to be a problem cuzthe PC has options for cooperative exchange in my games at various times too.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks for another great example of the kinds of toxic posts we were talking about.

Whoa. "Toxic." That's, like, really bad, yes? Are people going to die? ENW seems to be doing pretty well, and people have been topic drifting here for ages, so... did you mean "toxic" ironically? Like, you know, not actually toxic, but instead actually not-toxic? That doesn't make sense, though, because it really doesn't read like you're on my side of this. Although, as pointed out, written media can be confusing, so maybe I'm missing a really clever bit of ongoing sarcasm as social commentary? Kudos, if so.

Unfortunately, I think this is really just an example of the recent trend of borrowing the connotation of negative words to lazily dismiss the statements of others and try to bully them into silence. This may be acceptable when talking about truly vile contravention of social norms, like, say, open racism, but it becomes rather tedious and small when it's applied to the weighty topic of pretend elf discussion boards and the norms of posting therein. Really, you're trying to paint people not posting the way you wish them to as poisonous to the community, when this community has been posting that way, and thriving, for almost two decades. It's clearly not actually toxic.

In the meantime, I may occasionally have a bit of fun poking those that declare others aren't posting in accordance to their preferences and lamenting that they lack the power to force others to do so. Not because I think I'm morally correct in doing so, but because I generally find people who state they wish to have more power over other's ability to express themselves however they wish to be worthy of mockery using that ability to express myself how I choose. That's, just, like, my opinion, man.

 

[FrogReaver]

Whoa. "Toxic." That's, like, really bad, yes? Are people going to die? ENW seems to be doing pretty well, and people have been topic drifting here for ages, so... did you mean "toxic" ironically? Like, you know, not actually toxic, but instead actually not-toxic? That doesn't make sense, though, because it really doesn't read like you're on my side of this. Although, as pointed out, written media can be confusing, so maybe I'm missing a really clever bit of ongoing sarcasm as social commentary? Kudos, if so.

Unfortunately, I think this is really just an example of the recent trend of borrowing the connotation of negative words to lazily dismiss the statements of others and try to bully them into silence. This may be acceptable when talking about truly vile contravention of social norms, like, say, open racism, but it becomes rather tedious and small when it's applied to the weighty topic of pretend elf discussion boards and the norms of posting therein. Really, you're trying to paint people not posting the way you wish them to as poisonous to the community, when this community has been posting that way, and thriving, for almost two decades. It's clearly not actually toxic.

In the meantime, I may occasionally have a bit of fun poking those that declare others aren't posting in accordance to their preferences and lamenting that they lack the power to force others to do so. Not because I think I'm morally correct in doing so, but because I generally find people who state they wish to have more power over other's ability to express themselves however they wish to be worthy of mockery using that ability to express myself how I choose. That's, just, like, my opinion, man.

I know what you think you were doing. But what you were actually doing is trying to turn someone plea for others to show each other mutual respect by asking them to refrain from outright questioning the premise of every thread (at least within that thread)

Trying to twist that push for mutual respect into being labeled as some kind of dictatorship or thought police is toxic. Just like the other examples we have here

 

[Satyrn]

May I make a suggestion as well? Unless a thread is specifically asking for opinions on whether some X is "fine as is" then it's not nice to go into any thread and make comments like "X is fine as is".

I rather thought you were asking if it was fine as is when you asked if it was a thing.

And indeed, I hesitated over answering "No" like I did because I thought you might misinterpret my joke as saying I thought it was not fine.

 

[billd91]

May I make a suggestion as well? Unless a thread is specifically asking for opinions on whether some X is "fine as is" then it's not nice to go into any thread and make comments like "X is fine as is". It ends up being annoying, frustrating, derailing etc. Personally I think toxic is a good summarization of such behavior.

Topics of conversation drift around a bit, so you might want to consider lightening up on that. It's entirely natural when asking if spell sharing is "a thing" for people to mention being in favor of it as is, being opposed to it, or suggesting alternatives to it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I rather thought you were asking if it was fine as is when you asked if it was a thing.

And indeed, I hesitated over answering "No" like I did because I thought you might misinterpret my joke as saying I thought it was not fine.

Thanks for the explanation. I can understand that. Also Just answering yes or no can feel kind of snippy sometimes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I know what you think you were doing. But what you were actually doing is trying to turn someone plea for others to show each other mutual respect by asking them to refrain from outright questioning the premise of every thread (at least within that thread)

Trying to twist that push for mutual respect into being labeled as some kind of dictatorship or thought police is toxic. Just like the other examples we have here

Well, for starters, mutual respect isn't not questioning the premises of another poster. That's something that irritates you. Note the lack of mutualness surrounding that pronoun. This is an issue you have. Others may share it, but, then again, they may not. You cannot universally declare that your personal tastes are the basis of mutual respect for the whole forum. That's just a very bad premise.

So, then, we're really not talking about mutual respect. I'm twisting nothing; I'm properly noting that your desires are a personal preference you have. One that your respond to any violation of with calling that poster toxic. Which is linguistic bully tactics, especially for the "crime" of daring to question a thread's premise on ENW.

Your request that others not question your premises is a valid request. I encourage you to add it to those threads you start where you wish to discuss under a certain set of premises. Those can be engaging discussions, provided you explain a mite on why you wish those precise premises. But, demanding it under thread of being called toxic isn't mutual respect, it's you acting the bully to push your own preferences on everyone else. I'm almost always going to tweak that, as I much prefer an environment where arguments can be questioned on both their merits and their premises instead of being forced to discuss everything only on those premises that are permitted. That sounds horrible.

If you dislike your premises being questioned, get better premises, or grow thicker skin. The slings and arrows of real life are far harsher than asking why you'd ever want to stop a bard from flying.

 

[FrogReaver]

Topics of conversation drift around a bit, so you might want to consider lightening up on that. It's entirely natural when asking if spell sharing is "a thing" for people to mention being in favor of it as is, being opposed to it, or suggesting alternatives to it.

of course they drift. Just like this one

I would think answering the question would be the natural thing people do. I would think not trying to start up a different discussion, aka derail, about whether spell sharing should be a thing would also be a common courtesy.

That's exactly what everyone is doing by posting they are in favor of spell sharing or have no problem with it. The problem is that this behavior occurs almost every thread. It's like it's so commonplace no one can see it's actually a problem