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

[FrogReaver]

2 PC Wizards Copying each others spell books. Is this a thing? If so why doesn't this get done more often?

 

[Mistwell]

Should work fine, as long as they pay the GP cost to do it.

It's not common because two wizards in a party isn't common.

 

[CapnZapp]

2 PC Wizards Copying each others spell books. Is this a thing? If so why doesn't this get done more often?

Yes. Because you seldom have two Wizards in the same party?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Satyrn]

No. Because no one has ever played a wizard at my table.

 

[neogod22]

2 PC Wizards Copying each others spell books. Is this a thing? If so why doesn't this get done more often?

I play AL and usually playing a book warlock or wizard. Whenever I party with another wizard, I'm always asking to see their spell books to trade spells (or rituals in the case of the warlock). It's just something wizards should do, and because of this, it should allow wizards to take more utility spells when they level since they can usually find attack spells from other players.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

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".

 

[Nevvur]

I treat a copied spell as a strong (-10 save modifier) connection for the purpose of Scrying. Most wizards don't want to share their spells in my settings because they don't want to expose themselves thusly, even if only a small fraction of magic users know Scrying. Not only do you have to trust the person you're letting copy the spell, you have to trust that person won't let the copy be copied or fall into the hands of ne'er-do-wells.

 

[5ekyu]

Ok so, what about a party where two characters can both use shields or maces? Should they be allowed to decide among themselves whether or no they swap them without some Gm fret going on?

What's next, PCs trading like gold to another pc who can craft something for them?

On a less tongue-in-cheek mode, if the two characters know each other and work together enough that it makes sense that they would "share" or "barter" goods they have, it makes sense to just let it play out. it dies not have to result in stalls in local zocalo.

i would expect if a campaign had organized magic guilds or alliances, a kind of structured access system would be in place. But if it were more of a non-organized thing it would be catch as catch can with "risk" being a real concern when dealing with strangers. Could be using go-betweens and fixers for safety.

EDIT TO ADD: Another element of campaign setting is whether or not having the friendly caster there gets you the reduced cost/time. If a campaign sets up organized traditions and schools of magic (not just the groupings by the PHB but actual schools with codified practices) then it would be likely two wiz from same school collaborate is easier and quicker than working off some unknown scroll. But if it is again each personal views of magic you could easily rule that the 50/2hr cost remains because even with friend you have to "translate" their tricks/magic-fu into your tricks/magic-fu.

 

[DeanP]

It's perfectly fine. They pay the costs, and can learn from each other. I had this occur in one of my long standing campaigns with a Gnome illusionist and a half-elf evoker, they wisely coordinated the spells they'd learn, to improve their spell diversity. I liked the mutual aid. I strongly encourage players to work together for their mutual benefit.