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

Hussar · Jan 18, 2018

CapnZapp said:
My point was and is that not finding any spellbooks to loot is not a bug that cripples your Wizard character.

If you expect spellbooks to feature as often as magic weapons (ie in nearly every adventure) you're probably better off playing another class.

If you're fine not finding more spells than your automatic allotment even though the warriors keep finding plus weapons, then you have the right mindset for a Wizard.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I've played a few WotC modules - Ravenloft, a couple of the recent remakes, Hoard and now the Giants modules. We found quite a large number of scrolls in those adventures. I hadn't noticed the wizards really hurting for finding new spells. True, not a lot of spell books, but, scrolls are certainly pretty common.

CapnZapp · Jan 18, 2018

Nevvur said:
This indicates to me they approach the number of spells a wizard has in his spellbook as not essential to determining his overall power, at least not in a way that is comparable to a +N weapon or utility item.

Yes, once you have your automatic spells per level, your power doesn't increase by getting more, not from a strict CR point of view. (Once you have Fireball no other level 3 spell changes your "power")

Your fun might, but it's not like your entitled to getting any more.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

CapnZapp · Jan 18, 2018

Hussar said:
I've played a few WotC modules - Ravenloft, a couple of the recent remakes, Hoard and now the Giants modules. We found quite a large number of scrolls in those adventures. I hadn't noticed the wizards really hurting for finding new spells. True, not a lot of spell books, but, scrolls are certainly pretty common.

Yep.

Of course, a spell scroll's primary purpose isn't to be like a page ripped out of a spellbook; it's to a) augment the party casters so they can cast MORE spells in a day, and b) by handing out free castings, you're encouraged to have a look at spells you might otherwise never have considered using.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

MechaPilot · Jan 18, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
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.

I don't have a quote and page citation for you, but I believe the general thought on this issue is that wizards jealously guard their secrets from other wizards. This makes two PC wizards who're friendly enough to share spells an exception to the way the world normally works.

Hussar · Jan 18, 2018

CapnZapp said:
Yep.

Of course, a spell scroll's primary purpose isn't to be like a page ripped out of a spellbook; it's to a) augment the party casters so they can cast MORE spells in a day, and b) by handing out free castings, you're encouraged to have a look at spells you might otherwise never have considered using.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Again we're back to very different experiences.

The only time I saw scrolls in play as a castable resource was in 3e when the wizard could simply pen his or her own. Then scrolls were used like you describe - so they can cast more spells in a day.

In every other edition, scrolls were spell book fodder first and foremost. I almost never saw wizards use their spell scrolls unless they already had that particular spell in their spell book. In the groups I played in and DM'd, the notion that you're going to waste a spell on an encounter instead of putting it in your spell book was just never done except in the most dire emergencies.

CapnZapp · Jan 18, 2018

MechaPilot said:
I don't have a quote and page citation for you, but I believe the general thought on this issue is that wizards jealously guard their secrets from other wizards. This makes two PC wizards who're friendly enough to share spells an exception to the way the world normally works.

In Tomb of Annihilation there's a party of four NPC Wizards. In my attempt to prepare this encounter for my higher-than-assumed level party, I'm going to use Volo NPC caster stat blocks.

This means that different NPCs will have different spells, even if I don't use the option (Monster Manual page 10) to switch out spells. I am certainly not going to assume these Wizards share their spells, even though they belong to the same faction.

I am, however, going to say they have lootable spellbooks, even though monsters generally don't mention any such. (The organization they belong to would make anything else look very odd)

I am, though, going to only list the spells in their stat blocks in those books. While it would very reasonable to assume these NPCs belong to the very small subset of monsters that actively research and amasses more spells, I'm assuming that they only carry a "mission spell book" and leaving anything else at home*.

*) In fact this is explicitly how a certain other spellcaster is decribed. That is, not having their valuables lying around for pesky adventurers to find...

CapnZapp · Jan 18, 2018

Hussar said:
Again we're back to very different experiences.

The only time I saw scrolls in play as a castable resource was in 3e when the wizard could simply pen his or her own. Then scrolls were used like you describe - so they can cast more spells in a day.

In every other edition, scrolls were spell book fodder first and foremost. I almost never saw wizards use their spell scrolls unless they already had that particular spell in their spell book. In the groups I played in and DM'd, the notion that you're going to waste a spell on an encounter instead of putting it in your spell book was just never done except in the most dire emergencies.

Now you're exaggerating when you say "very".

Certainly we too scribe spells found as scrolls.

My point here though is that unlike pretty much every previous edition before it, having a Wizard in the party is very much not a given in 5th edition.

Adventures don't assume the party can cast specific spells. In fact, adventures cater to Wizards much less than ever before.

And that's alright, since the PHB gives everything a Wizard needs to function. Not just at a minimal level either, but an adequate one.

Sure, if you envision your Wizard to have scores of spells of every level in her spellbook, you might ask the DM to assess the upcoming adventure/campaign and give you a rough estimate of how likely that is to happen. (Hint: unless the DM goes out of her way to specifically accommodate you, that answer will pretty much be "no" for official published hardcovers)

But that's a far cry from the entitled outrage I'm seeing elsewhere (not saying you do this), that's based on a fundamental misconception and a flawed assumption that the Wizard class works like it used to do previously.

Z

TBeholder · Jan 18, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
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.

The mechanics dealing with this is a check to learn the spell. Which varied with edition - 3.x is too easily drowned in skill ranks, AD&D2 chances were more interesting.

Nevvur said:
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.

A hefty bonus to deal with magic of the spellbook's owner and perhaps ½ that vs. this wizard's apprentices would make much more sense. And for these spells, automatic success vs. unmodified source spells, and full bonus vs. the apprentices.
It's natural for an apprentice to understand the teacher's work better than that of random colleagues, and ensures more spells from one's master "get through". In other situations no big deal, unless and until it comes to some magical contest against someone the wizard taught — or anyone who directly studied a copy rather than some other guy's reinterpretation (which makes logistics of a secure exchange more complex), etc… Then it turns out that knowing how the other guy's spells are built is a big advantage.
And, of course, this helps with counterspelling, both via this bonus and by having the right spell.

aco175 · Jan 18, 2018

I forget where I seen adding flavor to your spells, most likely an old Dragon article. It talked about changing your spells in flavor, but not in mechanics. Say you cast Magic Missile, it still does the damage and acts like everyone's MM rules wise, but yours might shoot black darts, or ones that look like screaming tadpoles. Maybe more similar to Spiritual Weapon, where it is not Spiritual Hammer anymore in that the caster chooses the type of weapon to give the spell more flavor.

Anyways, the point is that spells in one caster's book can be slightly different that in another's book in these flavor ways. This could, or could not, change when copied into another book. Maybe the new person reading your code copies it slightly different or while copying it adds some of his own flavor. Maybe not in that the original flavor is kept and that the mage that shoots marshmallow looking missiles wants to be the only one doing it and will not allow copying.

neogod22 · Jan 18, 2018

aco175 said:
I forget where I seen adding flavor to your spells, most likely an old Dragon article. It talked about changing your spells in flavor, but not in mechanics. Say you cast Magic Missile, it still does the damage and acts like everyone's MM rules wise, but yours might shoot black darts, or ones that look like screaming tadpoles. Maybe more similar to Spiritual Weapon, where it is not Spiritual Hammer anymore in that the caster chooses the type of weapon to give the spell more flavor.

Anyways, the point is that spells in one caster's book can be slightly different that in another's book in these flavor ways. This could, or could not, change when copied into another book. Maybe the new person reading your code copies it slightly different or while copying it adds some of his own flavor. Maybe not in that the original flavor is kept and that the mage that shoots marshmallow looking missiles wants to be the only one doing it and will not allow copying.

I think changing the way the spell looks has to do with the way a wizard imagines the spell effects, not the spell itself. It's kind of like a wizard's fingerprint.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

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

Hussar

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

MechaPilot

Explorer

Hussar

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

TBeholder

Explorer

aco175

Legend

neogod22

Explorer

Similar Threads