Why Not Share Spellbooks?

[Vyrolakos]

... is there any reason why two wizard characters wouldn't share spellbooks and copy each other's spells? Or even just look at both spellbooks every day?

How about this for an answer:

D&D 3.5 Player Handbook, page 179: "In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp, though many wizards jealously guard their higher-level spells and may charge much more, or even deny access to them altogether. Wizards friendly to one another often trade access to equal-level spells from each other’s spellbooks at no cost."
​

The actual rules on reading other people's spellbooks and copying them are pretty straightforward, so the real issue then, is under what social circumstances would you give away or 'share' such powerful knowledge. I think that all comes down to the campaign type you are playing, the world you are playing in, and the actual adventuring parties group dynamics.

It's why it's called a role-playing game.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The same reason I do not share gaming books - gamers have a notoriously low Dex and spill/drop stuff all the time. Wizards are no better, esp the min/max'd ones.

Only in 4e. Min-maxed 2e and 3e wizards all have high Dex

Okay, then I guess I withdraw my otherwise interesting rules-statement about Spells Not Wanting To Be Free...?

You're answering "would any wizard, anywhere, refuse to share spells" with "yes, if they are irrational or think that you are acting in bad faith", which is fine, so far as it goes.
I'm answering "why would wizards tend to not do a thing which is effectively free to them" with "here is how I introduce a cost".

Who would you lend your car to? A friend, probably, and for free. It's just a favor, but even so, you probably want to use your car at some point. So you might put restrictions on it.

Would you lend your car to a total stranger? For free? The risk might be low, but a car is expensive, and it might be something you depend on.

I do worry that without a forcing function, PC wizards (who aren't necessarily arrogant, insane, or shortsighted enough for short-term greed to blind them to long term gain) can get a lot of temporal power quickly and cheaply by giving spells away to follower wizards.

That's exactly what they should do. Although it's a good idea to make a copy and then distribute that. I figure even Szass Tam gives his apprentices spells.

It's certainly the case that within the same party, wizards have none of these reasons not to share spells, unless they simply dislike each other so much that they also might betray each other in battle or something.

Hope that helps!

While that would increase their power some, the person getting the new spell has to pay three costs -- the "ink" (scribing costs), time and spellbook space. In addition, a sorcerer with Scribe Scroll could actually make scrolls and "sell them" to a friend (probably at cost, as they're a friend), so even making sure no party has more than one wizard doesn't do anything.

I see this as no different from a wizard crafting stuff for other PCs (especially in Pathfinder, where there's no XP cost). A DM might be upset if the wizard sells this stuff "at cost" rather than at full price, which is pretty similar to what sharing spells accomplishes.

 

[Lackhand]

Who would you lend your car to? A friend, probably, and for free. It's just a favor, but even so, you probably want to use your car at some point. So you might put restrictions on it.

Would you lend your car to a total stranger? For free? The risk might be low, but a car is expensive, and it might be something you depend on.
...
That's exactly what they should do. Although it's a good idea to make a copy and then distribute that. I figure even Szass Tam gives his apprentices spells.

Just calling these out, since I think this might be the (fine) difference between how you and I see things.
Loaning a car out has a cost, you lose the use of the car during the loan and any damage done to it is permanent. Performing the loan means letting the car out of your control.
The rules are not definitive here, but do not imply that teaching a spell is anything like that. It's true that it takes the copier time and money, but on the teachers part, they can control the access to the spell book pretty strictly. The risks of something bad happening to the spell book accidentally are pretty low if the copying has to happen in the teacher's lab or a neutral third party space. The biggest cost here to the teacher are opportunity costs in time they spend watching the learner and the risk of malfeasance.

Note that my proposed fix (taught spells go up in level for the teacher) is much closer to the "loaning a car" metaphor, since they deny the teacher the full use of the spell for a period of time.
I don't even disagree with the way I'd act in your metaphor, just how closely it maps onto the spell book case

 

[Savage Wombat]

If the question is why two wizard PCs wouldn't share spells - they probably would, actually. It's all upside for them - they're already trusting each other with their lives. That's how they act in my games. But as a cultural norm it would be unusual, for the reasons described above.

 

[GX.Sigma]

If the question is why two wizard PCs wouldn't share spells - they probably would, actually. It's all upside for them - they're already trusting each other with their lives. That's how they act in my games. But as a cultural norm it would be unusual, for the reasons described above.

The question is more like: a wizard PC in my game thinks he has found a way to learn any spell he wants. How can I stop him from doing that, without making every NPC wizard arbitrarily insane?

 

[Jacob Marley]

The question is more like: a wizard PC in my game thinks he has found a way to learn any spell he wants. How can I stop him from doing that, without making every NPC wizard arbitrarily insane?

You do so the same way we conduct business in real life: negotiation and consideration. "Yeah, I'll give you access to my spellbook so you can learn the grease spell, but, I need some mandrake root from the old forest for this experiment I am conducting. And I'll also like to copy locate object and charm person from your spellbook. Agreed?"

 

[Vyrolakos]

The question is more like: a wizard PC in my game thinks he has found a way to learn any spell he wants. How can I stop him from doing that, without making every NPC wizard arbitrarily insane?

Spells are relatively hard to acquire and give the wielder arcane power over others. Wizards value their spells and don't give them away or trade them without good cause or profit.

Never underestimate peoples greed and selfishness. Even if it's just a case of keeping the 'cool' spell for yourself.

 

[LostSoul]

The best reason I can think of is a Wizard's Guild: they want to control access to spells, so they punish anyone who isn't a guild member who trades in spell knowledge. There might be other rules, too: Some spells might just be off-limits (Teleport, Dispel Magic, Scry) to any non-guild member. Other spells (Fireball) might require a vote.

I guess this provides a reason for Arcane Mark to exist: To mark spellbooks as being legitimate. A stamp of approval by the guild. No stamp is the same as a counterfeit one. So if you're a wizard and the guild gets wind of you, they're going to want to look at your spellbook to make sure it's legit. If not, they might punish you: mandatory enrolment into the guild, fine, imprisonment, Geas, confiscation of your spellbook, or death.

Guilds are nasty business. Of course, all members would probably be paranoid of each other, because they know these other wizards are the ones most likely to want to destroy them (and take their spellbooks), and they have the means to do so.

It's a nice adventure hook.

 

[Dozen]

To back up all the above, even assuming the spellbook is not endangered by general carelessness(Wizards and positive Wisdom modifiers seldom get along), no caster of any alignment can be 100% percent trusted to not abuse your trust.

Sure, it could be mutually beneficial... and why would they care? It's also beneficial to put potential competition, or someone you secretly consider an enemy out of business. Nice of you to believe everyone is going to be fair and straight with you, but let's be honest here, I'd personally Bluff your pants off of another Wizard if he was so naive, just to teach him a life lesson.

Then there's of course the issue of the insanely paranoid wizard who simply assumes everyone is out to get him until proven otherwise, thus flat out refuses to share anything, no matter the tradeoff. On the other end of the spectrum, Good-aligned and street savvy wizards are actually the least likely to agree to trade in the first place unless they personally know you. Spellcasters wield great powers, and they are aware of it. They aren't going to give you a copy of their precious Negative Energy Ray when you could potentially use it to heal your pet Wraiths at home.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The rules are not definitive here, but do not imply that teaching a spell is anything like that. It's true that it takes the copier time and money, but on the teachers part, they can control the access to the spell book pretty strictly. The risks of something bad happening to the spell book accidentally are pretty low if the copying has to happen in the teacher's lab or a neutral third party space. The biggest cost here to the teacher are opportunity costs in time they spend watching the learner and the risk of malfeasance.

I was thinking the wizard was just giving out the book for a day (since scribing spells might take a long time). But a neutral space, especially with two wizards trading books and then scribing some of each other's spells, seems perfectly reasonable to me. A wizard could run a business this way. (Imagine the security of that place!) Or a wizard guild might offer this service.

(Unlike with a car, where you would have to trust the other person to drive away and then come back.)

Within the rules, wizards trading spells only need to give up time, "ink" and spellbook space. Time is probably the most critical, but it's also something wizard PCs can handle during downtime.

When wizard PCs want to learn spells from NPCs, they need to arrange for this transaction. A Diplomacy check might be involved (the DC shouldn't be too high, though, since the other wizard is getting something for it). Spells to be traded (perhaps by scrolls rather than spellbooks, if you don't want people to know just what spells you know) should be decided ahead of time. It would be easier if they're part of the same guild, military unit, or what not.

In some settings (Dark Sun), this paranoia is justified. The person wanting to trade spells could be a templar.