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

[Bacon Bits]

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 guess I don't find that disappointing at all, since, historically, classed NPCs have represented about 1% of NPCs, and Wizards are less than 5% of that (most are Fighters and Rogues). (Are city demographics broken down anywhere in 5e? I can't recall.) In other words, in any given good sized city, you'll find maybe 1 or 2 Wizards tops. Even then, there's no guarantee that a) the Wizard has the spell you want, or b) the Wizard is amicable to a deal (i.e., you have something the Wizard wants and he's willing to listen to some neophyte wandering hedge wizard), or c) the Wizard is even available. Even then, in our games Wizards typically only deal spells for spells, and if the PC Wizard hasn't got anything the NPC wants, well, then the PC is out of luck. Some Wizards won't give out combat spells at all, fearing the damage that might be done. If there's a Guild or School, you might find perhaps a dozen Wizards and an appropriate number of apprentices. However, you might find the masters only give spells to other masters or only to masters and students. Like library access, it's limited to members only.

If you want to make it difficult, model it after the Buying a Magic Item rules from Xanathar's Downtime Activities. I'd treat probably set the cost to 50% [Edit: of the cost of a spell scroll] since limited access to a spellbook is less useful than a scroll.

At the very least, I'd allow the Research downtime activity to research an existing spell, possibly with modifications. For some napkin spell research rules, I'd require four items of lore per spell level, 100 gp/wk/spell level, a minimum of 2 weeks per spell level, and then at the end have the PC make an Arcana (Intelligence) check DC 15 + Spell level. Failure indicates that the Wizard must start again from scratch. Success indicates the Wizard can scribe the spell into their spellbook, paying all associated costs. Additionally, in no case can a spell be researched that cannot be cast by the Wizard (either by spell list or spell level). When researching a new spell or researching any spell of level 6 or higher, the Wizard makes all checks at disadvantage including the weekly Intelligence checks (this basically requires access to a well-stocked library, a deep purse, or an extremely long lifespan). For a level 17 character researching a level 9 spell, that's 18 weeks and a minimum of about 16,000 gp just for the chance to make a DC 24 Arcana (Intelligence) check at disadvantage (without a well-stocked library). Even if you have expertise in Arcana and 20 Int, that's less than a 50% chance of success. This is, of course, extremely dice-heavy.

Frankly, I'd probably allow any spellcaster to make use of the above rules, and at the end allow the character to exchange the spell known or add it to their class lists if they're not a Wizard.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I welcome all scholars of the arcane and thank them for letting me copy their research.

And they can get stuffed if they thinking I'm letting them copy my research. The power to incinerate crowds, bend minds and open gates to hell is the kind of power I trust only my self to have.


I can imagine a few scenarios where a wizard might let another wizard copy from their spell book. Perhaps two wizards get married/become BFF. Most of the time, if I was going by a particular interpretation of the fluff presented in the PHB, then a wizard letting another copy from their spellbook could be a BIG THING. What defines a wizard? Their ability to cast spells. How do we measure their power? By their spells, both in number and power. I'd expect wizards to monopolize their power, if for no other reason than because they can but perhaps more likely because the more folks running around with Invisibility/Fireball/Fly then the more complicated life has the potential to become.

Letting another wizard ''..decipher the unique system of notation..'' (to paraphrase the PHB) found within their spellbook seems the kind of gesture only the most trusted associate/companion might enjoy. Spells can do a lot of damage, both directly and indirectly. Especially something like, say, Feeblemind, Charm Person or something as obvious as Fireball. Sure, if Wizard A is ok with empowering Wizard B then they'll have no worries with letting them copy their research. But in-game, how often is Wizard A going to trust Wizard B sufficiently enough for this to happen?

Now players, sure, I can understand players trusting each other. And from that trust, I can imagine there's little problem with letting their characters share spells - both players stand to gain more powerful characters. But.. obviously, our characters are not us. Within the world they live, there's no tacit agreement to play nice, be respectful and try and get along. I reckon they're going to be pretty careful over who gets to access their research. Otherwise, they risk giving power to the 'wrong wizard'.*

*And there's a rabbit hole we can saunter down which asks, 'How best to protect ourselves from wizard and their spells?' The answer being, maybe, maybe not, a more powerful wizard and their spells! Remember folks, wizards don't kill people - spells kill people! ..but the wizards help.

 

[neogod22]

I find it troubling why people want to make it so difficult for wizards to get spells, especially PCs. It is already very costly just for the translation alone. I would assume that most NPCs won't let a player even see their spellbooks, but most might sell scrolls or give a wizard a spell as a quest reward. Wizards are the most expensive class to play, because even if they get free spells and scrolls, they still have to pay to put them, in their spellbooks. No other class has that penalty.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[FrogReaver]

So to recap. No one mentioned or implied it was bad for pc wizards to share spells and more than half the posts are about how it's not problematic for them to do so.

Toxic much?

 

[Bacon Bits]

So to recap. No one mentioned or implied it was bad for pc wizards to share spells and more than half the posts are about how it's not problematic for them to do so.

Toxic much?

I think several people have strongly implied they think it's "bad" or "problematic" (which is synonymous).

I don't. Learning spells carries heavy diminishing returns. PCs tend to pick the best spells first. Fireball and counterspell are great, but remove curse and sending just don't come up that often. It's also not every campaign that you're going to have time or resources to scribe spells out of another spellbook. Sure, maybe Gandalf and Saruman decide to swap spells and one takes fireball and the other lightning bolt, but maybe they both want counterspell immediately. Is anybody going to let the other Wizard take shield or mage armor at first level and they have to wait for gold and time to copy it over? That's a bit risky.

I've had campaigns where the Wizard carried around 5 or 6 spellbooks with him because he hadn't found enough time to scribe all the spells out. Granted, this was 3e, where copying any spell took 2 days (1 to study, 1 to copy), but still.

 

[5ekyu]

Also when someone asks up front why it doesnt happen more and answer about how its not a problem if it did seems not outlandish.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[FrogReaver]

Also when someone asks up front why it doesnt happen more and answer about how its not a problem if it did seems not outlandish.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Yes because the first thing that should come to mind when someone asks why something doesn't happen more often is to say that it's okay if it did happen more often.

It's that assuming that because someone asks about something that the thing must either be defended or condemned that is the problem.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes because the first thing that should come to mind when someone asks why something doesn't happen more often is to say that it's okay if it did happen more often.

It's that assuming that because someone asks about something that the thing must either be defended or condemned that is the problem.

Ok so i realize this is some axe you apparently intended to grind but the questions asked were literally

"Is this a thing? If so why doesn't this get done more often?"

That combo seems to question the validity and frequency both... So... Yeah folks will likely defend it if they think its ok or push back if they think its not.

So... Keep grinding that axe as long as it is amusing, after all, everyone needs hobbies.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Hussar]

So to recap. No one mentioned or implied it was bad for pc wizards to share spells and more than half the posts are about how it's not problematic for them to do so.

Toxic much?

Sorry bud, but, not seeing the toxicity. You asked a question and people answered.

For me personally, sharing spell books is something I've done and seen done across multiple groups spanning multiple editions. It was never an issue. AFAIC, this is pretty much just automatically presumed when you have two wizards in the same party. I've honestly never seen anyone consider this to be a bad thing before.

Frankly, I'm not seeing where the problem is. Sharing spell books is kinds the point of having two wizards in the same party.

 

[neogod22]

The funny thing is, when people say "they can't see the advantage of redundancy," the answer is really simple. Wizards are by definition, glass cannons. If you have 2 and one dies, and he was the one with all the spells you need, well you might be screwed until you can get them back. Also, lets name a few spells that benefit from redundancy:

All rituals - that way you can get 2 out of the way in the same 10 mins.

Counterspell and dispel magic - no need to explain

Fireball - take out lots of enemies at once

Hypnotic Pattern - we literally broke games with this spell.

All wall spells - because a wizard can only concentrate one one thing at a time.

Haste - because who doesn't benefit from 2 hated warriors?

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk