How about an INT check; pass & no cost, fail & you need more study, retry w/new materials, etc.
Might be a compromise?
Might be a compromise?
Sorry, you're charging 15,000 gp for a 9th level spell... and your reasoning is that it costs that much for inks?For the first time, a player called me too strict for a ruling I made.
Here is the ruling:" Although the wizard learns too free spells to add to his spell book, I ruled that the wizard still have to pay for the materials (inks) to write it in his spell book." I also ruled that you can only add spells during downtime unless you want to risk a failure in case you are attacked during the transcription.
My reasons are two folds.
1) By Raw, the spells are free to add. But right in the side bar they say that whenever you find a new spell you have to copy in your spell book.
2) The spells do not appear out of nowhere. You have to have the special inks to put them in your spell book.
I gave the following example: A group is in the desert. They barely have enough food to get by. They have a weapon, an empty backpack (almost, the dried camel is stored in their backpack) and in case of caster, they have a spell focus. The group rise in level, they are now level 3! Yeah! The wizard adds two spells to his spell book but where did the ink came from? Did the spell appeared out of nowhere?
Nope, the new spells are a sudden inspiration. The wizard knows them, he gets them in his mind but now if he wants to change them, he needs to find ink to copy them in his spell book. Yes, they were free as in he did not buy them from an other wizard, he did not have to capture the spell book of an enemy, he did not have to make a quest to know it. But otherwise, he has to abide by the side bar.
I am a bit old school. Spells costs a lot in my campaign. First and second level spells cost 50 gold pieces per level just to copy. You still need to have the inks to copy them.
third through fifth level cost 250 gp per levels and 6th to 8th level are 1000 gold per level. A single spell of 9th level costs 15,000 gold and that is IF the other caster is friendly, very friendly to you (as in, (s)he owes you BIG TIME).
Is this too strict? Money to copy and acquire spell is a big money sink in my games and that is at all levels.
I have the feeling that he wants them totally free only to make more low level scrolls during downtime.
???????????????Sorry, you're charging 15,000 gp for a 9th level spell... and your reasoning is that it costs that much for inks?
Hell yeah that's strict.
Now I get it can cost time to copy it down, or the material components are expensive... but your reasoning here for ink is bananas.
Your game your rules of course, but if I was one of your players I would definitely not want to be a spellcaster with those rules.
It could be argued that "for free" refers to the cost of acquiring the spells themselves--for example, it means you don't have to go out and buy or otherwise earn a scroll to copy them from.So you're saying that "add to your spellbook for free" doesn't mean "add to your spellbook for free"? I just want to be clear that's what you're saying.
I guess you could argue that, sure, but there's still the "add to your spellbook" part, which seems to imply they are added to your spellbook. I mean, if you want to say you get the spell for free but you have to pay for inks or whatever so you can write it in your spellbook, that doesn't sound to me like "add to your spellbook for free."It could be argued that "for free" refers to the cost of acquiring the spells themselves--for example, it means you don't have to go out and buy or otherwise earn a scroll to copy them from.
I'm vaguely uncomfortable with this.UPDATE!
I would like to thank you to remind me of the training rule. Going into my notes, now I remember why I had made this rule. Players had downvoted the training rule and this houserule was to compensate a bit for it as wizards were already the most played arcane characters. Now leveling is instaneous and I wanted to see more warlocks and sorcerers. Even that ruling was not a deterent so...
So I take a bit of my time to tell you that I have put the houserule in question to vote by the group(s) in question abiding by the RAW and put the training rule back in force or leave things as they are right now. 5 to 6 in favor of keeping things as they are (I do not get to vote on these matters). Players clearly prefer instantanous leveling instead of training. Fine by me.
If I were a wizard player in your game....and had access to a spellbook...Yep, they get to sell them. I usually get to pay about 10 to 15%% of the value of the book or up to 50% if the players are ready to be paid in goods. A wizard's spellbook is litteraly, at very high level, almost worth a kingdom. They are usually well hidden, trapped and protected. More than one spellbook has been destroyed with careless handling. Even player's spellbooks are so protected. It would be too long to go on the specifics but let's just say that a high level spellbook on sale brings a lot of problems and unwanted customers. But once the sale is done, the players have a lot of money. It goes both ways.
They can and do bring the inks. Never said they could not.Now if you insist on the rule, why not let the wizard buy ink to bring adventuring? Ink bottles are small. Maybe levelling up represents when the finally finishing copying (and understanding) that new spell.
That is exactly how I see it. Now you only have to copy it in your spell book.Finally, I've always thought that new spells and leveling up in general is only artificially instantaneous. A wizard would be doing research most days, even while adventuring, a fighter doing push-ups and practicing blade forms. The new spells could be like finally working out a mathematical formula: "Oh, I see how that works!"
Surely a group of like minded good wizards would see the benefit of freely sharing spells in a collective? If not wouldn't the first set of wizards who started doing so immediately become much more formidable than any of the hermit keep-to-themself individual wizards? A guild of 20 fully-spellbook-stocked wizards (who could immediately replace a stolen or destroyed spellbooks) would be a terror in a world where everyone else is at best a master/apprentice team of two. They would also have way more resources at hand to protect such a venture, having 20 spellcasters to protect the fort and all.1) Yes. You open yourself for a removal of competition as wizards do not like to share knowledge. You also open yourself to theft. As you have to make the spells known to bring in customers. This could lead to a very profitable bounty on your head and the spell book. Spell copying is usually done one on one and thrust must be established first. A wizard will not tell you if he knows a spell, only if he has access to it. Even a lawful good wizard might lie on which spells he knows for his own sake.
At least you are acknowledging this for what it is, a tax you are imposing on players because you personally disagree with the choices they are making at character creation. I still think the place to start is a discussion with your players, though. If you're going to "raise taxes" until they comply, you ought to tell them that now and then encourage an honest exchange of views about that.I guess that my tax on versatility is not big enough...
Save 120,000... from what? Where is this 120,000 coming from? Is there a rule I'm missing here????????????????
I am not the one that says that ink is too much. Quite the contrary. 15k gold for buying a 9th level spell means that the player can save 120k with his 9th level free spell knowledge. And one player would cringe at the cost for the ink? AND you only buy if you have no other choice. More often than not, a quest, a service or simple exchange spell for spell is made for additional spells. It pays to be kind with other wizards.
And strangely, almost the enterity of all wizards that played at my table were quite ok with this rule. Satisfied enough that the great majority of the casters are wizards and not warlock or sorcerer. I guess that my tax on versatility is not big enough...
On second reading, it seems you are confusing spell cost and ink cost. These are unrelated in my games. You pay the spell, then you pay for the ink to write it down. The free spells you gain each level are just that, free spells. You still have to copy them though. This is not a big cost when you think about it (unless your DM is starving you of money, which I am not).