D&D 5E Keeping Spellbooks Unique

[JiffyPopTart]

as many already asked, why?

Wizards learn more spells per level that they can prepare and they can prepare more spells that they can cast.

Is it ritual casting?

Will those few 1-3 level spells extra that can be cast as ritual really be a problem?

Is having party with water breathing 24/7 a problem?

Or hauling gear on Tenser's floating disc instead of a cart, a problem?

Not to pick on you specifically because you aren't the only one to say it...but why ask why? The OP clearly stated they wanted to look at making a change in copying spells to get a different feel for spellbooks in a campaign and asked for suggestions on how they could make that happen. Isn't that reason enough?

There was some meta discussion talk a couple months ago about establishing a framework on how to tag your thread as "Constructive Only" and it's not really happened yet...but man it would be nice if people could refrain from threadcrapping on everything they don't like or see a need for.

It's not constructive to point out "Who cares if all the wizards share the same set of spells". It's obstructive and contributes nothing to the topic except derailing a creation thread into one that low-key tells the OP "Your idea sucks."

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Right, and I'm talking about codifying that in a formal list of "languages."

That is exactly how it works in 5E. Read the spellbook section. YOu're not copying it, per se. You're taking the spell and working it into your arcane method.

 

[Nagol]

Not to pick on you specifically because you aren't the only one to say it...but why ask why? The OP clearly stated they wanted to look at making a change in copying spells to get a different feel for spellbooks in a campaign and asked for suggestions on how they could make that happen. Isn't that reason enough?

There was some meta discussion talk a couple months ago about establishing a framework on how to tag your thread as "Constructive Only" and it's not really happened yet...but man it would be nice if people could refrain from threadcrapping on everything they don't like or see a need for.

It's not constructive to point out "Who cares if all the wizards share the same set of spells". It's obstructive and contributes nothing to the topic except derailing a creation thread into one that low-key tells the OP "Your idea sucks."

Fundamentally because the OP proffered a solution "make wizard spell sharing harder" rather than describing a problem "all the wizards want the same spells and I'm afraid it will make them too alike" or "I think the group needs more breadth than depth in spell casting and it would be tactically better for the wizards to prep different spells"

A mechanic offered to meet a solution may or may not actually address the underlying problem.

 

[Todd Roybark]

My recommendation is not to do anything to dissuade PC Wizards from spell swapping.
It is a rare pleasure. Besides, PCs sometimes withhold spells from each other.

I would recommend giving out magical grimoires though. Have each grimoire contain a set of themed spells for a multitude of different levels, that the user can treat as prepared spells, but don’t count against the prepared spells limit.

These spells, cannot be copied.

This will ensure a different feel to each Wizard.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Fundamentally because the OP proffered a solution "make wizard spell sharing harder" rather than describing a problem "all the wizards want the same spells and I'm afraid it will make them too alike" or "I think the group needs more breadth than depth in spell casting and it would be tactically better for the wizards to prep different spells"

A mechanic offered to meet a solution may or may not actually address the underlying problem.

There is a fundamental difference between the topic "I am going to make spell sharing harder. How does this affect the game?" and "In my campaign I want to make spell sharing harder. What are some of your ideas for making that happen?".

The former is a call to debate the merits (pro/con/neutral) of making spell sharing harder. The latter presumes the OP wants to make spell sharing harder in their campaign and is seeking advice for ways to accomplish this.

When many calls for collaboration includes multiple needless replies of "Your idea is stupid/unnecessary/wrongfun" the end result is squashing creative development via the boards. There are examples on this thread of how you can offer a suggestion but still point out some ways the game might be negatively affected by their implementation. This at least still contributes to the thread moreso than "Why bother? Here are 5 reasons why you are wrong wanting that in your game."

 

[Nagol]

There is a fundamental difference between the topic "I am going to make spell sharing harder. How does this affect the game?" and "In my campaign I want to make spell sharing harder. What are some of your ideas for making that happen?".

The former is a call to debate the merits (pro/con/neutral) of making spell sharing harder. The latter presumes the OP wants to make spell sharing harder in their campaign and is seeking advice for ways to accomplish this.

When many calls for collaboration includes multiple needless replies of "Your idea is stupid/unnecessary/wrongfun" the end result is squashing creative development via the boards. There are examples on this thread of how you can offer a suggestion but still point out some ways the game might be negatively affected by their implementation. This at least still contributes to the thread moreso than "Why bother? Here are 5 reasons why you are wrong wanting that in your game."

No one in this has done the latter. I, and at least one other, have asked for underlying motivation. Certainly, in my case, it is to better tailor potential responses. In fact, I've already given alternative suggestions as to how to make spellbooks more personalized without resorting to restricting current available options.

Now, that suggestion may or may not have relevance. I can't know unless I know the actual problem space being explored.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

My last reply on this thread, because its as annoying to threadjack as it is to threadcrap. Happy to discuss in its own thread if someone would like to continue the conversation.

Maybe the issue comes down to verbiage and unspoken intention behind words chosen. When I read forums and someone says something like "Why you want to do this?" my natural inclination is to read the words as a challenge as to whether or not an action should be taken rather than as a request for additional information in order to provide a more correct or thorough answer. On forums the lack of non-verbal cues make it difficult to determine which of the two is the intent and from my experience at ENWorld the challenge variation of "Why?" is the more common meaning of the pair.

Paying specific attention to your posts in this thread you ask "Why do you care?" to the OP. Then you list three challenges on the need for restricting copying spells (based on three different possible reasons) followed with some good general advice and finally an actual answer to the OPs questions you attempt with the knowledge you have on-hand.

So you might say your post is a mixed bag of challenging the need for restricting spell sharing AND offering advice on how to restrict spell sharing if one wanted to do so. This is why I read your "Why?" to be a challenge and not a request for more information.

 

[Shiroiken]

In prior editions this was discouraged culturally, as magical spells were closely guarded secrets of each mage, to be passed along only to apprentices. Of course, several players would ignore this suggestion, leading to a lot of overlapping abilities (and often player conflict as a result).

In 5E, due to the number of magical classes (bard, wizard, sorcerer, and warlock), it's unlikely that you'd have multiple wizards in the same group. Even if you did, most likely each would have a different focus for their spells. I'd guess 1st level rituals might be shared (Comprehend Languages, Detect Magic and Identify come readily to mind), but since the cost isn't worth it if the spell's not going to be used, I doubt much will occur beyond that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Of course, several players would ignore this suggestion, leading to a lot of overlapping abilities (and often player conflict as a result).

That struck me...odd. I don't recall this leading to player conflict. What did you see players arguing about?

 

[SkidAce]

as many already asked, why?

I have considered such things as the OP back in the day, but decided to not concern myself with it. some PCs swapped some didn't.

BUT!

It can make a difference for sure. Two Hold Persons per round instead of one, two ambush fireballs, two banishments, etc etc.