D&D 5E Player characters teaching (arcane) spells to each other

[HawaiiSteveO]

I'm sure this has been addressed previously, any links to previous discussions appreciated.

First off, personally I think this is a non-issue. 5E is flexible enough, just go with it!

In any case, idea centres around one PC teaching a spell to another PC. I say why not, anyone disagree and if so why?

My ruling even includes classes that don't use a spell book teaching those who do (and the reverse). For example, a bard can teach sleep to a wizard. Do bards and wizards cast sleep differently? OK I can go with that . . .but it's the same spell. There's no 'bard version', and so on.

If 2 or more players agree to do this I say why not (aside from the fact duplicate spell lists are boring!)?

 

[delericho]

I wouldn't rule against it (though I'd still require all the applicable costs be paid), but I would advise my players against it. Essentially for the reason you give - duplicate spell lists are boring (and also because niche protection is a good thing in D&D).

 

[Halivar]

I say go for it, with that understanding that the players are only hindering themselves if they are playing similar enough characters that they can share their entire spell book. One wizard in a party is great. A second is only tenable in a party large enough to fill the other traditional roles. Sub-mages like EK's and Arcane Tricksters receive spells at a slow enough rate that there is less benefit both ways to sharing a complete spell book.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I don't think I would allow cross class teaching. Bards cast very differently than wizards, and sorcerers are also different.

 

[HawaiiSteveO]

KahlessNestor, appreciate your thoughts although then you may get into the whole mess of can arcane tricksters only learn spells from other arcane tricksters and so on . . .

When my trickster goes from level 3 to 4 he gets a new one, rules don't speak to how (not Pathfinder haha!)

Say you have a wizard, bard, arcane trickster all in a line all casting sleep at the same time . . .

Wow I just wandered off into serious nerd territory !

Glaven!

 

[KahlessNestor]

Some aspects of the spell might be similar enough to identify (spellcraft), but the bard, say, isn't going to know a thing about what to do with the wizard's material components since all he needs to do to cast is sing a little lullaby and make a few gestures. The wizard learns detailed motioms, components, and magical words. I know the rules don't seem to differentiate much, but it seems to me the fluff would make it a big deal.

I might even say maybe two wizards can't even cast the se way. We have wizard schools that might have different traditions of how to cast.

I haven't played an arcane trickster, but if I recall, they cast like a wizard, right, from a book?

 

[rlor]

I wouldn't have a problem with PCs sharing their spellbooks with each other assuming they're paying the costs or even choosing their spells at level-up with the plan to share them with the other wizard.

As both a player and GM I've found with the concentration mechanic and the "At Higher Levels" a wizard can be well prepared with only 4 spells known a level. By letting them trade I'm more likely to see one of them pick Private Sanctum instead of Polymorph because they know the other person can trade Polymorph with them. I like seeing a variety of spells used, or a niche spell used in just the right situation to be a game changer.

 

[HawaiiSteveO]

Tricksters don't have spell books. Interesting point you made about components though.

I guess it comes down to flavor, for sure not a game wrecking decision either way.

 

[Pauper]

There seem to me to be two scenarios at play here:

1) Arcane trickster wants to take Sleep when he goes up a level, and wants to justify it by saying he 'learned' the spell from the wizard.

Since the arcane trickster learns spells from the wizard list, this is really more of a 'fluff' thing and has no mechanical impact. It may mean something to the players involved as a role-playing thing, so there's no real reason to ban this unless it would cause issues within the game (though what those issues might be, I can't really say).

2) Arcane Trickster wants to learn Sleep from the wizard and have it count as a known spell in excess of the normal number of spells the arcane trickster knows.

A DM could choose to allow this, but shouldn't -- it both breaks the balance between the wizard and arcane trickster classes and sets a precedent that the arcane trickster should be able to do this with higher level spells as well. If you as the DM do not want to allow this, but the arcane trickster complains that he can teach the wizard spells to put in his spellbook, point out (in the 'Your Spellbook' sidebar in the Player's Handbook) that this isn't how wizard spellbooks work in 5E -- a wizard can only scribe spells into her spellbook that are written down (usually from a spell scroll or from another wizard's spellbook), and only the wizard herself can scribe spells into her spellbook. Since player characters can't write spell scrolls, there's no way for the arcane trickster to 'give' one of his spells to the wizard, thus no need for the wizard to be able to 'give back' spells to the arcane trickster.

--
Pauper

 

[HawaiiSteveO]

So if a trickster decided to multiclass into a wizard they would have to learn sleep again?

Ok now I am just being silly... interesting thoughts for sure though thanks all. Slow day at work . . .