D&D 5E UA Spell Versatility: A deeper dive

[Chaosmancer]

You'd be incorrect about the longsword relevance because the argument falls apart once you start looking at it as xge actually has rules for crafting that sort of thing. Since we are talking about 50gp increments, it's easier to use a longbow, heavy crossbow chain shirt, or scale mail as they are all listed at 50gp & there's no sense in complicating things if we go that route as those 4 5-gp items each would take 25gp of materials & 1 workweek to craft.

Using that calculation, the archmage spellbook has 72 spell levels worth of spells (unless I miscounted) & a wizard put in between 1800-3600gp scribing it... at a rate of . If you double that as the half the resources towards a final price you get 3600-7200gp... but the work week part of the formula vibrates that to bits because under the "For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. " formula, the spellbook only took 4-5 days.

I have read XGE, conveniently you posted it so I don't have to dig it back out.

The very first part reads " a character needs raw materials worth half of the item’s selling cost" which is exactly what I said.

And, if you find the 50 gold increments too much, then you can break them back down. See, XGE says "To
determine how many workweeks it takes to create an item, divide its gold piece cost by 50." Earlier they determined that a workweek is 5 days, so that is 10 gold a day. In the PHB they listed it as 5 gold a day, so this is an improvement to be sure, but it was still not enough to fix crafting (I will save that rant for later).

But, that isn't your issue. Your issue comes from the number of hours. But, I think this is not really much of a problem.

See the crafting rules cover everything from forging platemail to building ships to making paintings. But, because they are so broad, they end up not applying well to every specific case. For example, I am certain you could give Rembrandt the 10 gold painter's supplies and have him work, and the resulting piece would be worth more than 20 gold.

These are guideline rules, so, while the time put in is less, the expertise required (only wizards can scribe spells from a wizard's spellbook) is likely enough. Besides, they are only copying a hundred pages of material. That should definitely not take longer than a week.

Unfortunately, spellbooks are a magical item.

No they aren't actually, you can buy a mundane spellbook from the equipment list and unlike the Potion of Healing, it is not in italics. In fact, no where in the entire game does it say that a spellbook is a magical item.

While there is a table for magic items, that table is based on item rarity & a spellbook is not the same rarity as the scrolls within it just as a 3rd level fireball spell is "uncommon", a wand/necklace of fireballs is rare, a staff of fire/staff of power is very rare.

Which could be explained by the personal magical power of the item.

Scroll of Fireball can cast 1 spell if used by a spellcaster who can normally cast fireball.

Necklace does not require attunement and can be used by anyone while casting up to 9 fireballs

Wand requires attunement by a spellcaster with their own magic, but can cast 7 fireballs and refresh them daily

The staffs are not only even more restrictive in their attunement, but have abilities beyond the fireball spell

By that scaling, a spellbook with fireball or nearly any other spell in it it common. We do have prices for common magic items at 50-100gp & that is dramatically beneath the cost of a spell scroll.

Sure, if the spellbook only had the fireball spell in it.

Unfortunately the problem still remains that WotC has set the expectations that spellbooks should be extremely uncommon (at least in the published 5e material I've seen, perhaps you've seen otherwise in other content?).

I run homebrew games, and after five years of running I've only just recently had a wizard in the party.

So I hope that you can now see why the guidelines are not at all clear.

"Not clear" does not equal "nonexistent" or make my assumptions and process completely inaccurate. In fact, by putting together "what is the cost in materials" and "how much do you sell an item you craft for" it is a very reasonable assumption.

You are the only one who seems to think that just because a minor detail or two doesn't line up perfectly the entire process needs to be thrown out the window.

Rising from the last war has various organizations with very affordable yearly dues that mention giving members access to spellbooks, but that assumes that you are playing a game in eberron where magic is much more available & does nothing for a setting with baselines closer to FR Ravenloft or Darksun. If the solution to balancing spellbook availability & scribing cost against how spell versatility works is "play wizards in one particular setting or one like it" then spell versatility is even more problemagic as is by not being limited to that setting.

I've been using setting agnostic rules, found in the PHB and XGTE. If you want to start expanding this to rule sets that have not been published (ie darksun) or other specific settings that clearly break the mold (Eberron) that is on you, but I am not going to follow you down that trail.

Since spell versatility could apply to both groups no matter what setting they are playing in, it needs to be balanced for both groups.

And I think it is.

Back in prior editions this was reflected in the cost of copying from some other wizard's spellbook but 5e rules for such a thing don't exist in a setting neutral format.

Grabbing this from your other discussion.

Yes they do. Copying a spell is listed in the class features of the wizard. That is as setting neutral as you can get. 50 gold per spell level.

 

[tetrasodium]

I have read XGE, conveniently you posted it so I don't have to dig it back out.

The very first part reads " a character needs raw materials worth half of the item’s selling cost" which is exactly what I said.

And, if you find the 50 gold increments too much, then you can break them back down. See, XGE says "To
determine how many workweeks it takes to create an item, divide its gold piece cost by 50." Earlier they determined that a workweek is 5 days, so that is 10 gold a day. In the PHB they listed it as 5 gold a day, so this is an improvement to be sure, but it was still not enough to fix crafting (I will save that rant for later).

But, that isn't your issue. Your issue comes from the number of hours. But, I think this is not really much of a problem.

See the crafting rules cover everything from forging platemail to building ships to making paintings. But, because they are so broad, they end up not applying well to every specific case. For example, I am certain you could give Rembrandt the 10 gold painter's supplies and have him work, and the resulting piece would be worth more than 20 gold.

These are guideline rules, so, while the time put in is less, the expertise required (only wizards can scribe spells from a wizard's spellbook) is likely enough. Besides, they are only copying a hundred pages of material. That should definitely not take longer than a week.




No they aren't actually, you can buy a mundane spellbook from the equipment list and unlike the Potion of Healing, it is not in italics. In fact, no where in the entire game does it say that a spellbook is a magical item.



Which could be explained by the personal magical power of the item.

Scroll of Fireball can cast 1 spell if used by a spellcaster who can normally cast fireball.

Necklace does not require attunement and can be used by anyone while casting up to 9 fireballs

Wand requires attunement by a spellcaster with their own magic, but can cast 7 fireballs and refresh them daily

The staffs are not only even more restrictive in their attunement, but have abilities beyond the fireball spell




Sure, if the spellbook only had the fireball spell in it.



I run homebrew games, and after five years of running I've only just recently had a wizard in the party.




"Not clear" does not equal "nonexistent" or make my assumptions and process completely inaccurate. In fact, by putting together "what is the cost in materials" and "how much do you sell an item you craft for" it is a very reasonable assumption.

You are the only one who seems to think that just because a minor detail or two doesn't line up perfectly the entire process needs to be thrown out the window.




I've been using setting agnostic rules, found in the PHB and XGTE. If you want to start expanding this to rule sets that have not been published (ie darksun) or other specific settings that clearly break the mold (Eberron) that is on you, but I am not going to follow you down that trail.



And I think it is.



Grabbing this from your other discussion.

Yes they do. Copying a spell is listed in the class features of the wizard. That is as setting neutral as you can get. 50 gold per spell level.

I'm not the one who brought up using the xge crafting rules as a method of calculating the sale value of a spellbook, I believe that was you in referencing half the cost of materials & the cost of scribing a spell into a sprellbook. Already you are combining xge128/129(crafting), phb114 (scribing spells), phb144(selling iitems/selling magic items). As to spellbooks being magical or not, it's generally considered that they have minor enchantments to protect them from the elements along with the general wear & tear of adventuring outside the bookcase.... If you accept that it goes back to the problem, since you clearly don't then it goes headfirst into highlighting how string free spell versatility is compared to such a fragile mundane object. which sells for half its cost, but if you look just below that in the magic items section it flatly talks about how difficulties finding an interested buyer capable of affording your item. The fact that you are cobbling together 3* different systems not meant to seamlessly mesh in order to come up with the value for selling a spellbook is why the cracks forming from those subsystems being forced to work together is important. Those cracks will grow & magnify as the party advances. You even seem to admit that the crafting rules are a poor & imperfect tool for various use cases & went on to make a Rembrandt example but don't accept that calculating the value of a spellbook is one of those use cases.

You are correct in assuming that the magic power of the item affects the rarity of the item even though both the example scroll of fireball & various rare+ magic items that also cast fireball. However, that very same logic that you apply to agree that elevated rarity is reasonable is why an Item such as a spellbook carried & used by 100% of wizards not beset by some variation of the"so you wake up naked in prison" type tropes can not be the same rarity as spell scrolls. It doesn't matter what spells are in it, but it there would be various "a normal spellbook for these guidelines has x number of spells spells of various levels, y spells of otherLevel , etc". In fact it seems that some of the points on who can use those items & how often is reasonable to raising their rarity over a spell scroll but not raising the rarity level of a spell scroll over the rarity of an average spellbook . Can you explain that discrepancy?

The copying from a spellbook 3.5 thing that came up earlier was on top of the cost to actually scribe spells, you seem to have mistaken that cost of copying from their spellbook as the cost to scribe the spell from theirs into yours, the rule for that downtime activity in 5e literally does not exist anywhere but some implied bits of Rising. Perhaps the fact that because "after five years of running [you've] only just recently had a wizard in the party. " is why you've never had a wizard ask to copy spells from $wizardNPC, say they'd like to look around town for some wizards they could reach out to in hopes of copying from their spellbook while in town, or many of the other issues we've discussed come up often enough to notice the problems that have been raised in these discussions or notice how that wizard remains a gold black hole long after the other PCs care less & less about gold?

*4 if you use the scroll costs in the dmg as some have tried.

 

[Ashrym]

The fact that you are cobbling together 3* different systems not meant to seamlessly mesh in order to come up with the value for selling a spellbook is why the cracks forming from those subsystems being forced to work together is important.

This argument doesn't make sense. Nothing is cobbled together. There are 3 different options from which to select. When I pointed to them it was to give ideas. Different tables like to handle magic items differently so those are different options that might suit your table.

Crafting costs are a standard method regardless of what's being crafted so easily applied. Spending the time and gold to talk to NPC's is the most role-play and limited way to go. Flat out buying scrolls of first through fifth level (or the potions) on page 174 of XGtE is the most magic-mini mart method.

All you need to do is pick one and do it. There's nothing hard or complicated about it.

EDIT: I may have gotten side tracked on the cost of selling services and mixed the two up in this case. However, selling services and crafting is still pretty standard.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not the one who brought up using the xge crafting rules as a method of calculating the sale value of a spellbook, I believe that was you in referencing half the cost of materials & the cost of scribing a spell into a sprellbook.

Yes? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I know I am the one who brought up the half cost in materials. Which is also in the PHB, not just XGTE

Already you are combining xge128/129(crafting), phb114 (scribing spells), phb144(selling iitems/selling magic items).

Yes, I am combining scribing spells from the wizard class (which creates the spellbook), with selling items (because we are selling an item) with the rules for how the raw cost of materials translates into a market value (128 in XGTE but also on 187 of the PHB)

Is this bad?

To make a weapon attack I generally combine the proficiency score (laid out on page 14) with the rules for Attack actions (laid out on pages 192, 194 and 195) and the weapon damage die (using the table on page 149) sometimes using the properties on pages 146 and 147 and class abilities on those page.

The game is about combing the rules that apply to the situation. Just because you are putting together two or more rules does not mean you are doing something wrong, otherwise the game would fall apart.

As to spellbooks being magical or not, it's generally considered that they have minor enchantments to protect them from the elements along with the general wear & tear of adventuring outside the bookcase....

No they don't.

We as DM's often treat them as such, because ruining a wizard's spellbook is a big deal, but nowhere in the rules does it list Spellbooks as being protected from the elements or from wear and tear.

If you accept that it goes back to the problem, since you clearly don't then it goes headfirst into highlighting how string free spell versatility is compared to such a fragile mundane object. which sells for half its cost, but if you look just below that in the magic items section it flatly talks about how difficulties finding an interested buyer capable of affording your item.

You are right, could be difficult to find a buyer for an archmages spellbook worth thousands of gold.

The point wasn't "this is how to make easy money" (I did that by pointing out wizards can sell their services for lots of money) the point was you were very caught up in how "useless" the spellbooks gained in adventures are. You already have every 9th level spell found in them and you have zero use for them. I was just pointing out that they are worth thousands of gold if you find them so worthless for the purposes of gaining new spells.

Now, on top of telling me they are worthless for learning new spells, because miraculously you have all those spells, you want to convince me that they are worth only a handful of gold at best.

And somehow, the fact that you already know all these spells, and that spellbooks are cheap as dirt is supposed to convince me that wizards need to pinch their pennies and beg DMs to provide them with new spells because learning them all takes so much money.

So... which is it? Do you already have every spell in an Archmage's spellbook up to level 9, or do you not? Are spellbooks so expensive that you can't possible afford them, or are they so cheap you gain no value in selling them.

It has to be one or the other, right?

The fact that you are cobbling together 3* different systems not meant to seamlessly mesh in order to come up with the value for selling a spellbook is why the cracks forming from those subsystems being forced to work together is important. Those cracks will grow & magnify as the party advances.

The only crack you seem to be able to find is that Wizards are faster at making these books than the base rules, making them worth even more.

You even seem to admit that the crafting rules are a poor & imperfect tool for various use cases & went on to make a Rembrandt example but don't accept that calculating the value of a spellbook is one of those use cases.

Yeah, I have massive issues with the crafting system of DnD and I have worked repeatedly to find or make homebrew that does exactly what I like and doesn't break reality.

For example, by RAW in XGTE, a character can make and sell 50 gallons of beer a day. I might not know a lot about brewing, but I know that is bonkers.

And artistry should have value, which it doesn't.

But, that doesn't invalidate anything, especially since you seem to think these rules are non-existent where I just think they are woefully lacking and really wish they were a lot better.

You are correct in assuming that the magic power of the item affects the rarity of the item even though both the example scroll of fireball & various rare+ magic items that also cast fireball. However, that very same logic that you apply to agree that elevated rarity is reasonable is why an Item such as a spellbook carried & used by 100% of wizards not beset by some variation of the"so you wake up naked in prison" type tropes can not be the same rarity as spell scrolls.

It doesn't matter what spells are in it, but it there would be various "a normal spellbook for these guidelines has x number of spells spells of various levels, y spells of otherLevel , etc". In fact it seems that some of the points on who can use those items & how often is reasonable to raising their rarity over a spell scroll but not raising the rarity level of a spell scroll over the rarity of an average spellbook . Can you explain that discrepancy?

I'm trying to follow what you are asking here.

So, you agree that item rarity is effected by the power of the item. Good.

But, because of this, spellbooks cannot be as rare as spell scrolls.... okay.

There should be guidelines for spellbooks with various spells per level... I think you can just figure that out by figuring the level of the wizard who made it. A spellbook by a level 1 wizard has 6 first level spells. A level 3 wizard would likely have 8 first and 2 second. Ect.

Who can use the item, it's attunement, and how often they can use it raises rarity. I can agree with that.

Spell scrolls aren't more rare than spellbooks... possibly, it is hard to say. Wizards make a lot more spellbooks than they would make scrolls (every single wizard makes at least one spellbook, if not more). So they would be more common, but high level spellbooks would be less common than low level spell scrolls. Which makes sense seeing as the rarity of a spell scroll changes based on the level of the spell they contain.

So, what discrepancy should I explain? That spellbooks aren't as rare as spell scrolls? No discrepancy. A wizard naturally makes a spellbook by the very nature of being a wizard, while no all wizards make scrolls. Wizards even make back up copies of their books because they can be destroyed by mundane events. But, spellbooks are more limited (being only used by wizards, while scrolls can be used by many different classes). Additionally, spell scrolls are destroyed by using them, while spellbooks are not. So, while it might be easy to find an apprentice wizards spellbook, or find primer spellbooks in libraries, it is harder to find a master wizard's spellbook, but you are more likely to find that than a spell scroll containing a powerful and useful spell, since that means it wasn't used, since it is destroyed upon use.

The copying from a spellbook 3.5 thing that came up earlier was on top of the cost to actually scribe spells, you seem to have mistaken that cost of copying from their spellbook as the cost to scribe the spell from theirs into yours, the rule for that downtime activity in 5e literally does not exist anywhere but some implied bits of Rising.

Um, not true?

The sidebar on page 114 literally says when you find a wizard spell, you can add it. And in the second paragraph says "Copying that spell into your spellbook involves... then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it". They then give the cost. They then even further mention that the cost of copying your own spells into a blank book only costs 10 gold per spell level, because you you understand the spell already. So, I am not mistaking anything, I know exactly what it is costing.

Gaining a new spell via leveling allows you to add spells for free

Perhaps the fact that because "after five years of running [you've] only just recently had a wizard in the party. " is why you've never had a wizard ask to copy spells from $wizardNPC, say they'd like to look around town for some wizards they could reach out to in hopes of copying from their spellbook while in town, or many of the other issues we've discussed come up often enough to notice the problems that have been raised in these discussions or notice how that wizard remains a gold black hole long after the other PCs care less & less about gold?

Just because I haven't run for wizards (people prefer rogues, clerics, paladins and druids at my tables) does not mean I do not understand the rules they operate under.

After all, I expect wizards to show up in every party, so I made sure to understand the rules they work under and how that might play out over the course of an adventure.

 

[tetrasodium]

This argument doesn't make sense. Nothing is cobbled together. There are 3 different options from which to select. When I pointed to them it was to give ideas. Different tables like to handle magic items differently so those are different options that might suit your table.

Crafting costs are a standard method regardless of what's being crafted so easily applied. Spending the time and gold to talk to NPC's is the most role-play and limited way to go. Flat out buying scrolls of first through fifth level (or the potions) on page 174 of XGtE is the most magic-mini mart method.

All you need to do is pick one and do it. There's nothing hard or complicated about it.

EDIT: I may have gotten side tracked on the cost of selling services and mixed the two up in this case. However, selling services and crafting is still pretty standard.

Tell me... Given that both wizard & sorcerer would need the same long rest to change their prepared spells & use spell versatility. what subjective choices other than what spell to swap in/out during a long rest will vary from table to table with spell versatility? that is the problem, rules that are missing, & why the sorcerer is stomping on wizard toes. People readily accept that wild magic sorcerer can be crippled or maybe cool depending on the gm because such a core part of that archtype is entirely up to the whims of the gm... but point out that a core part of the wizard base class from level 1 also is just as if not more table limited since there are more factors that are up to the gm.

That collection of rules put together are a fragile stretch on par with using duct tape to fix a problem at best.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I know I am the one who brought up the half cost in materials. Which is also in the PHB, not just XGTE



Yes, I am combining scribing spells from the wizard class (which creates the spellbook), with selling items (because we are selling an item) with the rules for how the raw cost of materials translates into a market value (128 in XGTE but also on 187 of the PHB)

Is this bad?

To make a weapon attack I generally combine the proficiency score (laid out on page 14) with the rules for Attack actions (laid out on pages 192, 194 and 195) and the weapon damage die (using the table on page 149) sometimes using the properties on pages 146 and 147 and class abilities on those page.

The game is about combing the rules that apply to the situation. Just because you are putting together two or more rules does not mean you are doing something wrong, otherwise the game would fall apart.




No they don't.

We as DM's often treat them as such, because ruining a wizard's spellbook is a big deal, but nowhere in the rules does it list Spellbooks as being protected from the elements or from wear and tear.



You are right, could be difficult to find a buyer for an archmages spellbook worth thousands of gold.

The point wasn't "this is how to make easy money" (I did that by pointing out wizards can sell their services for lots of money) the point was you were very caught up in how "useless" the spellbooks gained in adventures are. You already have every 9th level spell found in them and you have zero use for them. I was just pointing out that they are worth thousands of gold if you find them so worthless for the purposes of gaining new spells.

Now, on top of telling me they are worthless for learning new spells, because miraculously you have all those spells, you want to convince me that they are worth only a handful of gold at best.

And somehow, the fact that you already know all these spells, and that spellbooks are cheap as dirt is supposed to convince me that wizards need to pinch their pennies and beg DMs to provide them with new spells because learning them all takes so much money.

So... which is it? Do you already have every spell in an Archmage's spellbook up to level 9, or do you not? Are spellbooks so expensive that you can't possible afford them, or are they so cheap you gain no value in selling them.

It has to be one or the other, right?



The only crack you seem to be able to find is that Wizards are faster at making these books than the base rules, making them worth even more.



Yeah, I have massive issues with the crafting system of DnD and I have worked repeatedly to find or make homebrew that does exactly what I like and doesn't break reality.

For example, by RAW in XGTE, a character can make and sell 50 gallons of beer a day. I might not know a lot about brewing, but I know that is bonkers.

And artistry should have value, which it doesn't.

But, that doesn't invalidate anything, especially since you seem to think these rules are non-existent where I just think they are woefully lacking and really wish they were a lot better.





I'm trying to follow what you are asking here.

So, you agree that item rarity is effected by the power of the item. Good.

But, because of this, spellbooks cannot be as rare as spell scrolls.... okay.

There should be guidelines for spellbooks with various spells per level... I think you can just figure that out by figuring the level of the wizard who made it. A spellbook by a level 1 wizard has 6 first level spells. A level 3 wizard would likely have 8 first and 2 second. Ect.

Who can use the item, it's attunement, and how often they can use it raises rarity. I can agree with that.

Spell scrolls aren't more rare than spellbooks... possibly, it is hard to say. Wizards make a lot more spellbooks than they would make scrolls (every single wizard makes at least one spellbook, if not more). So they would be more common, but high level spellbooks would be less common than low level spell scrolls. Which makes sense seeing as the rarity of a spell scroll changes based on the level of the spell they contain.

So, what discrepancy should I explain? That spellbooks aren't as rare as spell scrolls? No discrepancy. A wizard naturally makes a spellbook by the very nature of being a wizard, while no all wizards make scrolls. Wizards even make back up copies of their books because they can be destroyed by mundane events. But, spellbooks are more limited (being only used by wizards, while scrolls can be used by many different classes). Additionally, spell scrolls are destroyed by using them, while spellbooks are not. So, while it might be easy to find an apprentice wizards spellbook, or find primer spellbooks in libraries, it is harder to find a master wizard's spellbook, but you are more likely to find that than a spell scroll containing a powerful and useful spell, since that means it wasn't used, since it is destroyed upon use.



Um, not true?

The sidebar on page 114 literally says when you find a wizard spell, you can add it. And in the second paragraph says "Copying that spell into your spellbook involves... then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it". They then give the cost. They then even further mention that the cost of copying your own spells into a blank book only costs 10 gold per spell level, because you you understand the spell already. So, I am not mistaking anything, I know exactly what it is costing.

Gaining a new spell via leveling allows you to add spells for free



Just because I haven't run for wizards (people prefer rogues, clerics, paladins and druids at my tables) does not mean I do not understand the rules they operate under.

After all, I expect wizards to show up in every party, so I made sure to understand the rules they work under and how that might play out over the course of an adventure.

Spoiler: this

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.

is extremely different from

Spoiler: this

Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell
of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is
of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare
the time to decipher and copy it.
Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing
the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique
system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You
must practice the spell until you understand the sounds
or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook
using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and
costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you
expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well
as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent
this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your
other spells.

The fact that you think they are the same thing is deeply troubling for the health of this discussion You are so caught up on the archmage's spellbook likely to be obtained at or near the end of the campaign that you can't even recognize the fact that either you are unwilling to admit they exist or that poor wizard at your table still has not gotten a spellbook of any sort other than the one they started with... I mourn for that poor wizard who more recently joined your table.

As to your suggestion that adding prof+stat+etc into an attack roll is not explicitly spelled out...

Spoiler: PHB 194 says otherwise

A t t a c k R o l l s
W hen you make an attack, your attack roll determines
whether the attack hits or m isses. To make an attack
roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the
total o f the roll plus m odifiers equals or exceeds the
target’s A rm or Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC o f a
character is determined at character creation, whereas
the AC of a monster is in its stat block.

M o d i f i e r s t o t h e R o l l
W hen a character m akes an attack roll, the two most
com m on modifiers to the roll are an ability m odifier
and the character’s proficiency bonus. W hen a monster
m akes an attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is
provided in its stat block.
Ability Modifier. The ability m odifier used for a melee
w eapon attack is Strength, and the ability m odifier used
for a ranged w eapon attack is Dexterity. W eapons that
have the finesse or thrown property break this rule.
S om e spells also require an attack roll. The ability
m odifier used for a spell attack depends on the
spellcasting ability o f the spellcaster, as explained
in chapter 10.
Proficiency Bonus. You add your proficiency bonus
to your attack roll when you attack using a w eapon with
which you have proficiency, as w ell as w hen you attack
with a spell.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Spoiler: this

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.

is extremely different from

Spoiler: this

Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell
of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is
of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare
the time to decipher and copy it.
Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing
the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique
system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You
must practice the spell until you understand the sounds
or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook
using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and
costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you
expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well
as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent
this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your
other spells.

The fact that you think they are the same thing is deeply troubling for the health of this discussion

Okay, first of all, I have no idea where you got the first spoiler. I've only been referencing the second spoiler from the PHB in the wizard section. So, if you think I have been using different material, you are wrong.

Secondly, if they are so different why do they both list 50 gp per spell level? In fact, the 5e version is only harsher in that it didn't make it free to gain spells throughout adventuring.

So, to reiterate. I am not confusing the two, because I am only using the source in the PHB for 5e, the edition we are dicussing. I never even played 3.5 (my assumption for your source since you keep brining 3.5 back into this discussion), so I will never be referencing those rules without explicitly calling them out.

You are so caught up on the archmage's spellbook likely to be obtained at or near the end of the campaign

You are the one who brought up Archmages, when you said that published adventures said the spells in an aquired spell book either mentioned the Mage or Archmage statblocks. Archmage was just the bigger book, so it made more interesting numbers, since you were declaring both worthless.

And, since I tend to run closer to 20 for most of my games, fighting a CR 12 individual would be about the mid-point.

that you can't even recognize the fact that either you are unwilling to admit they exist or that poor wizard at your table still has not gotten a spellbook of any sort other than the one they started with... I mourn for that poor wizard who more recently joined your table.

I would mourn for them (there are three of them) as well, but not for the reason you are thinking. The game is taking place in a post-magic apocalypse setting, and they were granted their powers by a goddess (a la Knights of Rayearth style) and so I've been letting them copy each other's spellbooks for free.

So, each level they are gaining 6 spells. I also don't have many wizard enemies, since most people are just now figuring out magic exists, so they have not found any new spellbooks yet, but they aren't really complaining.

As to your suggestion that adding prof+stat+etc into an attack roll is not explicitly spelled out...

Spoiler: PHB 194 says otherwise

A t t a c k R o l l s
W hen you make an attack, your attack roll determines
whether the attack hits or m isses. To make an attack
roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the
total o f the roll plus m odifiers equals or exceeds the
target’s A rm or Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC o f a
character is determined at character creation, whereas
the AC of a monster is in its stat block.

M o d i f i e r s t o t h e R o l l
W hen a character m akes an attack roll, the two most
com m on modifiers to the roll are an ability m odifier
and the character’s proficiency bonus. W hen a monster
m akes an attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is
provided in its stat block.
Ability Modifier. The ability m odifier used for a melee
w eapon attack is Strength, and the ability m odifier used
for a ranged w eapon attack is Dexterity. W eapons that
have the finesse or thrown property break this rule.
S om e spells also require an attack roll. The ability
m odifier used for a spell attack depends on the
spellcasting ability o f the spellcaster, as explained
in chapter 10.
Proficiency Bonus. You add your proficiency bonus
to your attack roll when you attack using a w eapon with
which you have proficiency, as w ell as w hen you attack
with a spell.

le sigh

You missed my point. My point was that just because you can point to a number of rules being on different pages of the book doesn't mean they aren't meant to go together. I used the example I did for a reason, because while they did repeat those parts, each page I mentioned was where the rules could be found, all over the book.

 

[tetrasodium]

Okay, first of all, I have no idea where you got the first spoiler. I've only been referencing the second spoiler from the PHB in the wizard section. So, if you think I have been using different material, you are wrong.

Secondly, if they are so different why do they both list 50 gp per spell level? In fact, the 5e version is only harsher in that it didn't make it free to gain spells throughout adventuring.

So, to reiterate. I am not confusing the two, because I am only using the source in the PHB for 5e, the edition we are dicussing. I never even played 3.5 (my assumption for your source since you keep brining 3.5 back into this discussion), so I will never be referencing those rules without explicitly calling them out.



You are the one who brought up Archmages, when you said that published adventures said the spells in an aquired spell book either mentioned the Mage or Archmage statblocks. Archmage was just the bigger book, so it made more interesting numbers, since you were declaring both worthless.

And, since I tend to run closer to 20 for most of my games, fighting a CR 12 individual would be about the mid-point.



I would mourn for them (there are three of them) as well, but not for the reason you are thinking. The game is taking place in a post-magic apocalypse setting, and they were granted their powers by a goddess (a la Knights of Rayearth style) and so I've been letting them copy each other's spellbooks for free.

So, each level they are gaining 6 spells. I also don't have many wizard enemies, since most people are just now figuring out magic exists, so they have not found any new spellbooks yet, but they aren't really complaining.



le sigh

You missed my point. My point was that just because you can point to a number of rules being on different pages of the book doesn't mean they aren't meant to go together. I used the example I did for a reason, because while they did repeat those parts, each page I mentioned was where the rules could be found, all over the book.

That first spoiler came from 3.5 I mentioned & quoted it earlier, but you've been doggedly insisting such a rule existed in 5e since then. From your question, you still don't appear to realize that paying to gain access & copy spells is different from

Spoiler: actually scribing them

Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it into her
spellbook.
Time: The process takes 24 hours, regardless of the spell’s level.
Space in the Spellbook: A spell takes up one page of the spell-
book per spell level, so a 2nd-level spell takes two pages, a 5th-
level spell takes five pages, and so forth. Even a 0-level spell
(cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has one hundred pages.
Materials and Costs: Materials for writing the spell (special
quills, inks, and other supplies) cost 100 gp per page.
Note that a wizard does not have to pay these costs in time or
gold for the spells she gains for free at each new level. She simply
adds these to her spellbook as part of her ongoing research.

The cr6 mage and cr12 archmage's spellbook is relevant to the discussion not because I (dis)like them or because I have any particular preference, but because WotC is fond of printing words like "It contains all the spells listed for the archmage in the Monster Manual. "
I made that clear earlier when I brought it up earlier the scroll/spellbook offerings, it should not come as a surprise. As to your campaign's running to 20, Wotc's own data indicates that they then to tail off shortly before or shortly after level 10. Having 3 wizards at the same table is a decidedly unusual occurrence & sounds like it was not coincidence .

 

[Ashrym]

Tell me... Given that both wizard & sorcerer would need the same long rest to change their prepared spells & use spell versatility. what subjective choices other than what spell to swap in/out during a long rest will vary from table to table with spell versatility?

First of all, that response has nothing to do with what you quoted again.

Second, they don't need the same long rest. The wizard needs one long rest to swap any number of relevant spells. The sorcerer needs days to do the same.

Third, what subjective variation are you talking about? It doesn't matter what table a player plays at. That player selects the best spells in his or her opinion. The starting point is always the same, and what the sorcerer needs is always the same (some damage, some defense, and some utility). That's some abstract idea that you claim exist and have yet to demonstrate it's existence.

If I make a sorcerer and take light, mage hand, shocking grasp, firebolt; shield, and sleep the only reason to change any of that is because sleep or firebolt becomes less useful than an alternative situationally created. In the case of sleep I would never plan on keeping it anyway because it gets outgrown.

Why do you think I would change these spells at all after selecting them? I chose them because those are what I wanted to use. What you are trying to argue is that I'm going to make a conscious choice to stop using the spells I want to use because of some abstract subjective "thing" despite the fact that those are the spells I want to use. That doesn't make any sense.

that is the problem, rules that are missing, & why the sorcerer is stomping on wizard toes.

You haven't responded to a single point I made disputing this statement with evidence to demonstrate the validity of this statement. I listed 8 concise reasons why I disagree earlier.

There are no missing rules to create this situation. Look the sorcerer list, and tell me why I would deliberately choose to stop using a spell I wanted over one of the other ones and explain why I would not have taken that spell in the first place if that's what I really wanted. Using spell versatility is the exception, not the expectation.

Then explain how my less spells known as a sorcerer has stomped on wizard toes when wizards are not changing spells out much either. A wizard is a wizard because the wizard uses INT as an ability score (which translates as lore vs social skills), has a lot of spells readily available, uses rituals, and specializes in a specific school of magic. Explain how that's no longer true just because a sorcerer might change a single spell once in a while.

Explain it with actual logic and game play, not some theoretical variance of unknown quality that might exist between tables that just so happens to validate what you are saying.

People readily accept that wild magic sorcerer can be crippled or maybe cool depending on the gm because such a core part of that archtype is entirely up to the whims of the gm... but point out that a core part of the wizard base class from level 1 also is just as if not more table limited since there are more factors that are up to the gm.

Not a point in your favor. It's false equivalence because spell versatility is not the wild sorcerer subclass. DM fiat works both ways. Issues with a feature and how a DM handles them is a discussion between the player and DM.

Spell preparation is not a wizard thing. It's a broad category of spell casting under which clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards all fall. Spell versatility is just an optional part of a broad category of spell casting that includes bards, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks. No class own the broad category.

That collection of rules put together are a fragile stretch on par with using duct tape to fix a problem at best.

"Here is a list of spell scrolls and potions along with their prices" is not hard to use or problematic if that's how the table wants to play. That's page 174 of XGtE. It's clear and concise because it's what you seemed to want.

Item creation rules are generic but also clear.

The method of hunting down magic item by spending time and money to interact with NPCs is based on roleplay in a roleplaying game. That's not problematic at all and the guidelines are clear.

The rules for scribing spells are also clear. So is the cost for scribing them. So is the price for paying for spell casting services that a PC wizard. Crafting and selling is not hard to apply. Neither are the same tables used for purchasing items. This isn't duct tape holding together random rules. That's applying a label to an issue that never existed because a person chooses not to accept solutions given as opposed any issues with those solutions.

A person simply needs to choose a suggested method that suits his or her game and use it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That first spoiler came from 3.5 I mentioned & quoted it earlier, but you've been doggedly insisting such a rule existed in 5e since then. From your question, you still don't appear to realize that paying to gain access & copy spells is different from

Spoiler: actually scribing them

Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it into her
spellbook.
Time: The process takes 24 hours, regardless of the spell’s level.
Space in the Spellbook: A spell takes up one page of the spell-
book per spell level, so a 2nd-level spell takes two pages, a 5th-
level spell takes five pages, and so forth. Even a 0-level spell
(cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has one hundred pages.
Materials and Costs: Materials for writing the spell (special
quills, inks, and other supplies) cost 100 gp per page.
Note that a wizard does not have to pay these costs in time or
gold for the spells she gains for free at each new level. She simply
adds these to her spellbook as part of her ongoing research.

Okay, I'll bite. Where does this rule quote come from. I skimmed both the 5e PHB and XGTE, but couldn't find it... actually, digs around in old stuff

Oh wonderful, you have once again quoted 3.5.

3.5 rules do not apply to fifth edition. They never have, they never will. 3.5 was two editions ago. It does not apply.

Here are the fifth edition rules. I'll highlight and discuss.

1) Copying a Spell into the Book.

When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.

2) Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, 3) then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.

4) For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.

Replacing the Book: You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. 5) This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.


If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.

1) This tells us what we are talking about. Copying spells, from any source, into a spellbook. Unless stated elsewhere, if you find a wizard spell you can copy, it will follow these rules. You find a stone tablet inscribed with the spell formula, you use these rules to copy it. You find a mystic scroll with the spell formula, you use these rules to copy it. You find an enemy spellbook, you use these rules to copy it. This is further laid out by the first sentence, which literally says " When you find a wizard spell... you can add it to your spellbook

2) This further breaks down what is going on. To copy the spell, you need to remake the basic form, the formula if you will, and practice it. Additionally, you need to "decipher the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it." This tells us that wherever you are copying this wizard spell from, it was written by a different wizard. This includes if it was written in their spellbook. So, this is directly stating these are the rules that you follow to scribe a spell from one spellbook into another, but maybe that doesn't convince you. After all, how do I know this "unique notation" applies to spellbooks?

3) Oh, it says it right here. You write spells in your spellbook using your own notation system. A unique system that if another wizard wanted to figure out, they would need to decipher, just like it said.

4) Which makes these rules, 50 gold and 2 hours per level of the spell, the cost of scribing a spell from one spellbook into the other. There is no "Access" fee that a wizard might charge you, this is literally the only cost. If you have a spell book and want to scribe the spells in it into your own book, it costs 50 gold and 2 hours.

5) This only strengthens what I am saying, because it is easier and cheaper to copy your own notes than to break down a spell you do not know and decipher the foreign code. Because the 50 gold and 2 hours is for scribing a spell from a different source (scroll, tablet, spellbook, knotted rope, doesn't matter) into your spellbook.


I literally can not get any more clear than this. These are the rules you insist do not exist, and it seems that your issue is that you are seeing the cost as being the same as some rules from 3.5 and are assuming that those rules must be applying to a different aspect of the game, because if it were the rules they say they are, it would have the cost from 3.5.

3.5 rules do not match 5e rules. The rules for scribing an enemy spellbook are the rules quoted and bolded, that you quoted at me some time ago claiming I was mixing them up with some rules from two editions ago. I wasn't. These are the rules you are looking for.

The cr6 mage and cr12 archmage's spellbook is relevant to the discussion not because I (dis)like them or because I have any particular preference, but because WotC is fond of printing words like "It contains all the spells listed for the archmage in the Monster Manual. "

I made that clear earlier when I brought it up earlier the scroll/spellbook offerings, it should not come as a surprise.

Yes, I know.

So, in the official material, they only have the spells from those two monster statblocks, and that is somehow bad and should be the standard by which we measure all games across all tables for some reason that makes wizards bad at finding and scribing spells.

My only point was that even if WoTC runs 100 adventures and every spellbook says "It contains all the spells listed on this convenient statblock" that does not neccesarily make it worthless to the players. In fact, it changes nothing about the actual rules written.

You can scribe those books.
You can sell those books.

There are things you can do other than insist that the rules do not exist and there is nothing you can do about it.

As to your campaign's running to 20, Wotc's own data indicates that they then to tail off shortly before or shortly after level 10. Having 3 wizards at the same table is a decidedly unusual occurrence & sounds like it was not coincidence .

It was a coincidence actually. The one guy has been eager to play a wizard for 2 years as we finished the campaign with his paladin. One of the new girls was comfortable playing a wizard because it was the only class she had played back home, and she was fairly new to the game (I think I am running her second or third campaign ever) and the last lady essentially picked at random.

As for WoTC's data. I know. Doesn't effect what I said about my own table or my own campaign.