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

[tetrasodium]

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) 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.






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.



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.

Not "again", still. Sorry you couldn't keep up.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not "again", still. Sorry you couldn't keep up.

How does that make it better?

You are still referencing rules that do not apply to the game and ignoring the rules that do.

 

[tetrasodium]

How does that make it better?

You are still referencing rules that do not apply to the game and ignoring the rules that do.

No, the rules that do are lacking and incomplete fir all but one setting. With spell versatility on the table as a UA that crawford has said he would like to eventually finalize in a published form, those lacking & incomplete areas go from being a minor issue that will be managed in various ways at various tables into a severe problem that prevents the wizard class from being able to move its feet as spell versatility sends the sorcerer class stomping onto the toes of the wizard class. I think that the inexperience & decidedly unusual brush with having a wizard at your table keeps you from being capable of understanding the problem posed by adding this* concrete & fully developed rule change+addition to the sorcerer.

* I hope that I don't need to point out that this sorcerer rule change & addition to sorcerer is still spell versatility, I'd hate to cause confusion though.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, the rules that do are lacking and incomplete fir all but one setting. With spell versatility on the table as a UA that crawford has said he would like to eventually finalize in a published form, those lacking & incomplete areas go from being a minor issue that will be managed in various ways at various tables into a severe problem that prevents the wizard class from being able to move its feet as spell versatility sends the sorcerer class stomping onto the toes of the wizard class. I think that the inexperience & decidedly unusual brush with having a wizard at your table keeps you from being capable of understanding the problem posed by adding this* concrete & fully developed rule change+addition to the sorcerer.

* I hope that I don't need to point out that this sorcerer rule change & addition to sorcerer is still spell versatility, I'd hate to cause confusion though.

What rules are lacking?

You have rules for scribing spells from spellbooks into other spellbooks. I have quoted them repeatedly.

Do you want specific rules for finding spellbooks? Specific rules for how NPC wizards treat spellbooks? Which settings need to be addressed here, since the rules are setting agnostic and apply to every setting? Do you want a specific rarity rating for spellbooks of different levels so that you can place them as magic items? Do you want specific rules for how to find spells in-game? Specific rules for "wizard markets" that sell scrolls and books and how they are spread out between villages and cities?

I literally do not understand what rules are missing that you so desperately need.

You have rules for scribing spells into a spellbook, the source of which can be another spellbook, a scroll, ect.
You have rules for making scrolls.
You have rules for making and selling items.
You have rules for NPC personalities.
You have rules for various levels of villages, towns and cities that could logical have different levels of availability of items.
You have rules for the purchase and sale of magic items.


What more do you need?

 

[Ashrym]

No, the rules that do are lacking and incomplete fir all but one setting. With spell versatility on the table as a UA that crawford has said he would like to eventually finalize in a published form, those lacking & incomplete areas go from being a minor issue that will be managed in various ways at various tables into a severe problem that prevents the wizard class from being able to move its feet as spell versatility sends the sorcerer class stomping onto the toes of the wizard class. I think that the inexperience & decidedly unusual brush with having a wizard at your table keeps you from being capable of understanding the problem posed by adding this* concrete & fully developed rule change+addition to the sorcerer.

* I hope that I don't need to point out that this sorcerer rule change & addition to sorcerer is still spell versatility, I'd hate to cause confusion though.

This link might help you understand where you are struggling. I see you have repeated your assertions, failed to respond to point given against your statements, or provide proof of your statements; and it does look like filibuster given the awkward language that dances around without giving solid points or questions that often looks off topic, or unrelated to what's been posted or quoted.

When Crawford states he hopes to see UA options in finalized published form that does not mean they are incomplete. It means they are not official and subject to change after playtesting and feedback. They are not in an incomplete form just because they are released as playtest material in an UA article.

 

[tetrasodium]

What rules are lacking?

You have rules for scribing spells from spellbooks into other spellbooks. I have quoted them repeatedly.

Do you want specific rules for finding spellbooks? Specific rules for how NPC wizards treat spellbooks? Which settings need to be addressed here, since the rules are setting agnostic and apply to every setting? Do you want a specific rarity rating for spellbooks of different levels so that you can place them as magic items? Do you want specific rules for how to find spells in-game? Specific rules for "wizard markets" that sell scrolls and books and how they are spread out between villages and cities?

I literally do not understand what rules are missing that you so desperately need.

You have rules for scribing spells into a spellbook, the source of which can be another spellbook, a scroll, ect.
You have rules for making scrolls.
You have rules for making and selling items.
You have rules for NPC personalities.
You have rules for various levels of villages, towns and cities that could logical have different levels of availability of items.
You have rules for the purchase and sale of magic items.


What more do you need?

you've been dropping in & out of this discussion for a long time now... have you not been following along? Here's a few reminders for you.
there are a lot of spells that should be ritual but are not, there should be more ritual spells. There are no rules for researching spells in 5e. There's not any setting neutral rules for gaining access to a living but possibly unknown wizard's spellbooks for wizards to copy from them. I've mentioned which setting has them already by stating they are implied quite clearly in a few places through Rising but you wanted to avoid that at all costs. We talked at length about the problems with wotc placing spelbooks at a bizarrely rare end game status in their published content as well as the various prices surrounding guidelines on pricing of spellbooks that are so murky people argued both using scrolls and using crafting/cost to scribe rules for results that were manyfold increase/decrease apart from eachother. I'm sure there is probably one or two omissions from that recap, but frankly I really am not bothered if you are still "confused" at this point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

you've been dropping in & out of this discussion for a long time now... have you not been following along? Here's a few reminders for you.

No idea why you think that, other than the fact I haven't been glued to my keyboard every hour.

there are a lot of spells that should be ritual but are not, there should be more ritual spells.

Have nothing to do with spellbooks which is what we have been discussing for at least 24 hours

There are no rules for researching spells in 5e.

Also nothing to do with spellbooks.

There's not any setting neutral rules for gaining access to a living but possibly unknown wizard's spellbooks for wizards to copy from them.

There are also no rules for gaining access to a living but possibly unknown blacksmith. That is what the "roleplaying" part of the game is about. You have to, you know, go out and find NPCs if you want to get stuff from them.

Sure, that specific interaction is slightly more important for Wizards than say, a paladin and their church, but I feel this particular point is completely disingenuous.

I've mentioned which setting has them already by stating they are implied quite clearly in a few places through Rising but you wanted to avoid that at all costs.

Yes, because the rules for a specific setting are not universal, and we have spent 24 hours speaking about "are there rules for scribing a spellbook".

I never imagined you were actually discussing "are there rules so I don't need to actually interact with NPCs to get my shiny toys."

We talked at length about the problems with wotc placing spelbooks at a bizarrely rare end game status in their published content as well as the various prices surrounding guidelines on pricing of spellbooks that are so murky people argued both using scrolls and using crafting/cost to scribe rules for results that were manyfold increase/decrease apart from eachother.

So, WoTC doesn't like giving out treasure and DMs have different ways to figure out the value of a piece of treasure that could be character defining.

Yes, that makes sense. Sure, we ended up in different areas, but we both found solutions. Meanwhile, your response to those solutions was to say they didn't exist, we were making up rules, and they could never possibly work because we were mashing rules together that would inevitably leave the wizard a crippled heap on the side of the road, serving his sorcerer overlords.

I'm sure there is probably one or two omissions from that recap, but frankly I really am not bothered if you are still "confused" at this point.

I can tell, since it seems while I was arguing "Yes there are rules for scribing spells from spellbooks, why do you keep bringing up 3.5" you were instead arguing "I want rules so I don't need to interact with NPCs and can I have some spell research on the side"

Is it any wonder I've been confused, considering we have been having an entirely separate conversation from each other?

Spell Research is a cool thing I would love to include, but I feel like it is a bag of worms I do not want to start unpacking. I've nearly broken games by trying to fix crafting things as simple as rings and necklaces. Crafting entirely new spells and schools of magic would be an order of magnitude more difficult to balance and make work. Which makes it make perfect sense that WoTC is not including it in this edition of the game. IT is far too volatile for an official release.

More ritual spells would actually be really cool. I wouldn't want to turn existing spells into rituals, but I have often wanted to include more rituals, including some "grand workings" meant to really charge the high fantasy aspect. But again, that is an entirely separate discussion.

 

[tetrasodium]

No idea why you think that, other than the fact I haven't been glued to my keyboard every hour.



Have nothing to do with spellbooks which is what we have been discussing for at least 24 hours



Also nothing to do with spellbooks.



There are also no rules for gaining access to a living but possibly unknown blacksmith. That is what the "roleplaying" part of the game is about. You have to, you know, go out and find NPCs if you want to get stuff from them.

Sure, that specific interaction is slightly more important for Wizards than say, a paladin and their church, but I feel this particular point is completely disingenuous.



Yes, because the rules for a specific setting are not universal, and we have spent 24 hours speaking about "are there rules for scribing a spellbook".

I never imagined you were actually discussing "are there rules so I don't need to actually interact with NPCs to get my shiny toys."



So, WoTC doesn't like giving out treasure and DMs have different ways to figure out the value of a piece of treasure that could be character defining.

Yes, that makes sense. Sure, we ended up in different areas, but we both found solutions. Meanwhile, your response to those solutions was to say they didn't exist, we were making up rules, and they could never possibly work because we were mashing rules together that would inevitably leave the wizard a crippled heap on the side of the road, serving his sorcerer overlords.



I can tell, since it seems while I was arguing "Yes there are rules for scribing spells from spellbooks, why do you keep bringing up 3.5" you were instead arguing "I want rules so I don't need to interact with NPCs and can I have some spell research on the side"

Is it any wonder I've been confused, considering we have been having an entirely separate conversation from each other?

Spell Research is a cool thing I would love to include, but I feel like it is a bag of worms I do not want to start unpacking. I've nearly broken games by trying to fix crafting things as simple as rings and necklaces. Crafting entirely new spells and schools of magic would be an order of magnitude more difficult to balance and make work. Which makes it make perfect sense that WoTC is not including it in this edition of the game. IT is far too volatile for an official release.

More ritual spells would actually be really cool. I wouldn't want to turn existing spells into rituals, but I have often wanted to include more rituals, including some "grand workings" meant to really charge the high fantasy aspect. But again, that is an entirely separate discussion.

I've spoken many times about how all of these problems are an issue because of how they influence newer & less experienced gms, I thought that was clear and no longer a matter of debate. There's no need for the sort of belittling, goodnight

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've spoken many times about how all of these problems are an issue because of how they influence newer & less experienced gms, I thought that was clear and no longer a matter of debate. There's no need for the sort of belittling, goodnight

Good night I suppose.

Honestly, I feel I have the right to be slightly frustrated since you seemed to never be following the same conversation I was.

If you wanted to talk about rules for finding and interacting with NPC wizard, you could have said something like "I am aware those are the rules for scribing spells directly from one spell book to another, but what are the rules for finding those spellbooks in the first place" it would have saved us both about 12 hours or so of discussion.

Instead, you constantly insisted that I did not know the rules, and kept dismissing the rulings I was presented based on the rules in the book. Claiming that I was patching them together in a flimsy attempt to fix something that was broken.

Perhaps my sarcasm and frustration were a little over the top, but when you suddenly find out the personyou have been talking with for the better part of the day was never even concerned with the topic you were discussing and instead thought the subject was about completely unrelated subjects... well, it is frustrating.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

@Chaosmancer @tetrasodium

By my reading, both of you have been snarky at each other. So, maybe a little less complaining that the other person is at fault, and a little more introspection is in order.

In any case, we expect that from this point forward, you'll either cease interacting on this topic, or treat each other with respect. If this is somehow confusing, please take it to DM. Thank you.