Value of a spell book (gp wise)

[5ekyu]

Looking at the books, it looks like it's 27 new spells learned. Three of those are 3rd-level so they haven't been learned yet.




One of the things I apparently did a poor job expressing is that buying spellbooks isn't the kind of thing that most PCs will be intentionally doing--not unless it's "the Spellbook of Fistandantilus" or something. It's wealthy (and generally high-level) NPCs that are going to be buying the good books, along with the kind of collectors and magical universities that like to have spellbooks just to have them, even if there aren't any new spells in them. Of course, once/if a PC wizard has a lot of gold to burn, checking any mage shops you come across to see if they happen to have a spellbook you might be interested in is going to become much more likely.



I wouldn't say you find them frequently in this campaign. It's been about 88 sessions and we just hit level 4 recently. Slow level advancement.



Yeah, I didn't mention it, but spellbooks are random. Here's how the contents of NPC spellbooks are determined: 1) They have a number of spells equal to what their level should give them, plus a random but modest number of additional spells. They aren't adventurers (so they aren't capturing spellbooks from others as much), and even if they are, a difficult to avoid metagame consideration is that you really don't want an adventurer-sized spell book being handed out. So they get a few more than they would from leveling. 2) They get whatever spells are included in their statblock, plus some standard spells almost all wizards have (which means the PC wizard probably already has them if he's high enough level), unless there is a reason they wouldn't have one of those. 3) Their remaining spells are random rolled, mostly from the PHB.



Ransoming spellbooks would be a reasonable tactic, although I'd fear retribution later. My character actually reluctantly decided to return the spellbook of a captured duergar mage who had been part of the other side of the battle. Although the PCs were on an authorized military assault, the presence of the duergar base wasn't anticipated and they technically invaded their home, so my character just didn't feel right about stealing from him too. (Who knows whether the military they turned the captives over to will actually give the duergar back the spellbook, but my character is idealistic about some things, and just wasn't going to be a part of depriving a foe who honorably surrendered of his most precious possession.)

"It's wealthy (and generally high-level) NPCs that are going to be buying the good books, along with the kind of collectors and magical universities that like to have spellbooks just to have them, even if there aren't any new spells in them. "

Got it. Yup, like I said, a GM can just create a market - one that's divorced from actual benefit or utility - in this case the market is driven by a bunch of wealthy folks and organizations who want them for mostly the sake of having them.

Heck, you could just as easily have said

"It's wealthy (and generally high-level) NPCs that are going to be buying the good ones, along with the kind of collectors and magical universities that like to have blue uniform figurines just to have them, even if there aren't any new artistry in them. "

That's great for a setting which sees that as a good thing, tulip bulbsceill be tulip bulbs after all, but that seems fairly off the mark as far as z basis for determining what spellbooks are worth - just that their worth is driven by a non-functional based demand.

Spellbook is art, I reckon.

 

[WaterRabbit]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]
I think your argument falls apart when you consider that a wizard isn't specifically required to scribe new spells in their spellbook. There is nothing preventing a wizard collecting spellbooks and just preparing them from any of those. Now it may be inconvenient to carry around 50 spellbooks but the spellbook isn't that tightly defined.

The rules that define the spellbook are fairly open. They describe the process of scribing new spells into your spellbook if you have the time to decipher and copy. Well if you can decipher, then one doesn't really need to copy.

The form of the spellbook is also fairly open and could even just be a library of books if the wizard liked. That may not be the most portable solution.

So the cost of acquiring a spell is irrespective of the cost of scribing it in general. A wizard can only learn two spells per level, so assuming they always take the two of the highest level they can cast that gives:

10 x 1st level and 4 x level 2-9 and an additional 4 from any. As there are more than 4 spells per level, it is a wizards interest to expand their versatility when possible.

As I mentioned before, I believe that Dungeon of the Mad Mage has a listed cost for what a spellbook can be sold for and it was based solely on the highest level spell in the book. I believe that cost was essentially equal to the cost of a scroll at the same level. As I mentioned this seems to low, but since many of the spells are probably duplicates of what a wizard currently has, they are of no value to that particular wizard.

 

[5ekyu]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]
I think your argument falls apart when you consider that a wizard isn't specifically required to scribe new spells in their spellbook. There is nothing preventing a wizard collecting spellbooks and just preparing them from any of those. Now it may be inconvenient to carry around 50 spellbooks but the spellbook isn't that tightly defined.

The rules that define the spellbook are fairly open. They describe the process of scribing new spells into your spellbook if you have the time to decipher and copy. Well if you can decipher, then one doesn't really need to copy.

The form of the spellbook is also fairly open and could even just be a library of books if the wizard liked. That may not be the most portable solution.

So the cost of acquiring a spell is irrespective of the cost of scribing it in general. A wizard can only learn two spells per level, so assuming they always take the two of the highest level they can cast that gives:

10 x 1st level and 4 x level 2-9 and an additional 4 from any. As there are more than 4 spells per level, it is a wizards interest to expand their versatility when possible.

As I mentioned before, I believe that Dungeon of the Mad Mage has a listed cost for what a spellbook can be sold for and it was based solely on the highest level spell in the book. I believe that cost was essentially equal to the cost of a scroll at the same level. As I mentioned this seems to low, but since many of the spells are probably duplicates of what a wizard currently has, they are of no value to that particular wizard.

Sorry, but, while you can house tule whatever you want the rules specify repeatedly you prepare from "your spellbook" not any spellbook.
"Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know,"

"To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook"

"Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook"

Then you get into other sources which defines what "copy into sprllbook" means...

"Copying that 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."

Note that deciphering etc is part of that copy process, not some separate stage as you suggest.

Finally the last nail in the coffin is...


"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."

For emphasis

***Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.***

So, again, if you choose to allow a caster to prepare spells from other folks spellbooks without fulfilling that last requirement then that's fine and s house tule.

My arguments about spellbooks pricing and *value* have been based on 5e, not housectules or setting specific features.

Now, of course a mage can have more than one spellbook of his own, but that's very different from preparing from other folks books without having "spent this time and money."

 

[akr71]

Are spell scrolls available for purchase in your setting? If so, I would treat each spell in the spellbook as a scroll of that level - add it up and that is the market value of the spellbook. My players typically get less than market value when they sell magic and treasure because the buyer is typically looking to sell it at a profit. How much less they get usually depends on their interaction with the shopkeeper.

I take the crafting rules in XGtE as a basis for magical scroll costs.

 

[Li Shenron]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]
I think your argument falls apart when you consider that a wizard isn't specifically required to scribe new spells in their spellbook. There is nothing preventing a wizard collecting spellbooks and just preparing them from any of those. Now it may be inconvenient to carry around 50 spellbooks but the spellbook isn't that tightly defined.

That's arguably not RAW and certainly not RAI, otherwise the scribing rules would be pointless.

 

[Inchoroi]

Say heroes find a spellbook, and decide they want to sell it. They are in a large metropolis with lots of students of magic, wizards, scholars and the like (ie there is demand, but there is also supply).

How much is a spellbook worth in 5e? I mean I know it depends on how many spell and what level they are, but are there guidelines?

I made it simple: the spellbook has a "value" of 10% of what it would cost to create that spellbook. This value doesn't affect a wizard in the party using it by taking spells from it, of course, but just if the players decide to try to hock it. My wizard player collects spellbooks from fallen foes, however, so selling them doesn't come up often.

 

[WaterRabbit]

That's arguably not RAW and certainly not RAI, otherwise the scribing rules would be pointless.

I challenge you to find something in RAW/RAI that defines explicitly what a spellbook is. Also, as I pointed out, it would not be pointless for a number of reason listed in the section that defines the process of inscribing a spell into a book.

 

[WaterRabbit]

Sorry, but, while you can house tule whatever you want the rules specify repeatedly you prepare from "your spellbook" not any spellbook.
"Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know,"

"To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook"

"Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook"

Then you get into other sources which defines what "copy into sprllbook" means...

"Copying that 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."

Note that deciphering etc is part of that copy process, not some separate stage as you suggest.

Finally the last nail in the coffin is...


"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."

For emphasis

***Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.***

So, again, if you choose to allow a caster to prepare spells from other folks spellbooks without fulfilling that last requirement then that's fine and s house tule.

My arguments about spellbooks pricing and *value* have been based on 5e, not housectules or setting specific features.

Now, of course a mage can have more than one spellbook of his own, but that's very different from preparing from other folks books without having "spent this time and money."

I noticed that you conveniently left off the cogent part, The Book's Appearance

Your spellbook is a unique compilation of spells, with its own decorative flourishes and margin notes. It might be a plain, functional leather volume that you received as a gift from your master, a finely bound
gilt-edged tome you found in an ancient library, or even a loose collection of notes scrounged together after you lost your previous spellbook in a mishap.

There is no requirement that the spellbook is a single tome. There also isn't any requirement that copying a spell into the spellbook is required to learn.

Now that may be your houserule, but it isn't a general rule for the game. All of the language of the game is "can" and "may" not must. All that is required to learn a spell is time.

In 5e spellbooks are not magical in and of themselves like prior editions. There aren't any requirements for special magical inks and whatnot.

There are only two reasons to copy a spell. The first is that it is on a scroll and casting a spell from a scroll "destroys" it. The second is to make it more portable/less likely for a wizard to be deprived of it.

I think you are reading prior edition rules into this edition. In 5e a wizard's spellbook is whatever they define it to be, which could include books they have added to their collection from other sources.

Furthermore, it doesn't make that much since in a world in which wizard spells are treated as a learnable discipline like science. All of the spells from any particular wizard school are going to use the same or similar notation. If magic can be treated and analyzed as a discipline, there would be a common language among different universities and so forth to transfer that knowledge. This is certainty the case for settings like Forgotten Realms and Eberron.

In a setting like Dark Sun, your house rule makes more sense since wizards are outcasts and basically all hedge wizards. Magical knowledge is fiercely guarded and treated with suspicion. So I could such a house rule for similar settings.

But for the general rule, the spellbook is whatever the character defines it to be, which is probably why the designers didn't ascribe much value to them.

In Dragon Heist, they assign the retail value for spells at:

1st - 25 gp
2nd - 75 gp
3rd - 150 gp
4th - 300 gp
5th - 750 gp.

So take a 5th level wizard that has only acquired spells through level up. That is 8 1st level, 4 2nd level, and 2 3rd level spells for a total of 200 + 300 + 300 = 800 gp compared to 1,100 gp to copy them and 44 hours to learn them. I bet in most campaigns the 44 hours is the more important cost.

I get that there are few money sinks in this version of D&D. But charging wizards the overhead for copying spells to learn them doesn't even make sense. Martial classes aren't charged for using weapons and armor they find. Martial classes don't have to spend 2 hours / 50 gp of equipment they find learning them.

Finally, I can tell you anecdotally, that every wizard I have given spellsbooks to insist upon copying the spells into their own book so they can sell the found spellbook. So, in the long run it is a bit of a moot point.

 

[5ekyu]

I noticed that you conveniently left off the cogent part, The Book's Appearance

Your spellbook is a unique compilation of spells, with its own decorative flourishes and margin notes. It might be a plain, functional leather volume that you received as a gift from your master, a finely bound
gilt-edged tome you found in an ancient library, or even a loose collection of notes scrounged together after you lost your previous spellbook in a mishap.

There is no requirement that the spellbook is a single tome. There also isn't any requirement that copying a spell into the spellbook is required to learn.

Now that may be your houserule, but it isn't a general rule for the game. All of the language of the game is "can" and "may" not must. All that is required to learn a spell is time.

In 5e spellbooks are not magical in and of themselves like prior editions. There aren't any requirements for special magical inks and whatnot.

There are only two reasons to copy a spell. The first is that it is on a scroll and casting a spell from a scroll "destroys" it. The second is to make it more portable/less likely for a wizard to be deprived of it.

I think you are reading prior edition rules into this edition. In 5e a wizard's spellbook is whatever they define it to be, which could include books they have added to their collection from other sources.

Furthermore, it doesn't make that much since in a world in which wizard spells are treated as a learnable discipline like science. All of the spells from any particular wizard school are going to use the same or similar notation. If magic can be treated and analyzed as a discipline, there would be a common language among different universities and so forth to transfer that knowledge. This is certainty the case for settings like Forgotten Realms and Eberron.

In a setting like Dark Sun, your house rule makes more sense since wizards are outcasts and basically all hedge wizards. Magical knowledge is fiercely guarded and treated with suspicion. So I could such a house rule for similar settings.

But for the general rule, the spellbook is whatever the character defines it to be, which is probably why the designers didn't ascribe much value to them.

In Dragon Heist, they assign the retail value for spells at:

1st - 25 gp
2nd - 75 gp
3rd - 150 gp
4th - 300 gp
5th - 750 gp.

So take a 5th level wizard that has only acquired spells through level up. That is 8 1st level, 4 2nd level, and 2 3rd level spells for a total of 200 + 300 + 300 = 800 gp compared to 1,100 gp to copy them and 44 hours to learn them. I bet in most campaigns the 44 hours is the more important cost.

I get that there are few money sinks in this version of D&D. But charging wizards the overhead for copying spells to learn them doesn't even make sense. Martial classes aren't charged for using weapons and armor they find. Martial classes don't have to spend 2 hours / 50 gp of equipment they find learning them.

Finally, I can tell you anecdotally, that every wizard I have given spellsbooks to insist upon copying the spells into their own book so they can sell the found spellbook. So, in the long run it is a bit of a moot point.

To me the "cogent part" was not the looks of the book but the actual rules that allow you to use spells from the books.

You state the only requirement is time and that copying is not required but they are pretty clear that it is in the section on wizards and spellbooks. This last bit seems to absolutely nail it down for spells other than the ones you get for free.

"Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells."

Thats not a house rule. thats the PHB and there are there the rules make clear that you have to add spells to your spellbook to then prepare them. that is all defined there.

Now, of course your spellbook can be spellbooks, they even go into how to create other backup spellbooks. They make it very clear that to have that be the case, more than one spellbook of spells, the cost has to be paid even for the copies - though scribing a spell you have already learned is cheaper.

And of course your spellbook can have other forms. No question there. I tend to like using beaded ribbons and such for witch doctor types.

But that does not mean "your spellbook" can be defined as "any spellbook in the world i happen to get to." which seems to be your take on it. Creative, i will admit, but - nah, thats way outside the scope of the spelbook rules as written.

if you have a rule cite from 5e where it allows you to use spells from other spellbooks without having paid the cost to scribe them, then by all means - post it. otherwise, you got a house rule there that seems to be a tad contrary to the main rules.

Hopuse rules are great - nothing wrong with them just for being house rules.

In a game where a house rule allows wizard could use spells for free from other spellbooks for free, no cost, yup - that would definitely be a factor the market value of spellbooks.

 

[5ekyu]

I noticed that you conveniently left off the cogent part, The Book's Appearance

Your spellbook is a unique compilation of spells, with its own decorative flourishes and margin notes. It might be a plain, functional leather volume that you received as a gift from your master, a finely bound
gilt-edged tome you found in an ancient library, or even a loose collection of notes scrounged together after you lost your previous spellbook in a mishap.

There is no requirement that the spellbook is a single tome. There also isn't any requirement that copying a spell into the spellbook is required to learn.

Now that may be your houserule, but it isn't a general rule for the game. All of the language of the game is "can" and "may" not must. All that is required to learn a spell is time.

In 5e spellbooks are not magical in and of themselves like prior editions. There aren't any requirements for special magical inks and whatnot.

There are only two reasons to copy a spell. The first is that it is on a scroll and casting a spell from a scroll "destroys" it. The second is to make it more portable/less likely for a wizard to be deprived of it.

I think you are reading prior edition rules into this edition. In 5e a wizard's spellbook is whatever they define it to be, which could include books they have added to their collection from other sources.

Furthermore, it doesn't make that much since in a world in which wizard spells are treated as a learnable discipline like science. All of the spells from any particular wizard school are going to use the same or similar notation. If magic can be treated and analyzed as a discipline, there would be a common language among different universities and so forth to transfer that knowledge. This is certainty the case for settings like Forgotten Realms and Eberron.

In a setting like Dark Sun, your house rule makes more sense since wizards are outcasts and basically all hedge wizards. Magical knowledge is fiercely guarded and treated with suspicion. So I could such a house rule for similar settings.

But for the general rule, the spellbook is whatever the character defines it to be, which is probably why the designers didn't ascribe much value to them.

In Dragon Heist, they assign the retail value for spells at:

1st - 25 gp
2nd - 75 gp
3rd - 150 gp
4th - 300 gp
5th - 750 gp.

So take a 5th level wizard that has only acquired spells through level up. That is 8 1st level, 4 2nd level, and 2 3rd level spells for a total of 200 + 300 + 300 = 800 gp compared to 1,100 gp to copy them and 44 hours to learn them. I bet in most campaigns the 44 hours is the more important cost.

I get that there are few money sinks in this version of D&D. But charging wizards the overhead for copying spells to learn them doesn't even make sense. Martial classes aren't charged for using weapons and armor they find. Martial classes don't have to spend 2 hours / 50 gp of equipment they find learning them.

Finally, I can tell you anecdotally, that every wizard I have given spellsbooks to insist upon copying the spells into their own book so they can sell the found spellbook. So, in the long run it is a bit of a moot point.

For this in specific

"So take a 5th level wizard that has only acquired spells through level up. That is 8 1st level, 4 2nd level, and 2 3rd level spells for a total of 200 + 300 + 300 = 800 gp compared to 1,100 gp to copy them and 44 hours to learn them. I bet in most campaigns the 44 hours is the more important cost."

i make no bets about most campaigns - especially regarding time frames.

But, 5e provides quite a bit of downtime info and activities and those tend to run in spans of a week, some broken into day-by-day leading up to a week. it also has optional rules for long rests taking a week of time without strenuous activity.

if any of those rules are in play in a campaign, they open plenty of cases for a 44 hour span of scribing time being no problem.

But the case in fact is, the free spells are added without cost and without time - per the 5e rules the cost and time requirements are for adding spells you find.

that is where your analogy falls short - fighter vs wizard.

the wizard gains for free spells to use at a given rate - 2 per level after the initial six.
The fighter does not gain new free armors and weapons just by leveling them, he can only find them.
So if we try to equate the wizard and the fighter by equating armor and weapons with spells known:
They both get free stuff at the start.
The wizard gets free stuff as they level.
The fighter has to find or buy his new stuff.
The wizard can also add from found or boguth stuff but it costs money.

That looks like one up for the wizard and one down for the wizard.

Whether they are equal or not will vary by campaign and setting.

But, regardless, trying to pair up individual elements of classes is usually pointless. Classes are packages - not individual items.

So, nah, the 44 hours being an issue in "most campaigns" argument doesn't really get off the ground or hodlk water even if it gets lift.