Why Not Share Spellbooks?

[the Jester]

Maybe I'm missing something super-obvious, but is there any reason why two wizard characters wouldn't share spellbooks and copy each other's spells? Or even just look at both spellbooks every day?

The Gygaxian approach, as expressed in 1e AD&D, is somewhat contradictory as there are many 'name' spells such as Drawmij's Instant Summons, which suggests that magic users are learning one anothers' spells with some regularity.

First off, to [MENTION=21169]Doug McCrae[/MENTION], I believe that the 1e 'named' spells were named because their developers- pcs all, I believe, though I could be wrong- were proud of them, and because their names were going into the books as a published part of D&D's lore. Wouldn't you want your character's name in the PH??

That said, I don't have a copy of the 1ed Rogues' Gallery, but maybe someone who does can see if e.g. Bigby knows Mordenkainen's faithful hound or Tenser's transformation. It would be interesting to know how much they actually did trade spells.

In general regarding the topic- I think the "wizards don't much trade spells" rule comes from an earlier bit of D&D philosophy. The game has changed a lot since the 1e days. In 1e, there were no free spells learned on leveling up- you had to learn new spells from scrolls or other spellsbooks. [EDIT: Holy cow- I just discovered, as I pulled out my 1e DMG to put in the quote below, that I am and always was wrong about this! Hidden in the DMG is a rule neither I nor anyone in any of my 1e groups ever noticed- you gain 1 freebie per level!] By the time you were 10th level, you'd often only know about 8 1st level spells! You might be the only wizard within 100 miles to know dispel magic or teleport. When your high-level rival mage is likely to be voraciously buying up any spells that get let out for sale and he's already the only guy around to know web, cloudkill and minor globe of invulnerability, why would you give up what few advantages you have by selling the formula for dispel magic to another wizard who might well sell it (at an exorbitant price!) to your rival?

Later editions made it far easier to acquire spells, which made it far more difficult to justify the "don't trade spells much" meme.

Gygax actually has a fair amount to say about trading spells in the 1e DMG:

Naturally, magic-users player characters will do their utmost to acquire books of spells and scrolls in order to complete their own spell books.... How you handle NPC magic-users is of utmost importance... players will find that tehre magic-user characters are unable to acquire new spells- at worst- or must pay so dearly for them in money, magic items and quests that the game is hardly worth the candle. Of course they will pay the price nonetheless, and that will help you to maintain the campaign as fresh and challenging, as it will rid it of excess treasure and give player characters reason to adventure at the same time.

Superior players will certainly co-operate; thus, spells will in all probability be exchanged between PC magic-users to some extent. No special sanctions need be taken to prevent such exchange... Non-player characters will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to co-operate freely with player characters, even their own masters or mistresses.... As a general rule, they will require value plus a bonus when dealing with their liege. If they will deal with other PCs (or NPCs) at all, they will require double value plus a considerable bonus. For example, Thigru Thorkisen, [6th level magic-user] in the hire of Olaf Blue Cheeks, a 10th level [fighter], knows Suggestion; and Olaf's associate, Halfdan the [10th level magic-user], requests to copy this spell... If Halfdan has been at least civil to [Thigru], Thigru will ask nothing more than a third level spell in return, plus another spell, plus some minor magic item such as a set of three potions, a scroll of 3 spells, or perhaps a ring of invisibility.

Level titles changed for clarity for those unfamiliar with them.

Naturally, the personality of the henchman or hireling would modify the bargain...

Finally, the ramifications of spell scarcity are bound to aid your campaign, and not only with regard to excess treasure and magic items. A scroll of but a single spell becomes highly meaningful to the magic-users in the game, especially when it is of a spell heretofore unknown. The acquisition of a book of spells from someplace in the dungeons or wildernesses of the campaign is a benison beyond price! PC and NPC alike will take great pains to guard scrolls and spell books.

So- IMO- it's a relic of a earlier time that is easiest to justify when spell acquisition is severely limited.

 

[Orius]

I was in the process of posting to this thread yesterday when I lost my internet connection and my reply was eaten as a result. Most people have repeated what I was going to say anyway.

If two PCs want to share spells, then that's their choice, and the DM shouldn't have any say in it beyond things like scribing cost, how much space it takes up in their spellbooks and so on. NPCs are a different matter, because they're under the DM's control.

Many wizards are rivals, so they're not going to share secrets. Even if the wizard isn't an outright enemy, you have to be able to trust that wizard with your book. Is he the careless type that will spill acid/potions/scroll ink/green slime samples all over it in his lab? Is his presonal library infested with bookworms? Is he a klutz that will drop it into a fire or something? That spellbook is the sum of your magical knowledge and research, and if it's ruined you're screwed.

But outside the game, it's also a matter of game balance. Wizards have always been seen as very powerful because of their magic, and controlling spell acquisition has always been a means for the DM to maintain some degree of balance. That's why NPCs don't hand out spells like candy.

That said, I don't have a copy of the 1ed Rogues' Gallery, but maybe someone who does can see if e.g. Bigby knows Mordenkainen's faithful hound or Tenser's transformation. It would be interesting to know how much they actually did trade spells.

That probably wouldn't prove much. I've read several times that the Rogue's Galley was Brian Blume's assumptions about what everyone else's characters could do and wasn't always very accurate.

[EDIT: Holy cow- I just discovered, as I pulled out my 1e DMG to put in the quote below, that I am and always was wrong about this! Hidden in the DMG is a rule neither I nor anyone in any of my 1e groups ever noticed- you gain 1 freebie per level!][/b]

Ah, the wonders of the 1e DMG's editing and organization.

 

[Warbringer]

I've seen what friends do to books when I lend them, now apply that to a spellbook. Nuff said!!!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You might as well be asking why don't China, Russia, the USA, the UK, Israel, and the rest of the nuclear club share all of their nuclear secrets with each other?

 

[Argyle King]

I think it's a good idea which works out pretty well... assuming you can trust the other wizard. A while back, I was playing a wizard in a game in which one of the other players was also a wizard. When it came time to learn new spells from other sources, we would learn different spells. Then, in our down time, we would swap information with each other. It worked out great; we doubled the amount of spells we had available to us.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yep...but I still haven't convinced my buddy of 20+ years to share spells any campaign...

 

[Argyle King]

I actually did the same thing in 4th Edition with Rituals. It was actually with the same player too; we seem to have a knack for making characters who work well together -even if we're not trying to. When it came time to level up, we would learn different Rituals. When we had down time, we would trade Rituals with each other.

 

[Lackhand]

Yep...but I still haven't convinced my buddy of 20+ years to share spells any campaign...

Much love and respect to that buddy, but that falls under the "irrational" heading IMO

Unless he thinks you'll learn his spells and magic missile him when he least expects it.
Heh. Heh. Heh.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He may still be pissed that my über-Druid threatened his über-Mage with an ass kicking when he suggested that he'd open fire on the Lich and Deathknights riding through the woods with a fireball (his signature spell), because it would set the woods on fire...

...on a demiplane of evil...

He blinked first and used something else.

But regardless, he refuses to share, claiming my spell choices are poor & worthless. And in a sense, he is 100% correct.

See my buddy is an optimizer. This is not intentional. This is not something he goes out on the web to do. He has a mathematical mind, and he approaches playing a Mage with that mindset. Its natural to him; innate. As a result, every Mage I've seen him play since 1985 (save for the one in 4Ed) had nearly the same spell list.

My spellcasters, OTOH, are more varied because I always ask "what would THIS guy pick?" As a result, I rarely have spells he wants to trade for. Though my Geomancer/Mystic Theurge did get his attention when he immobilized an opponent spellcaster with some spell that grabbed the foe in a hand of earth & dirt...

 

[pemerton]

The Gygaxian approach, as expressed in 1e AD&D, is somewhat contradictory as there are many 'name' spells such as Drawmij's Instant Summons, which suggests that magic users are learning one anothers' spells with some regularity.

Interesting point!

I think [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] is right from the point of view of publishing history - these spells were created by the players of those named PCs, and then published in the PHB with the indicated names. But from the ingame point of view, the existence of spells within the setting named after famous casters certainly implies that those casters weren't keeping their spells to themselves.

These same wizards who battle dragons in the hope of finding spells think it is too risky to swap books across a table for a few hours? If this type of theft is such a threat, why aren't other types? Are wizards in this world constantly killing each other in the street for spell books?

These are excellent questions.

Non-player characters will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to co-operate freely with player characters, even their own masters or mistresses.... As a general rule, they will require value plus a bonus when dealing with their liege. If they will deal with other PCs (or NPCs) at all, they will require double value plus a considerable bonus. For example, Thigru Thorkisen, [6th level magic-user] in the hire of Olaf Blue Cheeks, a 10th level [fighter], knows Suggestion; and Olaf's associate, Halfdan the [10th level magic-user], requests to copy this spell... If Halfdan has been at least civil to [Thigru], Thigru will ask nothing more than a third level spell in return, plus another spell, plus some minor magic item such as a set of three potions, a scroll of 3 spells, or perhaps a ring of invisibility.

Putting to one side the bizarre suggestion that a ring of invisibility is the equivalent of 3 potions, this makes no sense to me. Not when I first read it nearly 30 years ago, and not now.

I mean, if there are PCs who are expected to pay such premiums to learn spells from NPCs, why are there not NPCs prepared to pay similar premiums to learn spells from PCs. Within the fiction, NPC casters should be as desperate for spells as PC casters are.

On the risk of losing a spellbook (in 3E):

A spell takes 1 page per level, and costs 100 gp per page (and therefore 100 gp per level) to inscribe (either from memory, or from another book).

The cost of buying a scroll at minimum caster level (which I assume is adequate for copying the spell into your book) is 25 x L x (2L-1), = 50L^2-25L, where L is the spell's level.

So, suppose that caster A want to inscribe spell X into her book, by borrowing that spell from caster B. Caster B first memorises X from his book, then carefully cuts that page out of his book and lends it to A. The cost to B of this transaction is the need to memorise X, plus the risk of having to spend 100L to rewrite X into his spellbook should A default. Suppose that B assesses that risk at 25% - then the cost to B is 25L. Supposes B wants a solid markup for time and inconvenience, and therefore charges A 50L. (As it happens, this is the fee suggested by the SRD.)

From A's point of view, this deal is worthwhile provided that 50L < 50L^2-25L, ie provided that L > 1.5, ie provided that X is a spell of 2nd or greater level. Otherwise A should just buy a scroll of X.

Suppose that B assess the risk of default at 100%. The same proportionate markup would then by a charg to A of 200L. From A's point of view, this would still be worthwhile provided that 200L < 50L^2-25L, ie provided that L > 4.5, ie provided that X is a spell of 5th or greater level. (Again, for a lower level spell A would be better off buying a scroll.)

It seems to me that the costs of rewriting a memorised spell, compared to the costs of buying a scroll, are such that there should be a reasonable market for the sharing of spells. (Especially as no one loses any XP that way.) And of course, if the PC in question is reciprocating then this payment in kind should make up for the need to provide cash.

It seems to me that the cost of rewriting a memorised spell into a spellbook is just no so high as to make it the case that there would be no market for the lending of spellbooks. It seems to me that, if you want a gameworld in which there is no such market, you need to add in some sort of external reason (eg the guild structure that [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] suggested) to explain why it does not arise.