Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6155094" data-attributes="member: 42582">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 are excellent questions.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.</blockquote>

Verification