Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ridley's Cohort" data-source="post: 73757" data-attributes="member: 545">The rule for cost is to force Wizards to make meaningful decisions about which spells they know.In the bad old days of 1e/2e, every mage in the party would share and trade spells since there was no reason not, too.  (And there were a lot of mages due to the broken multiclassing rules.)  This had a couple ugly consequences:(1) DMs had to "cheat" to keep spellbooks of defeated MUs from falling into the hands of PCs or they would soon know every spell in existence.(2) Gaining new spells would cost a boatload of money to slow the explosion of spells known.(3) If spells are expensive, every spell book from every MU would be worth a fortune, reinforcing #1.The 3e rules, whether they make sense or not, encourage Wizards to carefully consider which spells to pick up.  If there are two Wizards in one party it is actually likely they will purposefully learn dissimilar spells.  That encourages flavor.There is nothing wrong with lowering the cost of scribing spells into the Wizard's book.  The downside of (nearly) eliminated the cost is the DM now has to carefully watch access to spells.  Not a problem at all if dealing with a single Wizard in the party played by a good sport.  But if you have multiple Wizards to want a mechanism to discourage cloning spellbooks without being heavy-handed.</blockquote>