Would letting the wizard copy spells for free be gamebreaking?

[Kaibis]

New DM with new players (they all had their first 6hr game yesterday and love it). I have made it clear that I was a little lenient on things yesterday (for example, the V,S,M stuff, and a few other things), as we learn this leniency will disappear until we strike a nice balance.


One of the wizards scored a spellbook (we played CoS:Death House) which has the equivalent of 13 lvls worth of scribing, and is asking if I will stick with the time/cost of scribing scrolls, or if I will just let them have it. I am really hesitant to give it for free, and I am afraid do even reduce the cost if the risk is ultimately ruining the enjoyment of the players (i.e. Have this magic sword at lvl 1 and see how fun the game isn't).

Could someone help me understand how the costs balance the game, compared to say a Paladin that just knows all their spells always? 13 lvls will cost 650gp (the 13hrs 26hrs of time is fine), why the need for such high costs (I know the RP reason, but I mean mechanically, what would be the repercussions of reducing or eliminating the cost)?




ETA: I have inadvertently put this in the wrong place, it was meant to go in the 5e/Next sub-forum.

[Elysiume]

I haven't played enough 5e to really comment on the economy, so I'll just give a minor correction: copying spells takes 2 hours per SL, so it'd take 26 hours to copy 13 levels worth of spells. Sorry I can't be more helpful!

[Kaibis]

I haven't played enough 5e to really comment on the economy, so I'll just give a minor correction: copying spells takes 2 hours per SL, so it'd take 26 hours to copy 13 levels worth of spells. Sorry I can't be more helpful!

Thanks for that pickup. I am still okay with that amount of downtime. I am sure he could transcribe one spell per evening (sometimes two) at that rate, but just not sure he could drum up that much gold.

[DeTess]

Okay, let's see if the power of Math can give some explanation. i'll be comparing a level 11 cleric with a level 11 wizard on the spells known front here, and try to get some kind of conclusion from this. I've picked level 11 because it's still a realistic level for many campaigns to get too, while also high enough that it's a reasonable reflection of trends. For this comparison I'll only use contend from the PHB.

A level 11 cleric has access to a total of 83 different leveled spells (plus whatever they get from their Domain), where a wizard without scribing any spells only has access to 22 at that level. The wizard does have the slight advantage that it can pick the best spells from a far larger list, but that would still leave him somewhat behind. If copying the spells is free, and the wizard has easy access to all spells, then he could learn more than 150 leveled spells, far more than the cleric ever could, and from (arguably) a better and more diverse spell list. However, attaching a cost to scribing spells removes this issue, and forces the wizard to pick.

However, this cost is only necessary if the player has easy access to lots of extra spells to scribe, and only fair if the player gets enough gold to scribe at least 1-2 spells per level. If you as a DM will carefully control which spells the player can and can't get, then the scribing cost might be unnecessary, and if its going to be an incredibly low-resource campaign, then you should probably tell the player in advance so that he can play something that isn't a wizard, or waive the scribing cost and provide just a few extra spells he can get.

[Kaibis]

Okay that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

[Kaibis]

How often to Wizard Books come up as loot or treasure (like in a module), how often should a DM be giving them?

[Glorthindel]

How often to Wizard Books come up as loot or treasure (like in a module), how often should a DM be giving them?

My default stance is that every NPC wizard in an adventure will have one, somewhere. If the NPC has to prepare spells from a book, then it will obviously have to be close at hand.

Some will have them on their person, some will have them close at hand, and some will have them hidden away in a secret place. I'll generally split the distribution equally, although depending on circumstances, how to do it should be fairly obvious (a wizard travelling the wilderness will have it on them, one living at home will likely have it sitting in their study, whereas the BBEG of an evil dungeon will likely have it hidden in a secret, trapped, and magically warded location to prevent the untrustworthy lackeys getting their grubby hands on it). Sometimes I will mix it up, like a well prepared wizard may keep a full spellbook in a hidden, secure, and possibly even off-site location whilst keeping a secondary (with their most important spells) on them at all times, but even then, my rule is that if the Wizard is in the adventure, his spellbook will be (and in a location he can reasonably access it when needed)

[Cespenar]

Is there anything in the rules that prevents the wizard from carrying more than one spellbooks and using them normally?

I personally couldn't find anything under Wizard nor "Spellbook" in the equipments section that says something like that. So could you very well wander around with 2 spellbooks without going into the trouble of copying stuff in between?

[Darkstar952]

Is there anything in the rules that prevents the wizard from carrying more than one spellbooks and using them normally?

I personally couldn't find anything under Wizard nor "Spellbook" in the equipments section that says something like that. So could you very well wander around with 2 spellbooks without going into the trouble of copying stuff in between?

Yes a Wizard can have multiple spellbooks, most often as a backup in case their primary spellbook is destroyed. But a wizard can't simply pick up another wizards spellbook and use it, they need to scribe it into their own notation and form. Page 114 under the wizard class, Your spellbook sidebar.

[Kaibis]

My default stance is that every NPC wizard in an adventure will have one, somewhere. If the NPC has to prepare spells from a book, then it will obviously have to be close at hand.

Some will have them on their person, some will have them close at hand, and some will have them hidden away in a secret place. I'll generally split the distribution equally, although depending on circumstances, how to do it should be fairly obvious (a wizard travelling the wilderness will have it on them, one living at home will likely have it sitting in their study, whereas the BBEG of an evil dungeon will likely have it hidden in a secret, trapped, and magically warded location to prevent the untrustworthy lackeys getting their grubby hands on it). Sometimes I will mix it up, like a well prepared wizard may keep a full spellbook in a hidden, secure, and possibly even off-site location whilst keeping a secondary (with their most important spells) on them at all times, but even then, my rule is that if the Wizard is in the adventure, his spellbook will be (and in a location he can reasonably access it when needed)

Great advice, that makes absolute sense, and a simple way to think about it. I suppose, for example, that if the wizard is killed by a firebolt the book probably went up in flames too.

[DeTess]

Great advice, that makes absolute sense, and a simple way to think about it. I suppose, for example, that if the wizard is killed by a firebolt the book probably went up in flames too.

Firebolt probably won't, fireball might. However, in that case you'll have to consider what happens to the PC wizard if he gets hit by a fireballl. It might be less of a can of worms to say that a spellbook has some basic fire-resistance enchantments to prevent this from happening. That's not to say spell-book destruction should be impossible, but I'd do it in a way that has the same effect for NPC's and PC's, and PC spellbooks probably shouldn't go up in flames every time they meet a red dragon.

[Kaibis]

Firebolt probably won't, fireball might. However, in that case you'll have to consider what happens to the PC wizard if he gets hit by a fireballl. It might be less of a can of worms to say that a spellbook has some basic fire-resistance enchantments to prevent this from happening. That's not to say spell-book destruction should be impossible, but I'd do it in a way that has the same effect for NPC's and PC's, and PC spellbooks probably shouldn't go up in flames every time they meet a red dragon.

No, I was thinking in the same way that when character loot bodies they always only seem to find two teeth and one ear, and they can rarely loot the armor.... it gets strangely damaged because DM-Reasons.

[DeTess]

No, I was thinking in the same way that when character loot bodies they always only seem to find two teeth and one ear, and they can rarely loot the armor.... it gets strangely damaged because DM-Reasons.

Yeah, I suppose that works too. My current party isn't really of the 'loot-it-all' variety, so I forgot that that is an issue that has to be dealt with in most games. Oops :P

[Anonymouswizard]

However, this cost is only necessary if the player has easy access to lots of extra spells to scribe, and only fair if the player gets enough gold to scribe at least 1-2 spells per level. If you as a DM will carefully control which spells the player can and can't get, then the scribing cost might be unnecessary, and if its going to be an incredibly low-resource campaign, then you should probably tell the player in advance so that he can play something that isn't a wizard, or waive the scribing cost and provide just a few extra spells he can get.

This is why I'm on the fence about playing a wizard in my current game (might be playing a warrior instead, might be a Cleric). The GM isn't letting wizards start with anything but the spells you get from leveling up, and is unlikely to include spellbooks to loot. This essentially limits me to four spells per spell level with eight first level spells, and removes the big boost of the wizard (who gets insane flexibility compared to spells known casters at the expense of class abilities).

On the other hand, this group is low-op enough that a Cleric who's only actions are to cast Cure Wounds wouldn't be underpowered.


No, I was thinking in the same way that when character loot bodies they always only seem to find two teeth and one ear, and they can rarely loot the armor.... it gets strangely damaged because DM-Reasons.

I've almost never seen that, I've generally seen GMs allow us to loot armour.

I also tend to see GMs who do so enforce encumbrance rules, so the first thing left behind is enemy armour, followed by enemy weapons, followed by anything that isn't a gemstone and isn't useful as a spell component. Eventually +3 Plate is left on the ground because it has a slightly lower gp to weight ratio than a gem.

[FelineArchmage]

I don't think it would be game breaking if you decided to nix the gold required to copy spells into the spellbook. However, I think it would be slightly unbalanced if the wizard was getting all the free spells along with any other loot they might be getting in the future. I think it would all depend on how often you'll be giving them the opportunity to copy more spells into their book in the future.

Alternatively, instead of copying them into their spellbook, they could just prepare them from the looted spellbook instead. The problem is, I don't know if there is a mechanic for doing this in 5e like it did in 3.5. That would completely get rid of the copying costs, though they would be carrying around 2 books. (If there are no mechanics for this yet in 5e and you want to implement it, you might have to homebrew some rules for this).

[Keltest]

I've almost never seen that, I've generally seen GMs allow us to loot armour.

I also tend to see GMs who do so enforce encumbrance rules, so the first thing left behind is enemy armour, followed by enemy weapons, followed by anything that isn't a gemstone and isn't useful as a spell component. Eventually +3 Plate is left on the ground because it has a slightly lower gp to weight ratio than a gem.

Typically my DM's will allow us to loot an enemy's gear, but unless they died via suffocation or something, that gear isn't guaranteed to be in a usable state. As it turns out, swording somebody to death tends to do a number on their armor. Even magic armor isn't completely immune to this, though it tends to be more resistant to it.

[Anonymouswizard]

Typically my DM's will allow us to loot an enemy's gear, but unless they died via suffocation or something, that gear isn't guaranteed to be in a usable state. As it turns out, swording somebody to death tends to do a number on their armor. Even magic armor isn't completely immune to this, though it tends to be more resistant to it.

Oh sure, there are realistic reasons why armour is unlikely to be in a usable state. I've occasionally heard GMs say something along the lines of 'one suit of leather armour is usuable and the rest can be patched up if you have the materials' after fighting some bandits. I've also seen GMs declare not all of the weapons the enemy has are salvagable.

I've also seen GMs have merchants offer much lower prices for damaged gear, because they'll need to get it fixed before they can sell it. On the other hand, I've seen many groups just decide that looting enemies fully is too much bookkeeping, they'll take any decent weapons and rifle through their pockets for loose change, but they won't undress them. In fact, in two groups taking weapons and armour was a big deal, removing an enemy's armour would take a lot of time and was only done on live captures, and the likelihood of being skilled in your enemy's weapon was low enough that you just got used to leaving them. However we also got a regular income that allowed us to purchase new equipment every few sessions, so we were never actually behind where we were meant to be. I think the only equipment we looted with regularity was ammunition.

[FreddyNoNose]

From the adnd 1ed DMG:

Spells Beyond Those At Start:
Naturally, magic-user player characters will do their utmost to acquire
books of spells and scrolls in order to complete their own spell books. To
those acquired, the magic-user will add 1 (and ONLY 1) spell when he or
she actually gains an experience level (q.v.) . Therefore, most will be
frantically attempting to purchase or cozen spells from non-player character
magic-users, or even from other ployer character magic-users.

How you handle NPC magic-users is of utmost importance. There is a
special section of the rules regarding non-player characters, and you
should follow the suggestions therein carefully. By doing so, players will
find that their magic-user characters are unable to acquire new spells -
at worst - ar 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 - although this cooperation
should never be suggested or otherwise encouraged, either.
The DM should leave this interaction strictly alone. This is NOT the case
when PCs deal with NPC henchmen or hirelings. Non-player character
hirelings or henchmen will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to co-operate freely with
player characters, even their own masters ar mistresses. Again, this
matter is dealt with separately under the section pertaining to the DMs
role in operating henchmen and hirelings. 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 volue plus a
considerable bonus. For example, Thigru Thorkisen, Magician in the hire
of Olaf Blue Cheeks, a 10th level Lord, knows the spell, suggestion; ond
olaf’s associate, Halfdon the Necromancer, requests that he be allowed
to copy this spell into his book of third level spells. If Olof is willing,
Halfdan can approach Thigru. If Halfdan has been at least civil to the
magicion, Thigru will osk nothing more than o 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 o ring of invisibility. If Holfdan
had formerly insulted the magician, then the price would be more dear;
but supposing the necromancer had actually saved Thigru's life at one
time, the cost would be reduced to but a spell exchange and a single
potion or scroll of 1 spell.

Naturally, the personality of the henchman or hireling would modify the
bargain to some extent. A very avaricious or greedy NPC would ask for
more magic items and/or gold too! As a good DM you will hove de
veloped the character of each henchman and hireling to the extent that
such determinations will be relatively easy.

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 magicusers
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. Magic-users
will haunt dusty libraries and peruse musty tomes in the hopes of gleaning
but a single incantation to add to their store of magic.

[LordCdrMilitant]

No, I was thinking in the same way that when character loot bodies they always only seem to find two teeth and one ear, and they can rarely loot the armor.... it gets strangely damaged because DM-Reasons.

Huh. I always had a list of what's on the enemies, down to personal effects, and my players took everything, corpses included . They did end up having to leave lots of things behind [largely that which they weren't using or had no prospects of replenishing ammunition for in the near future] to stay below encumbrance.

I run mostly DH now, and looking corpses is actively hazardous to both your mental health and, more pressingly, your continued employment and life expectancy.

As a general rule of thumb, I generally let players have equipment fairly easily and cheaply. If the Imperial Guard can give 1 in 10 a Plasmagun and 2 in 10 a Lascannon, they can also afford to give the Inquisitor's Warband a Plasmagun when she [s]demands"asks nicely" for it. Same thing applies to my D&D/PF parties.

[Anonymouswizard]

As a general rule of thumb, I generally let players have equipment fairly easily and cheaply. If the Imperial Guard can give 1 in 10 a Plasmagun and 2 in 10 a Lascannon, they can also afford to give the Inquisitor's Warband a Plasmagun when she demands"asks nicely" for it. Same thing applies to my D&D/PF parties.

My general rule is that equipment used by the military isn't easily available to your average citizen. I can't go out and buy a pistol, let alone an assault rifle. In a fantasy setting I can see how that would make sense, but not in most modern or science fiction settings.

[DeTess]

My general rule is that equipment used by the military isn't easily available to your average citizen. I can't go out and buy a pistol, let alone an assault rifle. In a fantasy setting I can see how that would make sense, but not in most modern or science fiction settings.

Well, that particular setting works under the assumption that the players are some form of special/secret forces/police.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well, that particular setting works under the assumption that the players are some form of special/secret forces/police.

Who aren't average citizens. Or am I missing something?

I'll admit I was a bit misleading, because I wasn't responding specifically about Dark Heresy. I was referring to the more general habit of GMs allowing players to buy military grade hardware even when they aren't in a situation that reasonably allows it. Back when I was running DH1 I worked under the assumption that if the accolyte was able to purchase or acquire a weapon and keep it (or are given it back after it's discovered to be free of taint) then the I would supply them with a reasonable amount of ammunition (equal to at least three clips a session for something like bolters, arbitrary amounts for weaker weapons and maybe a single clip for things such as lasguns and meltaguns). I even had a justification for it, they were supposed to be deniable assets so they only got weapons when they specifically needed them (almost never), but would be given ammunition so that they'd at least be able to use anything they had if needed. Then be reprimanded and potentially have the weapon confiscated if they misused the thing.

What shocked me when playing Deathwatch was how a military organisation didn't have a single meltagun on hand. Even worse I'd paid XP to have one as part of my standard kit, would the ability to melt walls really have destroyed the scenario (which mostly took place in underground tunnels).

[Armored Walrus]

I don't think removing the cost to scribe would unbalance your game to the point you'd notice it. Especially if you're just running modules. (not clear from OP if that's the case or not) One effect removing the cost would have, though, is that it would remove that cost-benefit analysis that the wizard has to do every time he or she comes into some loot. That debate as to which spell to copy next is a big part of the flavor of the wizard. Removing it would weaken the fluff, in my opinion, and make wizarding less interesting.

Edit: If you want to retain this flavor, but still make it a bit easier for the wizard to get all those spells in his book, you can always increase the amount of coins found. Of course, this will also mean the paladin will have plate mail sooner, and there will be more potions of health and alchemist fire, etc. being tossed around.

[Unoriginal]

Keep in mind that once the Wizard has finished to copy the spells, they can *sell* the book to get a good bunch of the money back.


Making them pay for the scribing is a good way for them to not get the treasure twice, so to speak.

[Daithi]

Keep in mind that once the Wizard has finished to copy the spells, they can *sell* the book to get a good bunch of the money back.


Making them pay for the scribing is a good way for them to not get the treasure twice, so to speak.

I think this is a good point.

At our table, our DM doesn't make the wizard pay for transcribing spells. If an NPC-Wizard is killed then our wizard gets the spell book, and he adds any spells he doesn't already have. It just speeds up game play. Plus, at higher levels we usually have enough treasure that paying for it wouldn't be a big deal anyway.

If we played strictly by the rules, it would probably be an annoyance at lower levels. My guess is that following the rule would make the game less fun to play than more fun. So, I like just ignoring the rule. My 2 cents.

[Anonymouswizard]

Keep in mind that once the Wizard has finished to copy the spells, they can *sell* the book to get a good bunch of the money back.


Making them pay for the scribing is a good way for them to not get the treasure twice, so to speak.

Actually, if a wizard is part of a guild, free spell scribing materials in return for spellbooks is an interesting guild benefit. In all honesty, most NPCs probably can't afford a spellbook at even half market value, leaving nobles and organisations.

If you find a book including a spell the guild doesn't know (a good chance for level 6+ spells in most worlds, and still possible for even the occasional 1st level) they'd likely either pay through the nose or give a major reward, like a magic item that's been stored in their vault.

Of course, if magic is rare then a spellbook could theoretically buy major benefits, up to potentially an entire Barony or more.

[SirGraystone]

The reason that it cost gold to transcribe spells, is to limit the size of a wizard spellbooks, for example the Death House spellbook have 5 level 1, and 4 level 2 spells. But the wizard don't really need all of them. He can pick 1 or 2 he really need and wait until later for the rest.

[Kaibis]

Thanks for the feedback. The idea of copying spells, and then being able to on-sell the spellbook (or copy more and sell them) appeals to him greatly.

Are there any official tables for determining what a buy/merchant will offer for an item. I am sure I saw one someone, but much flicking of pages is yielding nothing. (Maybe it was on an unofficial DM screen sheet, I have been looking at plenty of those kinds of printables). Gah.

[Dudewithknives]

How about this:

Transferring a spell from one source to another is free.
Copying cost the gold.

Ex.

Find a spell book and you want one of the spells from it. You can transfer the spell to your book as a ritual where it disappears from the original and appears in yours.

If you want to copy the spell but leave the original to sell it costs the inks and things to add it to a new place.

[Tanarii]

It's not if you're giving away scrolls at the DMG found magic item randomly generated rates, which is: incredibly rare with a chance of it not even being a Wizard spells.

IMO its rapidly becomes so if you're handing out enemy spell books with 13+ levels of spells in them for Tier 1 (level 1-4) characters. That multiple Treasure Hoards worth of loot.

Put another way, it's like giving out 26 Potions of Healing for free. You've already handed out 13 regardless, and you thinking about handing out another 13.

Wizards are already perfectly functional if they gain almost no new found spells. If you're handing out spellbooks like that you absolutely should hold them to the downtime and gold requirements, especially in Tier 1.

[Breashios]

How often to Wizard Books come up as loot or treasure (like in a module), how often should a DM be giving them?

This varies greatly. If the modules you are using have Wizards as enemies, you could have a situation where the party wizard has more spells than he really needs. In other modules you get to fight lots of "Sorcerers". You may never find them.

If you find the modules you are interested in running are full of Sorcerers, converting one every so often into a Wizard is not too hard.

On the other hand, if your party ends up with two wizard characters for some reason this will not be a problem as they can share each other's new spells each time they level.

[Breashios]

It's not if you're giving away scrolls at the DMG found magic item randomly generated rates, which is: incredibly rare with a chance of it not even being a Wizard spells.

IMO its rapidly becomes so if you're handing out enemy spell books with 13+ levels of spells in them for Tier 1 (level 1-4) characters. That multiple Treasure Hoards worth of loot.

Put another way, it's like giving out 26 Potions of Healing for free. You've already handed out 13 regardless, and you thinking about handing out another 13.

Wizards are already perfectly functional if they gain almost no new found spells. If you're handing out spellbooks like that you absolutely should hold them to the downtime and gold requirements, especially in Tier 1.

Thirteen new spells for a wizard is a gold mine. And this warning is probably something to take seriously. Besides, forcing the character to take the time and spend the money on copying the spells makes their value more real to the character/player.

On the flip side, the second spell book the Wizard gains will probably have a large number of spells he already knows or are in the books he had already gained. A reasonable prize might be three new spells out of 13 from a wizard of the same level, and a lot of books found on lower level wizards will have only one and that one is possibly a "trap" spell selection (those that are not worth taking, compared to a choice the character already has).

[Tanarii]

If the modules you are using have Wizards as enemies, you could have a situation where the party wizard has more spells than he really needs.Fighting Wizards as enemies doesn't necessarily mean finding spellbooks. Or at least, more than traveling spellbooks containing a crucial switch-out spells. Only hobo-adventurer PCs without a home are stupid enough (despite their Int score) to bring such a valuable thing as their primary spellbook into dangerous dungeons and wilderness, where it can easily be destroyed.

And even then they're usually only stupid enough to let that happen once before they make a secure cache for a backup spellbook. :smallamused:


Thirteen new spells for a wizard is a gold mine. And this warning is probably something to take seriously. Besides, forcing the character to take the time and spend the money on copying the spells makes their value more real to the character/player. Indeed. Found spellbooks should definitely be counted as their loot value by DMs, part of a Treasure Hoard. Especially if there are new spells the PC can copy before selling the book.

[Kaibis]

Put another way, it's like giving out 26 Potions of Healing for free. You've already handed out 13 regardless, and you thinking about handing out another 13.


Not sure what you mean by handing out another 13. I ran the Death House module, and part of the loot (as written in the module) is a spellbook with 13 lvls worth of spells. I am only talking about how best to deal with this without breaking the game.

[Tanarii]

Not sure what you mean by handing out another 13. I ran the Death House module, and part of the loot (as written in the module) is a spellbook with 13 lvls worth of spells. I am only talking about how best to deal with this without breaking the game.
I was trying to put some context on the equivalent value, by saying that book is already worth 13 consumable magic times. Actually it's 9, given its 9 spells, that's the equivalent of finding 9 scrolls. So the module is giving a veritable treasure trove. The "other 13" is the value of scribing the spells into the wizard spell book, or 50 gp/spell level. 50 gp is the value of a potion of healing, so that's its equivalent.

Or to look at it a different way, you're talking about giving 650 gp of free treasure to a character. That's more than the entire amount of treasure the average PC in a party of four gets for all of Tier 4, in other words up to the beginning of level 5. That's a lot of free stuff.

[Angelalex242]

I don't really think you can break the game with spell selection.

How much more powerful is the wizard if he knows every spell in the PHB?

...not very. He still has to know which spell to prepare that day, and he gets the same number of spells to prepare as the standard wizard.

[Anonymouswizard]

Not sure what you mean by handing out another 13. I ran the Death House module, and part of the loot (as written in the module) is a spellbook with 13 lvls worth of spells. I am only talking about how best to deal with this without breaking the game.

If you're worried about breaking the game then don't let the player double down on value. As in they can either scribe for free or sell the book on, not both. Sit down with then and work it out.

Now most payers generally won't still the book on, because it can be hard, and especially if they weren't able to afford to scribe every spell (just one more adventure and I can sell Necromancy for Dummies!).

As an aside, I'd personally reduce the cost of scribing a spell from your workbook into a backup spellbook. The first fine scribing it was when you made must of the errors and had to work out the notation, here you only need the magical inks for a page or two and can fill out more pages with notes on the spell and similar things if you want to.

Remember, using the scribing rules as written may lead to hilarity and punchlines (yeah, 3.X was even worse). (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0306.html)

[Arkhios]

I don't see an issue letting Wizard learn all of their spells for free, no.

Being dependant on spellbook is - while flavorful - a bit unnecessary, imho.
Besides, Clerics already have access to all of their spells and even get bonus spells known, so the Wizard wouldn't even be at any advantage over Cleric if they'd know all of their spells like Clerics do.
And both are still limited by their class level and spellcasting modifier on how many spells they can prepare each day, so there's that too. Having more options to prepare from isn't game breaking.

[Anonymouswizard]

It's worse, Clerics get extra spells prepared. Honestly spells known caters kind of got the shaft in this edition compared to prepared caters, who just have a larger list of available spells every day and the ability to switch out a good proportion of those spells. On the plus side they tend to get a few extra class features, which might make up for it. I think that in many cases the choice of Sorcerer versus wizard doesn't matter, but the wizard will being more versatility to the party.

Honestly? Nine times out of ten I'd play the Sorcerer or Warlock so I didn't have to deal with spell preparation. But if you're willing to the wizard is a stronger caster.

[Tanarii]

I don't really think you can break the game with spell selection.

How much more powerful is the wizard if he knows every spell in the PHB?

...not very. He still has to know which spell to prepare that day, and he gets the same number of spells to prepare as the standard wizard.If you're playing combat as sport, sure.

If you're playing combat as war, you'd have a true schrodinger's wizard on your hands. And that would be very broken.

[Baptor]

Short answer. No.

Moderate answer. No, because gold is worthless in 5e D&D. Scribing costs are either just a money sink, designed on purpose to drain the worthless gold out of the game, or a sacred cow - there because it's always been there.

Long answer. No, but that doesn't mean you can't still use them and make some quality of life changes. :smallsmile:

I have eliminated gold from our games. One of my better decisions. However there is nothing wrong with keeping it if you like adding and subtracting numbers for fun. You could keep the gold costs and ditch the scribing time. This would keep a cost of sorts creating a decision but eliminates the possible fun-sucking reality of "sorry I can't cast teleport yet, it's going to take me another week to finish writing it."

Or, if you've eliminated gold like me, you can keep the scribing time as a "check" on wizardly power, but I recommend against it. I find waiting boring and not a dramatic element. Have you ever had fun waiting for something? Maybe. I haven't. YMMV and so forth.

I don't have any kind of penalty or cost to scribing scrolls in my game. But if I did, I'd do what the old systems did and have a chance of failure. Basically you have to make an Arcana check to scribe and if you fail, the magic writing vanishes and you lose the scroll. The horror!

But I don't do that, and I wouldn't. Life's hard enough on wizards in my games, but that's another story.

[Angelalex242]

If you're playing combat as sport, sure.

If you're playing combat as war, you'd have a true schrodinger's wizard on your hands. And that would be very broken.

Shcrodinger's Wizard is a theory. It's impossible in practice, unless the DM's running a published adventure, the wizard player cheated and read that published adventure top to bottom and has it all memorized, and then always has the right spell prepared the right number of times.

Note how much cheating you have to do to make that happen.

[Tanarii]

Shcrodinger's Wizard is a theory. It's impossible in practice, unless the DM's running a published adventure, the wizard player cheated and read that published adventure top to bottom and has it all memorized, and then always has the right spell prepared the right number of times.

Note how much cheating you have to do to make that happen.Edit: Let me try again, a little less rude. My bad.

This discounts a common tactic in combat-as-war: scouting properly, gathering important information, then attacking when prepared. That's not always possible of course. Sometimes time is pressing. But finding out as much as you can about an adventuring site before leaving your home base is fairly key to the entire concept, as is small skirmishing scouting expeditions whenever possible.

[Cynthaer]

I think most people here are answering the question in the title: Does waiving the scribe cost for the wizard inherently break the game balance? The answer to this is no, for the reasons others have stated.

However, I want to focus on the question in the actual post: Mechanically, what would be the repercussions of reducing or eliminating the cost? My answer is that in your campaign of level 1 newbies with literally one session under their belt, the repercussions wouldn't be game-breaking, but they would mostly be bad​.

First off, I made the following table comparing (A) a Wizard that did not find this spellbook, (B) a Wizard using the normal copying rules and paying gold, and (C) a Wizard who gets to copy spells for free. I find it helps me visualize what it means to say "lots of spells" or "getting things early".

(We assume a Wizard picks up a total of 540 gold by level 5 at a roughly even rate, for simplicity. There are 5 level 1 spells and 4 level 2 spells in the book.)



Wizard Level
Gold Earned
Spells Known + Gold
(No Book)
Spells Known + Gold
(Paying to Copy)
Spells Known + Gold
(Copying for Free)


1
140
Lvl 1 spells: 6
Lvl 2 spells: 0
Gold: 140
Lvl 1 spells: 8
Lvl 2 spells: 0
Gold: 40
Lvl 1 spells: 11
Lvl 2 spells: 0
Gold: 140


2
280
Lvl 1 spells: 8
Lvl 2 spells: 0
Gold: 280
Lvl 1 spells: 13
Lvl 2 spells: 0
Gold: 30
Lvl 1 spells: 13
Lvl 2 spells: 0
Gold: 280


3
420
Lvl 1 spells: 8
Lvl 2 spells: 2
Gold: 420
Lvl 1 spells: 13
Lvl 2 spells: 3
Gold: 70
Lvl 1 spells: 13
Lvl 2 spells: 6
Gold: 420


4
560
Lvl 1 spells: 8
Lvl 2 spells: 4
Gold: 560
Lvl 1 spells: 13
Lvl 2 spells: 7
Gold: 10
Lvl 1 spells: 13
Lvl 2 spells: 8
Gold: 560



So the net result of no-cost scribing is that you'll get a solid number of spells earlier than normal, and you'll get hundreds of free gold while you're doing it. But for me, the more important thing is that it's less fun.

How could it possibly be less fun to get free stuff, you ask? Because it gives you less to look forward to!

See, there are two reasons copying spells costs gold.

1. It makes gold have meaning.

You ever wonder why level 1 characters start with Leather Armor, Chain Shirts, or Chain Mail instead of Studded Leather, Half Plate, and Plate? I mean, they're all gonna upgrade to the best armor of the type by level 8 anyway. But having something better in sight gives the player a small goal. It gives the Fighter a reason to try to pick up that extra gold, because when she collects 200 gp she gets a permanent +1 to AC, and then another +1 once she collects another 1500.

Same thing with Wizards. Spell copying is one of the bigger gold sinks, so if they're free, the player is more likely to accumulate gold with no obvious purpose. That's not the worst thing in the world, but if copying spells costs money, suddenly every 50 (or 100) gp the Wizard collects means a whole new spell in their spellbook. That's much more exciting!

2. It spreads out the power boost when a wizard stumbles upon a whole spellbook like this one.

This is partly a power balance thing (you see in the table how the gold-paying Wizard lags behind by a few spells known), but again my focus is on the fun. Simply put, getting new spells one at a time over the course of 4 levels feels much better than getting five at once now and another four at once at level 3.

It's like getting a different pie every week for a month, versus getting four pies today. It doesn't feel as special. You don't get to appreciate each one and really savor it. And even if you think you want all the pies right now, you'll still feel happier overall if you spread them out.


(Side note: You're a new DM with all new players, and everybody's level 1, and you've literally only had one session so far. IMO, this is not the right time to try handing out 650 gp worth of stuff, especially when it adds a ton of new decisions for one newbie player to make in the form of preparing and using spells. There's a real risk of slowing down gameplay because instead of preparing 4 spells out of 6 known, they will be choosing 4 spells out of 11 known.

Your instincts are telling you to be cautious here, and you should listen to them. There's no reason your Wizard needs free spells, any more than your Fighter needs free Plate armor. It's unlikely to make the gameplay better, and might make it worse.)


So, after all that...

TL;DR: Give it a try with the normal gold cost first and see how you like it, because it does serve a gameplay purpose. Even though your Wizard thinks they want it all for free, I think you'll find the cost makes them appreciate every gold piece much more.

If you really want, you can always waive the costs later, but it's very hard to unwaive them if you waive them now.

[greenstone]

Could someone help me understand how the costs balance the game, compared to say a Paladin that just knows all their spells always?
On the other hand, that Paladin has to pay for their plate armour.

[Cynthaer]

Could someone help me understand how the costs balance the game, compared to say a Paladin that just knows all their spells always?

Ah, I forgot to address this part of the OP in my other post.

The short version is, don't think that all classes' spellcasting is interchangeable just because they all use spells. Each class has its own spell list, and they're not just reflavored versions of each other—plus, they interact very differently with the rest of the class's features.

As a quick example, the Paladin's level 1 spells roughly break down as:

Concentration-based combat buff (self or others): 4
One-time melee attack buff: 3
10-minute detection in an area: 3
Combat debuff: 2
Concentration-based combat buff (self only): 1
Heal: 1
Noncombat utility: 1
Total: 15

The Wizard's level 1 spells, however, look like this:

Utility ritual: 8
Direct damage: 7
Combat buff (self only): 4
Combat control: 4
Social utility: 3
Exploration utility: 2
Combat buff (self or others): 2
Total: 30

And to compare another very different full caster, the Druid:

Healing: 3
Combat control or debuff: 3
10-minute detection in an area: 2
Animal utility: 2
Other utility: 2
Social utility: 1
Exploration utility: 1
Combat buff (self or others): 1
Direct damage: 1
Total: 16

Basically, the spell lists for these classes look nothing alike. Unfortunately I don't have a week or so to get into exactly what each class's spell list does and why, so you'll have settle for understanding a general principle:

Paladin spellcasting is balanced around the quantity and content of the spells in the Paladin spell list, and the class's ability to prepare any spell off of the list each day. Wizard spellcasting is similarly balanced around the specific spells in its much larger list, and the requirement to learn spells before preparing them.

Try not to compare individual parts of class features to each other, because it will always give you a misleading idea of what's going on.

[Kaibis]

So the net result of no-cost scribing is that you'll get a solid number of spells earlier than normal, and you'll get hundreds of free gold while you're doing it. But for me, the more important thing is that it's less fun.

How could it possibly be less fun to get free stuff, you ask? Because it gives you less to look forward to!


Wow, thank you for such a detailed response, and this is exactly how I like to compare things (except I don't have the skills or understanding to have been able to make that - loads of thanks).

You point about fun is exactly what I believe too. I can just give all the players 10,000g and a big fancy weapon, but that spoils the fun so much, plus it makes it hard for me as a new DM because I'd have no idea what level monsters to throw at them.

[Kaibis]

Thank you to everyone who has answered too, they have been great.

I have been chatting with the player throughout, and explaining that I was hesitant to break rules that I didn't understand, and that I don't want to remove the flavour from the game.

We plan to make a lot of use of the "Downtime" mechanics in this game, so he is really taken with the possibilities of copying spells and trying to sell them as a downtime activity... basically run a little business in his downtime.

We are both excited about where that could head.

[Cynthaer]

I have been chatting with the player throughout, and explaining that I was hesitant to break rules that I didn't understand, and that I don't want to remove the flavour from the game.

If it helps you conceptualize where to draw the line between this and being "a little lenient on things" like you mention in the OP, I think of it as the difference between rules and rulings.

Rulings generally sound like this:

(A) "There's no official rule for grabbing the cliff edge when pushed, so...let's say make a Dexterity saving throw."

or

(B) "I don't know the rule for using a chair as a weapon, so let's say it's 1d6 and we'll look up the Improvised Weapons rules after the session."

Every DM makes rulings constantly; it's a fundamental part of the DM's job. Never be afraid to make a ruling.

Changing the rules (i.e., creating houserules), however, is a much trickier beast. That means consciously adding, removing, or changing an existing mechanic to make it easier, more fun, or more balanced. I would basically always recommend that brand-new DMs avoid making houserules until they have experience with the unaltered game, because unlike rulings, houserules require a proper understanding of the game and the classes to work well.


We plan to make a lot of use of the "Downtime" mechanics in this game, so he is really taken with the possibilities of copying spells and trying to sell them as a downtime activity... basically run a little business in his downtime.

Just a heads-up—the normal rules of D&D aren't built to handle serious economic activity. To be sure, there is basic "do your profession to avoid lifestyle expenses" downtime stuff, and plenty of ways to spend money, but you'll notice there's almost no official way to turn downtime days into more gold than you started with.

Even the "crafting" downtime activity only lets you craft stuff at a cost of precisely 50% of the market value—which is the exact same amount you would get for selling the final product. This is intentional, because (A) they want crafting to be mostly for your party's own personal use, and (B) you always want adventuring—i.e., playing the game—to be more profitable than the alternative.

All that said, I don't want to discourage pursuing this idea, because...


We are both excited about where that could head.

Anything the DM and players are both excited about obviously should happen. That's a no-brainer. The only issue is how and what.

Basically, you'll need to find or devise some sort of balanced mechanic for what's going on with his spell scroll shop. You don't want him to just bring in arbitrary amounts of gold just for having downtime.

One approach is to treat it like any other profession, allowing him to keep a modest/comfortable/wealthy lifestyle "for free" and no other mechanical benefit.

Another one I like more is to say his profits aren't in tawdry gold pieces. No, they come in the form of secrets, or contacts, or arcane trinkets that form pieces of a cosmic puzzle he doesn't yet realize he's solving. Not only does this avoid having to manage an in-game economy in a system not built for it, but it's way more interesting and gives you as a DM a great way to introduce information and plot hooks in a way that makes the Wizard feel cool and useful.

Like, imagine this, the next time he spends 10 days of downtime:


Each day for the last 9 days of working the shop, at precisely 11:00am, a person comes in and commissions a Scroll of Charm Person. It is a different person every time—different race, different gender, different skin tone, different height, different voice—but they are always staggeringly gorgeous. Every single time, the person comes back the next day at precisely 10:00am to pick up the scroll.

Today, nobody came for the scroll that was ordered yesterday, and nobody came to order a new one. Upon closer inspection of the order slip from yesterday, you see some ink that you're certain was not there before. It has a crude map made of three lines and an X, and some text that reads, "Thank you, Wizard. I am sorry."

Tell me that's not way cooler than "you get 50 gold".

[Ryuu Hayato]

Well, they use the term "might" in the PHB.


On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook.

So, this is DM reliant. Some can not find anything. As a side note, it's curious if you look at pre-gens character sheets made by Wizards. The highelf wizard only have 24 spells on spellbook. Then, it's fine assume that is ok if wizard only add spells by level up.

For me, it's like assume that fighter will gain x magic item. They might find magic weapon, but have some games without magic items. And, the game balance don't assume that he will receive it.

[King of Nowhere]

if your players are new, they are unlikely to know much of spell selection. I'd let them get all spells for free this time, so they can familiarize with them, and apply full rules from the next campaign

[Cynthaer]

if your players are new, they are unlikely to know much of spell selection. I'd let them get all spells for free this time, so they can familiarize with them, and apply full rules from the next campaign

See, I'd actually say the opposite. When dealing with new players who aren't familiar with a big complicated mechanic like spells, it's easier for them to learn if the new information comes in slowly so they have time to process it, instead of dumping it all on them at once.

I know it seems easy for those of us who have spent a lot of time playing D&D and other TTRPGs, but spells are really complicated. Looking only at offensive abilities, the 5e Starter Set pregen Wizard starts out knowing Magic Missile, Burning Hands, and Sleep, which all use completely different mechanics:

Magic Missile: Three projectiles divided among 1-3 targets, no attack roll, each of which rolls separately for damage
Burning Hands: Area effect, everyone in area rolls Dex save vs the player's spell save DC for half damage, "friendly fire" applies until Wizard gets Sculpt Spells at level 2
Sleep: Area effect, roll total HP of potential effect, all creatures within area are affected in ascending order of current HP up to maximum rolled HP, "friendly fire" applies

If you think about it, that's a lot of specific mechanics to grapple with if you're also learning the entire rest of the game. It helps a lot that they have evocative names and non-overlapping roles, so you can kind of intuitively figure long range = Magic Missile, short range = Burning Hands, nonlethal = Sleep.

Adding another 24 Wizard spells at level 1 (!) to choose from when preparing makes this so much harder. Is Chromatic Orb better or worse than Magic Missile? Ray of Sicknes? Is Chromatic Spray a better or worse cone effect than Burning Hands? For nonlethal effects, should you take Chromatic Spray, Sleep, Grease, or Fog?

I'm not saying it's impossible to figure this out or to run a game this way, it's just bad pedagogy. Better to make things as clear and focused as possible, and let players seek more variety once they've mastered the basics.

[Kaibis]

If it helps you conceptualize where to draw the line between this and being "a little lenient on things" like you mention in the OP, I think of it as the difference between rules and rulings.


That does help, thanks. We had a lot of "not sure, I'll look it up later" with the group, and thankfully no players felt the need to look it up now. We just rolled with it. It makes for a more enjoyable game.




Just a heads-up—the normal rules of D&D aren't built to handle serious economic activity. To be sure, there is basic "do your profession to avoid lifestyle expenses" downtime stuff, and plenty of ways to spend money, but you'll notice there's almost no official way to turn downtime days into more gold than you started with.
I hadn't realised this, though it has definitely been a gut feeling. Playing with the downtime UA mechanics will suit our group (a bunch of parents that can meet once a month at most), as it will let us do some really light 'playing' vis discord during the week. I am looking forward to "Hey Kristelle, does Thania want to come run a scam with me? It's a two-person job" etc. Then we can roll the appropriate stuff and see what happens.

I have been chatting with a couple of other people about the economy, and they had the same kind of thoughts. If they are earning money it *has* to be being spent on living expenses. i.e. A nice house, furnishings, going out to dinners (which can lead to social contacts), servants to cook and clean etc. I think horses and wagons would be a great gold sink for them as well, given that I want the party coming back to the home base each session (this is again because of our schedules, it is a way to let us organise games without everyone needing to be there). So the horses/wagons wouldn't unbalance them, it would just get them to locations faster.

Basically, I need to ensure the gold isn't spent on weapons and armor (in a way that would seem them geared beyond their level)...




Another one I like more is to say his profits aren't in tawdry gold pieces. No, they come in the form of secrets, or contacts, or arcane trinkets that form pieces of a cosmic puzzle he doesn't yet realize he's solving. Not only does this avoid having to manage an in-game economy in a system not built for it, but it's way more interesting and gives you as a DM a great way to introduce information and plot hooks in a way that makes the Wizard feel cool and useful.
...

Tell me that's not way cooler than "you get 50 gold".

Awesome. Love it. I can do a bit of both, enough gold to live nicely, and the rest in secrets and plot intrigues.


I said it before, but you have given me so much help, I completely appreciate it.

[Toofey]

He has the spells in a spellbook that is now his. What does he need to copy them for. When I used to play wizards I would carry around captured spellbooks and only make new ones when my character was flush and doing it for their own convenience.

That said, that being permissible is all DM option, that said I don't think it breaks the game at all.

[greenstone]

He has the spells in a spellbook that is now his. What does he need to copy them for.
Because you cannot prepare spells from another wizard's spellbook. Each wizard has their own way or writing that is specific to them alone. To make use of spells you find in another wizard's book you must first copy them into your book, using your own notation.

From the PHB:


Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.

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.

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.

[Whit]

Ages ago we first used the wizard teacher who taught the apprentice. He would then revisit the teacher and fir a fee of some sort assist in more spells. Later, we added wizard guilds where you move up in rank by level.
Example from long ago M.A.G.I guild in Greyhawk. Mages association of Greyhawk International. 9 inner circle ranks . With monthly fees of gold or magic item. In return yiu could get spells or magic items with trades. Meet npc wizards. Move up in rank by higher level and gifting magic items.

[Irreverent Fool]

I don't really think you can break the game with spell selection.

How much more powerful is the wizard if he knows every spell in the PHB?

...not very. He still has to know which spell to prepare that day, and he gets the same number of spells to prepare as the standard wizard.

This is my take on it. Clerics have access to every single spell without any realistic limitation. 5e wizards have a lot of utility, but that is the whole point of their class and they are a far cry from the "Batman" wizard of 3.x/PF. As much as a warrior will need a couple of magic items, a wizard will need to find new spells occasionally. You can't swap spells until a long rest and you need to anticipate what spells you might need, so having more options doesn't automatically mean the character has significantly more power.

Letting wizards copy spells without paying isn't particularly game breaking, but I don't see any particular reason to remove the cost. What my groups do is allow the wizard to spend the gold regardless of his access to a marketplace. It removes the "shopping for ink materials" tax, but keeps the cost and time requirements.

[Cynthaer]

What my groups do is allow the wizard to spend the gold regardless of his access to a marketplace. It removes the "shopping for ink materials" tax, but keeps the cost and time requirements.

I think that's how most people do it. Same thing with spell components that cost gold—the materials are listed to give an in-game justification for why this spell costs 10gp to cast (it's ink, or a crystal, or incense), not really to force a trip to the store.

On the other hand, if you're playing a detailed, resource-focused campaign, then the information is there. So your wizard can worry about ink availability while the ranger crafts another 20 arrows and the rogue tries to figure out how to avoid going over her encumbrance. But in the average campaign, it just plays as "copying a spell costs 50gp/level; retcon that you bought ink before we left if it makes you feel better".

[Cynthaer]

I hadn't realised this, though it has definitely been a gut feeling. Playing with the downtime UA mechanics will suit our group (a bunch of parents that can meet once a month at most), as it will let us do some really light 'playing' vis discord during the week. I am looking forward to "Hey Kristelle, does Thania want to come run a scam with me? It's a two-person job" etc. Then we can roll the appropriate stuff and see what happens.

I have been chatting with a couple of other people about the economy, and they had the same kind of thoughts. If they are earning money it *has* to be being spent on living expenses. i.e. A nice house, furnishings, going out to dinners (which can lead to social contacts), servants to cook and clean etc. I think horses and wagons would be a great gold sink for them as well, given that I want the party coming back to the home base each session (this is again because of our schedules, it is a way to let us organise games without everyone needing to be there). So the horses/wagons wouldn't unbalance them, it would just get them to locations faster.

Basically, I need to ensure the gold isn't spent on weapons and armor (in a way that would seem them geared beyond their level)...

Sounds great. Looks like you've basically reached the same conclusion as the 5e designers: If you want to balance an economy that's unrelated to actual adventuring, the easiest way to do it is to make sure it doesn't directly interact with the adventuring. And for a group with inconsistent schedules and a lot of between-session activity, there's plenty of space to have non-adventuring activity interact with non-adventuring life.

Relatedly, while we're talking about 5e's game structures, have you noticed that magic items in 5e don't have listed gold costs? In previous editions they did, but not in 5e.

The idea is basically the same. If you remove the ability to quantifiably compare magic items to each other, and remove the expectation for players that they "should" be able to purchase a specific magic item if they save up (or cash in by selling it), then it's drastically easier to balance things and let even niche items shine. There's no temptation to trade in the Boots of the Winterlands that you found so you can purchase a Bag of Holding, etc, because it's not an option (by the core rules).


I said it before, but you have given me so much help, I completely appreciate it.

No problem. :smallbiggrin:

[Coec]

Cynthaer seemed to hit most everything I would have commented on but much much better articulated then I ever could have. Bravo. I would add that I wouldn't necessarily throw out the component side of things entirely. The idea is that some components are expensive and they don't pertain entirely to the wizard class only. For example the clerics revivify spell requires 3 diamonds worth 100gp each. At low levels this could be a problem. My DM usually never bothered with the cost of most components and just assumed you had them; unless those components exceeded more than 100gp. Another example is forcecage, it requires 1500gp worth of ruby dust.

Also consider that there are spells that prevent you from speaking and as a caster that could be potentially helpful or hurtful to a party or enemy. Or if your hands are tied? Can't do intricate hand gestures if your hands are tied up. Always remember that what the players can do, so can the npcs.

And my final comment is: don't rule out the fact that a wizard is nearly useless if he "lost" his spell book or the spell components.
Always a good reason to have a spare spellbook.

Just my 2 copper.

[King of Nowhere]

See, I'd actually say the opposite. When dealing with new players who aren't familiar with a big complicated mechanic like spells, it's easier for them to learn if the new information comes in slowly so they have time to process it, instead of dumping it all on them at once.
...

Adding another 24 Wizard spells at level 1 (!) to choose from when preparing makes this so much harder. Is Chromatic Orb better or worse than Magic Missile? Ray of Sicknes? Is Chromatic Spray a better or worse cone effect than Burning Hands? For nonlethal effects, should you take Chromatic Spray, Sleep, Grease, or Fog?

I'm not saying it's impossible to figure this out or to run a game this way, it's just bad pedagogy. Better to make things as clear and focused as possible, and let players seek more variety once they've mastered the basics.
Problem is, once you tell them "you can buy a spell you'll know, pick one" you're already adding another 24 spells. With the increased stakes that the wizard can't change it or get a refund it he's not satisfied with the choice. Unless you, the DM, are hand-picking all the spells for the wizard, which may be the best choice to give them the basics, but may leave the player unsatisfied, especially if your tastes do not match his.

[Vogonjeltz]

New DM with new players (they all had their first 6hr game yesterday and love it). I have made it clear that I was a little lenient on things yesterday (for example, the V,S,M stuff, and a few other things), as we learn this leniency will disappear until we strike a nice balance.


One of the wizards scored a spellbook (we played CoS:Death House) which has the equivalent of 13 lvls worth of scribing, and is asking if I will stick with the time/cost of scribing scrolls, or if I will just let them have it. I am really hesitant to give it for free, and I am afraid do even reduce the cost if the risk is ultimately ruining the enjoyment of the players (i.e. Have this magic sword at lvl 1 and see how fun the game isn't).

Could someone help me understand how the costs balance the game, compared to say a Paladin that just knows all their spells always? 13 lvls will cost 650gp (the 13hrs 26hrs of time is fine), why the need for such high costs (I know the RP reason, but I mean mechanically, what would be the repercussions of reducing or eliminating the cost)?




ETA: I have inadvertently put this in the wrong place, it was meant to go in the 5e/Next sub-forum.

I wouldn’t waive the gold or time requirements, no. Wizards are supposed to have something to do during their downtime.

[Kaibis]

Relatedly, while we're talking about 5e's game structures, have you noticed that magic items in 5e don't have listed gold costs? In previous editions they did, but not in 5e.

The idea is basically the same. If you remove the ability to quantifiably compare magic items to each other, and remove the expectation for players that they "should" be able to purchase a specific magic item if they save up (or cash in by selling it), then it's drastically easier to balance things and let even niche items shine. There's no temptation to trade in the Boots of the Winterlands that you found so you can purchase a Bag of Holding, etc, because it's not an option (by the core rules).


No I hadn't even got that far, but I am relieved to hear it, for the reasons you have written. No gold price puts it directly into my hands, rather than the players.

[Kaibis]

Cynthaer seemed to hit most everything I would have commented on but much much better articulated then I ever could have. Bravo. I would add that I wouldn't necessarily throw out the component side of things entirely. The idea is that some components are expensive and they don't pertain entirely to the wizard class only. For example the clerics revivify spell requires 3 diamonds worth 100gp each. At low levels this could be a problem. My DM usually never bothered with the cost of most components and just assumed you had them; unless those components exceeded more than 100gp. Another example is forcecage, it requires 1500gp worth of ruby dust.

Also consider that there are spells that prevent you from speaking and as a caster that could be potentially helpful or hurtful to a party or enemy. Or if your hands are tied? Can't do intricate hand gestures if your hands are tied up. Always remember that what the players can do, so can the npcs.

And my final comment is: don't rule out the fact that a wizard is nearly useless if he "lost" his spell book or the spell components.
Always a good reason to have a spare spellbook.

Just my 2 copper.

Thanks for this. They are all new players so we are completely handwaving the VSM stuff at the moment, with the understanding that as we improve the rules will be tightened a little (because as you have said, it adds some amazing flavour to the game).

[Arkhios]

Cynthaer seemed to hit most everything I would have commented on but much much better articulated then I ever could have. Bravo. I would add that I wouldn't necessarily throw out the component side of things entirely. The idea is that some components are expensive and they don't pertain entirely to the wizard class only. For example the clerics revivify spell requires 3 diamonds worth 100gp each. At low levels this could be a problem.

Can't disagree with what Cynthaer has done. Well put.

For the bolded part, I kinda had to vent a little: My DM rolls for every goddamn thing that allows the DM to roll. That includes also, that if the treasure table would drop us valuable gems, he'll roll for what gems they are. I know this is certainly within the rules, but our sorcerer, for example, picked Chromatic Orb as one of her spells, and only afterwards we learned that it requires a diamond worth - at least - a 50gp as a spellcasting focus. We had to wait to maybe around level 4 when we had attained enough gold to purchase one from a nearby city, because while the DM had rolled several gems 50gp a piece many times, they were never diamonds, because the tables list that the least expensive diamond is worth, what, 500gp maybe? Yeah, he's that stickler for RAW.

[Coec]

Arkhios,
I can certainly feel your pain on what your DM is doing. My DM does that as well, but he can be lenient when it comes to some things like exchanging gems at a shop, provided the shop gets enough business to do so. He also allowed us a nearly full component pouch. Minus some of the more expensive things. Your sorcerer would most likely have started with the diamond because its not consumed in the casting.

I will say only that it makes for a more invested and challenging game albeit frustrating when you can't use some of your spells.

[Unoriginal]

Can't disagree with what Cynthaer has done. Well put.

For the bolded part, I kinda had to vent a little: My DM rolls for every goddamn thing that allows the DM to roll. That includes also, that if the treasure table would drop us valuable gems, he'll roll for what gems they are. I know this is certainly within the rules, but our sorcerer, for example, picked Chromatic Orb as one of her spells, and only afterwards we learned that it requires a diamond worth - at least - a 50gp as a spellcasting focus. We had to wait to maybe around level 4 when we had attained enough gold to purchase one from a nearby city, because while the DM had rolled several gems 50gp a piece many times, they were never diamonds, because the tables list that the least expensive diamond is worth, what, 500gp maybe? Yeah, he's that stickler for RAW.

I'm confused.

If you had 50gp in the form of various treasure, why did it take until level 4 to find a jeweler or gem merchant that could find you a 50gp diamond?

...do your DM think that you have to roll treasure randomly when the NPC is a shop owner?

Not having what the player need specifically in a treasure is more than fair, but why would anyone forbid PCs to spend their gold in available shops?

[Tanarii]

I'm confused.

If you had 50gp in the form of various treasure, why did it take until level 4 to find a jeweler or gem merchant that could find you a 50gp diamond?

...do your DM think that you have to roll treasure randomly when the NPC is a shop owner?

Not having what the player need specifically in a treasure is more than fair, but why would anyone forbid PCs to spend their gold in available shops?
Gonna guess here ... the PCs weren't in a location that had a jeweler. That's something you're only going to find in a city, not a town, outpost, or dungeon.

Personally I just let players spend GP on costly spell components any time they're not at an adventuring site. But many players still forget (or for newer players, fail to read) that they can't cast Chromatic Orb until they buy a 50gp diamond. The way some 'spell card' and 'character sheet' phone apps work doesn't help.

[Cynthaer]

Problem is, once you tell them "you can buy a spell you'll know, pick one" you're already adding another 24 spells. With the increased stakes that the wizard can't change it or get a refund it he's not satisfied with the choice. Unless you, the DM, are hand-picking all the spells for the wizard, which may be the best choice to give them the basics, but may leave the player unsatisfied, especially if your tastes do not match his.

There might be some miscommunication here.

I'm not talking about hopping down to the Wizard Walmart and buying any spell you like at 50 gp per level. The "bonus" spells that wizards can get are still constrained by the contents of spellbooks you come across. Since they're extra spells compared to what the wizard would have gotten anyway, it doesn't really matter if they're spells the wizard specifically wants.

And the ones gained by normal class growth, of course, can still be swapped out during level up by RAW. IGNORE THIS IT IS LIES.

[Tanarii]

And the ones gained by normal class growth, of course, can still be swapped out during level up by RAW.
Wait what? I didn't know that was a thing for Wizards.

[Arkhios]

Gonna guess here ... the PCs weren't in a location that had a jeweler. That's something you're only going to find in a city, not a town, outpost, or dungeon.

This. It's kind of a wilderness exploration campaign, and we were far from the nearest city. The small village we used as our temporary "home base" at the time was a farming settlement. Farmers had little use for jewelry, so no dice.

[Cynthaer]

Wait what? I didn't know that was a thing for Wizards.

You're correct; I was conflating something unrelated. RAW, wizards do not get the option to replace a previously learned spell during level-up.

Presumably this is so you don't have to track your copied spells and your "normal" spells separately to know which ones you can swap.