Spellbook for non-Wizard classes

[HamsterKun]

I was wondering about how to potentially work with giving a spellbook to a character who isn’t a Wizard. You’d have to be able to read (duh!) and have Spell Slots, but I don’t know about if there should be another caveat.

Any ideas?

[Thinker]

I was wondering about how to potentially work with giving a spellbook to a character who isn’t a Wizard. You’d have to be able to read (duh!) and have Spell Slots, but I don’t know about if there should be another caveat.

Any ideas?

What game are you playing?

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: I moved it to 5e, because the use of "Spell Slots", but who knows?

Assuming it is 5e, a non-wizard's spell book would most likely be a ritual book... no need for spell slots, just time.

[HamsterKun]

What game are you playing?

5th Edition

[Unoriginal]

Why exactly do you want to give other classes a spellbook?

[LuccMa]

Maybe look at the Ritual Caster feat?

[DeTess]

Apart from the ritual caster feat and that one warlock pact boon and invocation, I wouldn't give a spellbook to other caster classes. The spellbook mechanic is a core part of the wizard's identity, and is part of what gives it its power. Giving a wizard-style spellbook to any other arcane caster is an increase in power in most cases.

[nickl_2000]

Actually I could see that being done on an divine caster (Druid or Cleric). The plus side is that you don't need to prepare rituals, the negative is that you only get to choose from spells in the book instead of everything.

I would have to play it to see, but that actually sounds pretty balanced.

[Vogie]

Apart from the ritual caster feat and that one warlock pact boon and invocation, I wouldn't give a spellbook to other caster classes. The spellbook mechanic is a core part of the wizard's identity, and is part of what gives it its power. Giving a wizard-style spellbook to any other arcane caster is an increase in power in most cases.

Basically this.

You can flavor that anyone who knows any ritual could have a spellbook, of sorts. So a chain warlock, Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, someone with the Survivalist feat (UA, gives Alarm), or the quicksmithing feat (PS:K) could all have a "spellbook" because they have spells that they can cast ritually.

But with the knowledge that a Ritual "spellbook" wouldn't be allowed to be expanded without one off the following: Ritual Caster class feature, Ritual caster Feat, or Book of Ancient Secrets invocation.

[Willie the Duck]

Original Poster, it is not clear if you realize that people are asking for you to clarify what you are looking for. Could you please do so? Thanks!

Supposedly during the early formation of the pre-publication original D&D game, there was some thought about having the non Magic User (wizard, by modern parlance) spellcasting class (Cleric being the only one to exist at the time) a spellbook (/prayer book) and use the same mechanics as the wizard in that regard.

As an alternate version of 5e (i.e., this is a significant game-rule change), you could make all the spellcasting classes use this mechanic. So, for example, a sorcerer would not have a maximum number of spells known, but instead get any and all spells they can get their hands on (and then have to prepare cha+level number of them at the start of the day) (this would seriously cut into the distinctiveness between sorcerers and wizards, of course). This would require some significant re-balancing, as some classes (sorcerer, ranger, bard) would gain power (yes, some would say a few of those classes could probably tolerate a boost), and others (cleric, druid, paladin) would lose some (since they normally get to choose from the entire class spell list). But it is not clear if this is the kind of thing about which the OP is asking.

[Zanthy1]

Actually I could see that being done on an divine caster (Druid or Cleric). The plus side is that you don't need to prepare rituals, the negative is that you only get to choose from spells in the book instead of everything.

I would have to play it to see, but that actually sounds pretty balanced.

There is a 3.5 class called the Archivist (from the book Heroes of Horror) that has a Prayerbook. It acts the same as a Spellbook, except it is only for Divine Spells. The 2 free additions each level (plus all starting spells and 0 level spells) came from the Cleric list, but any Divine scroll could be written into the book. So this Archivist can cast Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, and any other divine spell so long as it finds the scroll somewhere. I am currently playing one right now (group started a new campaign and the new DM wanted 3.5 instead of 5e) and I like it so far, but we've just started.

[HamsterKun]

[I]But it is not clear if this is the kind of thing about which the OP is asking.

To clarify, I thought about having it where a non-Wizard class could use a spellbook, but there’d be limitations.

First of all, the number of spells from the book you can prepare at a time is equal your Intelligence modifier, as supposed to your level + INT modifier like a Wizard. They also use your INT modifier for the spell’s attack bonus and save DC, regardless of what your normal spellcasting ability is.

Secondly, the prepared spells are given the fire-and-forget treatment, also known as Vancian magic. You must prepare the spell with a specific level and of a specific variation (if applicable) and you’re stuck with that, and once it’s cast you can’t cast it again (unless you prepared it twice).

Oh, and you need Spell Slots to cast the spell to begin with. May ultimately run into balance issues though...

[Unoriginal]

Why, though? Why take distinct classes with their own identity and mechanics and make them discount wizards

[Aquillion]

Lots of reasons. Could be as simple as it being part of the setting they have in mind. Or they want to run a game where "acquire spell scrolls" is the main focus, but they don't want everyone to be wizards.

(Wizards are probably one of the classes with the least diversity between their subclasses in terms of how they play - only Bladesingers really feel like a distinct class. So if you wanted to run an "all wizards game", it might make sense to refluff and tweak other classes to be more wizard-like in order to give people a broader range of options for what they can play.)

[LibraryOgre]

I could also see it as "Wizardry is a form of magic that can be learned, therefore, anyone can learn it with a bit of effort." So, lots of people have spellbooks, cantrips, etc., that are otherwise wizard-exclusive.

[HamsterKun]

Why, though? Why take distinct classes with their own identity and mechanics and make them discount wizards

In Jack Vance’s The Dying Earth, anybody could memorize a spell from a spellbook. It was just a matter of how many you can have memorized at once, and each spell is forgotten once you cast them.

[Vogie]

In Jack Vance’s The Dying Earth, anybody could memorize a spell from a spellbook. It was just a matter of how many you can have memorized at once, and each spell is forgotten once you cast them.

So, by that definition, Clerics, Druids, & Paladins already have what you want. They all prepare spells at the beginning of the day. Just waive away their prayers, give them spellbooks, and voila! They're White and Green Wizards.