Spells in spell book for generating higher level Wizards

[FrancisBean]

I'm about to run a one-shot starting at 10th level, and I got asked something which I somehow had never considered. Wizards have a mechanism for gaining spells for their spell books as they level normally, but when you're generating a character starting at 10th level, is there any standardized approach for figuring out what your options are for spells you've picked up in your back story?

I was planning to give them X number of spell levels and say they could have that many they'd found in prior adventures..... Leaning toward 1/level = 10 levels for a single-class Wizard.

The same problem arises for Ritual casters.

[JackPhoenix]

When creating higher-level character, you usually get some magic items. Those items can be scrolls with spells you can then scribe into your spellbook.

[Tiadoppler]

Scribing spells into a spellbook costs money. Therefore, I'd treat spells like any other item the wizard could buy with their starting wealth.

They can spend as much of their cash as they want on expanding their spell list, but that leaves less cash for magical items and other gear. They shouldn't get any free spells, beyond what they get through their class features/feats/etc.

[AdAstra]

Scribing spells into a spellbook costs money. Therefore, I'd treat spells like any other item the wizard could buy with their starting wealth.

They can spend as much of their cash as they want on expanding their spell list, but that leaves less cash for magical items and other gear. They shouldn't get any free spells, beyond what they get through their class features/feats/etc.

I would hesitate on this. The cost of scribing a spell isn’t the only “cost” involved in getting them. If you got them from scrolls, those would also either cost money or loot allowance or whatever. If you got them from other spellbooks, you would have to justify how your character got access to them in the first place. Keep in mind that you can’t scribe spells you can’t prepare, so it’s a lot harder to justify having say, copied Animate Objects from your buddy in Wizard College.

My opinion, charge the player the scribing cost, plus half the cost of a scroll of each spell they wish to copy. This is equivalent in cost to half the player’s extra spells being from scrolls, and half being from other spellbooks. I think this constitutes a fair ratio, though perhaps adjust if say, the PC has never even seen another wizard’s spellbook, or if your world has spell libraries that wizards are free to copy from at no charge other than the scribing costs.

[Chronos]

Scrolls are much more expensive than spellbooks. And if you ever in your adventuring career defeat another wizard, you're going to take her entire spellbook as loot, including the spells you can't transcribe to your own book yet, and just hold on to the looted book until you've leveled up enough to transcribe all of them.

[Christew]

Additionally, the spells that a wizard finds during his travels are randomly generated or DM discretion. Allowing the player to choose these spells (even at cost) is significantly more desirable. I agree that a higher level wizard would have found some additional spells in his travels, but I think they should be reduced significantly. It is much easier to design a character at a given level than it is to get them there organically, hence the penalty for doing so. For example, the starting gold table gives you 500gp when starting at level 5, even though adventuring for four levels would yield much more.

I would let them choose a spell or two and then give them a few rolls on the loot tables for scrolls. In the end, the wizard can function fine with only given spells from levelling and will probably find an evil wizard's book as loot soon enough.

[Tharkun]

In worlds I run there are Wizard Guilds who will happily teach you from a list of common spells given membership, dues and various political issues. But each guild has specialties and only certain spells, others need to be found or researched. I don't believe 5e has any spell research rules but in a long running campaign I would retrofit some.

[Chronos]

Sure, the spells gained from loot are at DM discretion, but that still leaves the player a lot of flexibility. Let's say that you want Fireball, and would have picked it up when you hit 5th level. But while you're still 4th, you defeat a more powerful wizard, and loot her spellbook. And the DM wanted that wizard to be able to Fireball the party, so she naturally has Fireball in her book. Well, now you don't need to spend one of your level-up spells on Fireball, and can instead use that choice to pick anything else at all that you want.

In other words, because both the player and the DM made choices that made sense, that looted spellbook results in the PC wizard getting to choose at least one spell from the entire wizard list, beyond what they'd be able to pick otherwise.

[Tanarii]

But while you're still 4th, you defeat a more powerful wizard, and loot her spellbook.
How often does this actually happen though?

[Shabbazar]

For balance purposes I have always been inclined to let wizards grow their spellbook quite easily. The whole point to the wizard over sorcerer and warlock is that the wizard has more flexibility in their spell choices. You kind of crimp that if you clamp down on the spells in their spell book.

From an in-game justification perspective, I don't see why it wouldn't be to a wizard's advantage to generally be open to helping other wizards grow their spellbook. Certainly wizards are going to have other wizards as friends and there's no reason they wouldn't help each other out by letting each other copy their spellbooks. As mentioned above, some wizard guilds would hand out free spells for inscription to their members. The cost to inscribe spells isn't really very high when you consider the amount of gold high level adventurers encounter.

[Sigreid]

I, as a player or DM, would consider it fair if the DM randomly determined 1d4 or 1d6 spells per spell level I could cast to add to my spell book that weren't there because of my picks. There shouldn't be none, and the player shouldn't get to choose. I think this coincides well with the idea that there would be a lot of overlap in spells known between wizards that the party is likely to have come into conflict with, and the player wizard.

[Shabbazar]

...the player shouldn't get to choose.

Definitely this. The stuff that comes up through adventuring isn't player choice. But it shouldn't be completely random either. Certain core spells are going to be pretty universal.

[JackPhoenix]

For balance purposes I have always been inclined to let wizards grow their spellbook quite easily. The whole point to the wizard over sorcerer and warlock is that the wizard has more flexibility in their spell choices. You kind of crimp that if you clamp down on the spells in their spell book.

The wizard has advantage over sorcerer or warlock even without finding a single scroll or spellbook.

[Anonymouswizard]

Scribing spells into a spellbook costs money. Therefore, I'd treat spells like any other item the wizard could buy with their starting wealth.

They can spend as much of their cash as they want on expanding their spell list, but that leaves less cash for magical items and other gear. They shouldn't get any free spells, beyond what they get through their class features/feats/etc.

This, with maybe an additional cost to represent the difficulty of finding the spells (somewhere between 110% and 125% should be reasonable in most cases). Although it worked far better in 3.X when buying magic items with your starting wealth was easier.

Alternatively, in the rare case I'm running D&D I'll probably give them one spell per level beyond what they get from levelling (so a 10th level character would have 6+18+10 spells for a total of 24), but I also tend to have starting gear be an agreement between the player and myself and wizards get a much smaller allowance compared to everybody else.

[Tanarii]

The wizard has advantage over sorcerer or warlock even without finding a single scroll or spellbook.
And the DMG expected find rate for scrolls is pretty low.

Of course, if the DM allows XTGE downtime and the PC has time available, it's fairly easy to find spell scrolls. It can get expensive though.

[Chronos]

Why do scrolls always come up in the conversation of wizards finding spells? In every edition, spellbooks have always been cheaper and more abundant than scrolls. The point of scrolls is that they let you magically cast the spell without using your slots. You can scribe from them, but it's usually a waste.

[JackPhoenix]

Why do scrolls always come up in the conversation of wizards finding spells? In every edition, spellbooks have always been cheaper and more abundant than scrolls. The point of scrolls is that they let you magically cast the spell without using your slots. You can scribe from them, but it's usually a waste.

The scroll doesn't disappear once you copy the spell. There's no waste.

[Chronos]

...Huh, you appear to be right. It was the case in every edition up through 3rd that transcribing a scroll consumed it, but I can't find any rule to that effect in either the DMG section on scrolls nor the PHB section on spellbooks. Previous-edition-itis strikes again.

It's still the case, though, that if all you want it for is just to transcribe it, scrolls are still more expensive and scarcer than other spellbooks.

[Pex]

My rule of thumb is to allow the wizard a number of spells of each level equal to twice the number of spell slots of that level.

[Tanarii]

Why do scrolls always come up in the conversation of wizards finding spells? In every edition, spellbooks have always been cheaper and more abundant than scrolls. The point of scrolls is that they let you magically cast the spell without using your slots. You can scribe from them, but it's usually a waste.
Because unless your DM makes a custom opponent with custom loot, spellbooks aren't a part of found treasure. You can't assume them.

[Shabbazar]

So what's the argument against widespread cooperation among wizards in sharing spells? IF you believe wizards would freely share spellbooks, the amount of spells known increases significantly beyond what people are offering up here.

One possibility is that wizards are just so few and far between that there isn't an opportunity to cooperate. However, I will assume that they are relatively common and that things such as wizards colleges and guilds exist.

If you consider real life, to get help from someone with more expertise costs money. But to get help from a peer is often free, assuming you are friendly and reciprocate. Want a really great golfer to coach you? You'll have to pay a fee. Want advice from your golfing friends and an opportunity to try their new clubs out? Those opportunities are free and abundant.

I know a great many lawyers. They wouldn't share briefs and research with competitors, but they freely share briefs and research with their friends, members of their firm and members of professional societies. The various criminal defense organizations and other specialty groups offer all kinds of briefs, research and help to their members.

I'm genuinely curious why you guys don't think the same social norms wouldn't be at work with wizards. I'm not arguing that a wizard would foot the cost of another wizard inscribing a spell in their own book. But letting someone copy a spell from your book costs you nothing, gains you goodwill, and the probability of reciprocation. A minority of wizards might not act this way, but why wouldn't the majority work this way?

[Sigreid]

There are a few reasons that wizards may be unlikely to share spells easily, depending on campaign setting.

1. A wizard's spell list is his key to status, wealth and power. The more widely spread spells are, the less valuable they would be. Kind of like how the price of accessing technology goes down as it becomes more widely spread.

2. Some wizards may feel responsible for any harm done by people using spells they shared. For example Enchanter Tim finds out that Bob the evoker blew up a small town with the fireball spell Tim shared with him.

3. Another wizard is often the greatest threat to whatever plans a wizard has going.

[JackPhoenix]

Because it also gives potential enemies access to your weapons and knowledge of your capabilities. This is D&D we're talking about. You have no way to know if your "friend" isn't secretly on the opposite end of alignment spectrum, if he's actually a disguised shapeshifter or illusionist, if he won't fall under someone's mind control in the future, or if he simply doesn't spread that knowledge further to people who really shouldn't have access to it, willingly or otherwise.

Sharing your briefs and research can't kill you and everyone in 20' radius. Sharing your spellbook can.

[Chronos]

Quoth Tanarii:

Because unless your DM makes a custom opponent with custom loot, spellbooks aren't a part of found treasure. You can't assume them.
And by exactly the same token, you can't assume scrolls, either. But if your DM is using remotely realistic treasure, the most likely source for a scroll of a wizard spell will be another wizard, and while any given wizard might or might not have scrolls, they're guaranteed to have a book.

[Dork_Forge]

And by exactly the same token, you can't assume scrolls, either. But if your DM is using remotely realistic treasure, the most likely source for a scroll of a wizard spell will be another wizard, and while any given wizard might or might not have scrolls, they're guaranteed to have a book.

Spell scrolls are on the random loot tables of the DMG, it woudln't be unreasonable to expect them as a standard loot item, spell books aren't however and would have to eb custom placed by the DM (a nice touch of loot for the Wizard, but more work for the DM).

[Sigreid]

It would be weird to me if a wizard travelled outside of his home town without bringing with him at least a travelling spellbook of a few key spells that might come up outside his normal load out.

[Shabbazar]

OK, well people can obviously play it out however they like in their campaigns. But I find it absurd that wizards have no friends. If a wizard merely has 2 good friends from wizardry school and they agree to share all their spells they've just tripled the size of their spellbooks. I just don't agree that wizards, exclusively among classes, are such a paranoid lot that they don't cooperate.

YMMV, yada yada yada. :smallsmile:

[Gignere]

I think a wizard just from leveling to 10 will have 24 spells known (6+18). That’s plenty for a wizard to stay competitive.

To make it fair and from actually looting spell books from NPCs there are quite a bit of overlaps and even from three enemy spell books I only got about 5 extra spells known.

Buying scrolls to scribe was even more dicey because when the scrolls are randomly generated most of the rolled scrolls were spells I had already. I think I got 2 spells from shopping for scrolls. I had much more luck from scrolls drop 5 scrolls that I didn’t have yet.

So from all that I have a total of 32 spells known. (Level 8) Obviously besides the 20 spells I picked the other 12 spells were mostly either useless or redundant with only a few that expanded my usefulness.

So my suggestion unless you’re rolling random spells for your player after he picks his spells from class leveling, I think allowing him to pick an extra 1d6 + int in spells into the spell book would be more than fair.

[Sigreid]

OK, well people can obviously play it out however they like in their campaigns. But I find it absurd that wizards have no friends. If a wizard merely has 2 good friends from wizardry school and they agree to share all their spells they've just tripled the size of their spellbooks. I just don't agree that wizards, exclusively among classes, are such a paranoid lot that they don't cooperate.

YMMV, yada yada yada. :smallsmile:

I think with some spells that are relatively harmless, sure. If the player makes some friends. A lot of the spells are a bit more like loaning an acquaintance your gun.

[Tanarii]

And by exactly the same token, you can't assume scrolls, either.
You can't assume, but at least you can hope for lucky rolls.

[Sigreid]

I'd imagine I'm not the only one who plays wizards that would actively hunt other wizards for their spellbooks. I mean, the rest of the party may be out to save the city, I just want the big bad's research.

[Shabbazar]

I think with some spells that are relatively harmless, sure. If the player makes some friends. A lot of the spells are a bit more like loaning an acquaintance your gun.

Not really. First of all you aren't giving up your spell and disarming yourself by letting someone copy a spell. It's not like you have to give up the spell out of your prepared spells and become incapable of casting it to permit someone else access. It's not like loaning them your gun, it's like letting a guy that owns a machine shop Xerox the blueprint of a gun.

Also, you are addressing acquaintances, not friends. Why do you think a wizard doesn't have any wizard friends? Friends are in a higher category of trust.

[Tanarii]

I'd imagine I'm not the only one who plays wizards that would actively hunt other wizards for their spellbooks. I mean, the rest of the party may be out to save the city, I just want the big bad's research.That works fine, it's even laudable, in a sandbox world. Otherwise it depends on your DMs adventure. Or the writers, if they're using modules.

Edit: for DMs that give away spell books as treasure, I'm curious: how do you calcuate the value as a proportion of the treasure hoard? Do you deduct it from the gold received, or the magic items?

[AdAstra]

The availability of spellbooks will depend entirely on the amount of "societal" (in the sense of the overall community of wizardry) trust. For example, if there are wizard colleges and large-scale communities and such, then it makes perfect sense for all not-super-deadly spells to be available if you can prove some basic level of trustworthiness, and maybe fork over a small amount of coin. Lethal spells might be harder to get, but chances are if other wizards trust you it's possible.

On the other hand, there is no guarantee that is the case. If in your world wizards are solitary, almost always learning by themselves or from as apprentices, then they're likely to be far less open. Even your master might not teach you all of their tricks, and even if they did, you still wouldn't be able to scribe the higher-level spells until you could actually cast them (game restriction). So if your training consists of "go to master wizard, get taught until you are a level 1 wizard, then leave" at most, you would be able to copy the 1st level spells if you had the money. Other wizards might be too secretive, or demand payment to allow you access to their spellbooks, or just try to kill you and take YOUR spellbook, or might not even exist, or don't want to make themselves known to you.

Basically, it'll be up to the GM whether or not other spellbooks are accessible and for what cost. There are any number of reasons why they would be available, and any number of reasons why they would not. All depends on the world

[ThePolarBear]

The scroll doesn't disappear once you copy the spell. There's no waste.


...Huh, you appear to be right. It was the case in every edition up through 3rd that transcribing a scroll consumed it, but I can't find any rule to that effect in either the DMG section on scrolls nor the PHB section on spellbooks. Previous-edition-itis strikes again.

It's still the case, though, that if all you want it for is just to transcribe it, scrolls are still more expensive and scarcer than other spellbooks.

Spell scrolls do disappear when copied by a wizard, even if said wizard fails to copy a spell!

For the intricacies look at page 200 and 201 of the DMG.

[Chronos]

Silly me for assuming that the index listing for "scroll" would point to all of the places that had rules for scrolls.

And wizards jealously hoarding magic is a reason why they should share spellbooks, not a reason why they shouldn't. The obvious payment to get to look at another wizard's book is to let them look at your book. If I'm a power-hungry wizard, and I meet another wizard, and agree to trade equal-level spells with them, then my power level relative to that other wizard hasn't changed, but my power level relative to every other wizard in the world has increased. And the most powerful wizard in all the world will be the one who has traded like this the greatest number of times.

Now, this does depend on each wizard having a spell that the other lacks. And so the wizards who know the most spells should be least likely to trade, because they're likely to already have everything you could offer them in trade. But among approximate peers, it should be a no-brainer.

[AdAstra]

Silly me for assuming that the index listing for "scroll" would point to all of the places that had rules for scrolls.

And wizards jealously hoarding magic is a reason why they should share spellbooks, not a reason why they shouldn't. The obvious payment to get to look at another wizard's book is to let them look at your book. If I'm a power-hungry wizard, and I meet another wizard, and agree to trade equal-level spells with them, then my power level relative to that other wizard hasn't changed, but my power level relative to every other wizard in the world has increased. And the most powerful wizard in all the world will be the one who has traded like this the greatest number of times.

Now, this does depend on each wizard having a spell that the other lacks. And so the wizards who know the most spells should be least likely to trade, because they're likely to already have everything you could offer them in trade. But among approximate peers, it should be a no-brainer.

There are a number of issues with this. One, this may improve your power relative to other wizards in the world, but it doesn't improve your power compared to the wizards that are actually closest to you, AKA the ones you're trading spells with.

Far more important, is that each individual wizard does not have perfect information on other wizard's intentions and abilities. If the other wizard is more powerful than you, what's to stop them from just killing you and taking your spellbook (and presumably your other wealth)? If they're less powerful than you, why not just do the same thing? Even if you weren't willing to do that, you gain a lot less than they do out of the exchange, and take the risk of them trying to take you out while your back is turned, or hiring a party of adventurers to do it for them. Handing someone your spellbook is basically telling them exactly what you are capable of. Of course, you could get around that by making a secondary spellbook that's far weaker than what you can actually cast, but then you end up with fewer higher-level spells being shared, and a higher likelihood that the other wizard will attack you (due to thinking you're weaker than you are). And of course, they could be doing the same thing, meaning you can never know for sure...

Basically, if wizards can't trust each other to play fair, then they're highly unlikely to be letting each other get a detailed look into each other's capabilities. It's not hard to come up with reasons why wizards wouldn't trust each other.

[Sigreid]

Not really. First of all you aren't giving up your spell and disarming yourself by letting someone copy a spell. It's not like you have to give up the spell out of your prepared spells and become incapable of casting it to permit someone else access. It's not like loaning them your gun, it's like letting a guy that owns a machine shop Xerox the blueprint of a gun.

Also, you are addressing acquaintances, not friends. Why do you think a wizard doesn't have any wizard friends? Friends are in a higher category of trust.

I'm not likely to give even a friend or family member a gun. I do sometimes let them use one at the range, while I'm there.

Edit: All of the modules I have bought have written in them the books of the wizards the party may come in contact with.

[Shabbazar]

I can't continue in this thread. It has become like discussing politics. Everyone has their world view and nobody is going to change so we are all talking past each other.

The availability of wizards spells depends on:

1. The nature of wizards in your world, population density of wizards, method of instruction, etc.
2. Your view of how sapient creatures interact with each other.

#1 is within the arbitrary purview of individual DMs, dramatically affects the results and can't really be criticized one way or another. WRT #2, that's where it becomes like politics. Even if you are right it's impossible to persuade anyone of it.

Thanks all for the comments. Interesting views here.

[JackPhoenix]

Also, you are addressing acquaintances, not friends. Why do you think a wizard doesn't have any wizard friends? Friends are in a higher category of trust.

Do you regulary give your friends password to your bank account?

[KorvinStarmast]

What we did a couple of years ago was pick six, then two per level as follows:
(We were starting at level 11)
Player chooses:

Six firsts
Two firsts
two seconds
a first and a second
two thirds
A second and a third
Two fourths
A third and a fourth
Two fifths
a fourth and a fifth
Two sixths

And then a random roll for a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 on the spell table.
Re roll dupes.
Subtract the 1/2 the cost of a scroll from starting gold.

It worked. Cantrips are "player choice" only.