Allowing Warlocks and Sorcerers to learn from spell books?

[NRSASD]

In the games I’ve run and played in, I’ve rarely seen wizards on the field. At least within my gaming circles, warlocks and sorcerers are the more popular arcane casters. This is unfortunate for me, because I have fond memories of finding spell books in 2nd edition as treasure, with their importance being so valuable that sometimes we went on specific quests to retrieve them. So, in the interests of making spell books more valuable to my groups, what do you think of these house rule ideas?

1. Warlocks and Sorcerers can learn a spell that is jointly on the wizard’s spell list and their own; once per level and only if they have it in spell book form. It costs more and has a higher odds of failing to learn the spell than if a wizard tried to learn it. However, this will allow Warlocks and Sorcerers to increase their spell list.

Or

2. Warlocks and Sorcerers are capable of attuning to Wizard spell books as if they were magic items. To attune to a book, you need to spend (highest level of spell within the book minus your proficiency modifier, minimum of 1) number of days/weeks studying it. Once attuned, you can cast one spell contained within the book as if you were a wizard of equal level once per day.

What do you guys think? Do you have different ideas on how to make spell books more attractive to other arcane casters? Let me know, thanks!

[Aalbatr0ss]

I think either of there mechanics is fine. If you’re worried about it getting out-of-control, maybe handle it on a case-by-case basis rather than defining the rules for your table ahead of time. Then if it gets too overpowered you can throttle it back through narrative.

[Toadkiller]

Likely of more use to the sorcerers, just due to having more slots. But I agree, it should be manageable.

[Schwann145]

I've always imagined, from a narrative perspective anyway, that a Sorcerer is just the epitome of what a Wizard wishes they could be - innate magic.
For example, the Sorcerer isn't limited by how many spells they can cram into their head before running out of room, and they don't have to study for weeks/months/years to learn intricate minutiae in order to work magic; instead they are very "monkey see, monkey do." If a Wizard demonstrates a spell to a Sorcerer that they've never seen before, the Sorcerer can probably reproduce it, on the spot, with some effort, some failed attempts, etc.

In other words, the Sorcerer (narratively) is just the Wizard without limitations. And this is why Wizards hate (are jealous of) Sorcerers so.

Now, obviously, mechanically, this can never be the case. So the class is saddled with all the limitations you'd expect of any other full caster.

As for the Warlock, they can do anything that their patron lets them learn/do.
They run into the same "mechanically you have to have more limitations than that" issue that the Sorcerer does, but narratively...

So if no one's playing Wizards at your table anyway... And you want to relax some of those class restrictions a little to broaden the casting options of the players...
I see no reason it couldn't be totally justified. And from a power-balance perspective, it's not very different than giving them scrolls to cast from.
Seems fine.

[Anymage]

My first thought is wondering why they like sorcerers and warlocks more. If your players don't like being lore nerd wizards, trying to force them by making spellbooks extra attractive sounds like you're working against what they like. This goes double because the most lore nerd warlocks are tomelocks, who'd give you plenty of reasons to get them excited about ritual books instead of spellbooks.

[sambojin]

Depends on if you want to keep it generic or not. Ie: wizard spellbooks are the magic item.

Why shouldn't there be books about harnessing your inner power? About the lore of the Fey. About the secrets of the devils, that you can then blackmail them with? Of the far reaches of space and time, and how to call that thread of void to here?

I mean, if you're the DM, then you're the one placing this stuff for your characters. Make it oddly cool and specific if you want. There's no reason wizards wouldn't want to study this sort of stuff anyway, so you can still go nerd bashing for spells. It's just that the wizard didn't learn a spell from this, they just got more knowledge, you however can.

[NRSASD]

My first thought is wondering why they like sorcerers and warlocks more. If your players don't like being lore nerd wizards, trying to force them by making spellbooks extra attractive sounds like you're working against what they like. This goes double because the most lore nerd warlocks are tomelocks, who'd give you plenty of reasons to get them excited about ritual books instead of spellbooks.

Less I want to force them to be wizards, more I want to find additional ways to hand out treasure without disrupting the power curve too harshly


Depends on if you want to keep it generic or not. Ie: wizard spellbooks are the magic item.

Why shouldn't there be books about harnessing your inner power? About the lore of the Fey. About the secrets of the devils, that you can then blackmail them with? Of the far reaches of space and time, and how to call that thread of void to here?

I mean, if you're the DM, then you're the one placing this stuff for your characters. Make it oddly cool and specific if you want. There's no reason wizards wouldn't want to study this sort of stuff anyway, so you can still go nerd bashing for spells. It's just that the wizard didn't learn a spell from this, they just got more knowledge, you however can.

I literally had never thought of that and it’s absolutely brilliant. The idea that you can tweak class features through books (not necessarily strictly books) is an excellent idea.

[Burley]

I think Warlocks, having bargained for power, could maybe benefit from a spellbook. Unlike Wizards who have complex understanding of their spells, Warlocks are sorta granted their power. They don't have the same reservoir of power, in my mind. Wizard's prep their spells by sorta pre-casting each one and then, in the moment, finishing the spell (like loading a crossbow and pulling the trigger). Warlocks just fire off what they've got, (like grabbing an arrow and firing from a bow in one motion).
So, maybe they can prepare one spell per day from the book. It's only usable once per day, regardless of how many spell slots the warlock has, and must actually be prepared, because that's how the Wizard's spell works (prep and trigger). I'd certainly let them use a wizard's spellbook for ritual spells, though. That's just utility.

For a Sorcerer, though, who naturally generate magic and shape it on the fly, I'd treat the spellbook like a scrollbook. When the Sorcerer casts from the spellbook, it uses one of their slots and burns the page(s) from the book.

[Psyren]

Less I want to force them to be wizards, more I want to find additional ways to hand out treasure without disrupting the power curve too harshly

Why not let them sell the spellbooks for spell scrolls? Or replace the books with scroll collections yourself? Seems like a lot less work than rebalancing spontaneous casters.

[Burley]

Why not let them sell the spellbooks for spell scrolls? Or replace the books with scroll collections yourself? Seems like a lot less work than rebalancing spontaneous casters.

That was sort of my idea: Make each spell in the book into a scroll. Maybe they need to still decipher the spell?

But Warlocks do study magic (enough to contact an eldritch being) and even have Pact of Tome, so I thought maybe they could use the book to prep one spell. It would still cast as their highest spell level, though.

[Leon]

Less I want to force them to be wizards, more I want to find additional ways to hand out treasure without disrupting the power curve too harshly.

Tailor your loot rewards to suit the groups you have, maybe not 100% every time but most often. YOU may wish for spellbooks but unless your party has a wizard or a wizard contact its not a priority of what you want or wish they were doing. Outside of the above suggestion to let them use it as a book of scrolls nothing should need to change.

[OvisCaedo]

Hm. Pathfinder had a kind of magic item called a "Page of Spell Knowledge", which was inscribed with a single spell and allowed spells-known casters to treat it as an additional known spell while they held it. Your second proposal isn't too dissimilar of a concept, if you want to specifically keep spell books as the thing, or you could just make something like a page of spell knowledge a new type of item you hand out sometimes.

Feeling very tightly restricted by number of spells known is a common 'feels bad' complaint people tend to have about the sorcerer (at least before all of the new subclasses started giving them a bunch of bonus spells), so giving them an option to expand it a little bit doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

edit: though the optional rules for sorcs in Tasha's already go pretty far on 'fixing' this front if I remember them right

[sambojin]

This is just for Sorcerers, but if I do DM (I'm mostly a player), I give them one "floating" spell prep each day at lvl1, and two at lvl5.

They can prepare this spell as a "spell known" each day, at the end of a long rest, of any spell off the Sorceror list they could cast at that level.

It does make Tasha+ Sorcerors even stronger, but it makes PHB+ Sorcerors strong enough.

1-2 open-list spell preps a day fixes everything, with every Sorceror subclass. They can try stuff out, or modify themselves a little bit in various stages of a campaign, or change how they'll approach things a little. Call it whimsy, call it intuition, call it magical creativity as a font of magic. Whatever. It works, and fixes the class entirely. It's your "extra attack".

And it makes them even more, "not Wizards".

[Burley]

Tailor your loot rewards to suit the groups you have, maybe not 100% every time but most often. YOU may wish for spellbooks but unless your party has a wizard or a wizard contact its not a priority of what you want or wish they were doing. Outside of the above suggestion to let them use it as a book of scrolls nothing should need to change.

100% agree about tailoring rewards to the group. But, there's always those things on loot tables, like tapestries or or art pieces, that would be in rewards, even if you're not using the table. Some enemies just would have certain treasures around: evil dukes would probably have art, evil wizards would have a spellbook. There's probably hundreds of gp work of spell ink in those pages. Its gotta be worth something.

Maybe your party can't use a weapon or tool that's found in loot, but I feel like its more important for loot to make sense. If I kill a wizard, I don't want to loot his +1 Great Axe, because that doesn't make sense. That's some ol' Diablo goofiness. I want that book. Gimme that book.

[NRSASD]

100% agree about tailoring rewards to the group. But, there's always those things on loot tables, like tapestries or or art pieces, that would be in rewards, even if you're not using the table. Some enemies just would have certain treasures around: evil dukes would probably have art, evil wizards would have a spellbook. There's probably hundreds of gp work of spell ink in those pages. Its gotta be worth something.

Maybe your party can't use a weapon or tool that's found in loot, but I feel like its more important for loot to make sense. If I kill a wizard, I don't want to loot his +1 Great Axe, because that doesn't make sense. That's some ol' Diablo goofiness. I want that book. Gimme that book.

Yeah, I already tailor rewards to the group. I don’t use loot tables basically ever. The issue, as mentioned by others, is that spell books are either difficult-to-sell art pieces or large collections of spell scrolls as is, and spell scrolls are problematic because of the players’ hesitancy to use consumables. Either way, spell books are in no way as exciting as a +2 greataxe, and I remember a time when they were. Hence this thread.

I’m currently leaning towards allowing Sorcerers and Warlocks to improve their class abilities by spending tons of gold and time studying spell books. Since both classes approach arcane magic from a non-methodical angle, it is not super beneficial but has a bit of an impact in sufficient volumes. Like how learning a ton of botany (the science of plants) can make you a better herbalist (a healer that uses plants).

These numbers are absolutely not set in stone, but I am thinking something like using at least 50 spell levels worth of spell book, spending 5000 gp and at least 5 weeks of research, you can gain a +1 to a specific cantrip’s damage; or a sorcery point, or maybe spend twice that for an extra spell slot. That kind of thing.

@OvisCaedo and Sambojin- I like those ideas! Thanks for the suggestions!

[Burley]

Yeah, I already tailor rewards to the group. I don’t use loot tables basically ever. The issue, as mentioned by others, is that spell books are either difficult-to-sell art pieces or large collections of spell scrolls as is, and spell scrolls are problematic because of the players’ hesitancy to use consumables. Either way, spell books are in no way as exciting as a +2 greataxe, and I remember a time when they were. Hence this thread.



I blame this on the exclusion of the Spellcraft skill. Once there was no longer a way for non-casters (or casters of the wrong class) to use magic items and scrolls and stuff, the value of magic items that aren't specific to you severely dropped.
I miss that picture of Lidda the Rogue bein' singed by what appears to be an arcane corn cob.

[Leon]

I blame this on the exclusion of the Spellcraft skill. Once there was no longer a way for non-casters (or casters of the wrong class) to use magic items and scrolls and stuff, the value of magic items that aren't specific to you severely dropped.
I miss that picture of Lidda the Rogue bein' singed by what appears to be an arcane corn cob.

Another casualty of the over simplification that 5e wrought