D&D 5E Keeping Spellbooks Unique

[Gwaihir]

I'm looking at starting a campaign that is mage centric. One of the things I would like is some uniqueness to the spell books.
What can I house rule to make this so. As an example, if Dave the Wizard finds a scroll of Ice Storm and copies it into his spell book, how can I prevent that spell from quickly finding its way into Steve the Wizard and Chris the Wizard's spellbooks.
The 5E rules allow this, I would like to at least make this hard. Thoughts?

G

 

[jgsugden]

I wouldn't hamper that if I was shooting for unique - I'd instead put homebrew spells into each spellbook. I roll a d6 every time I make an NPC spellbook and then multiple that number by 10%. That is the number of spells in each spellbook that are homebrew and unique. I have 40 or so years of spells I've found and created to draw upon, but there are a lot out there on D&D Beyond, DM's Guild, etc... if you do not have ideas yourself.

If you want to go with your original idea of making it hard to copy - require an arcana check with a DC of 10+(2+spell level) to successfully copy. If you fail, you can attempt again, but the DC rises by 6 every time you fail for a given spell. You expend resources every time. This rule would not apply to the 2 spells they get free each level. As Wizards are just fine if they only get the 2 spells per level, this is not too significant of a bump.

Let me reiterate that last point one more time - wizards get plenty of spells in their spellbook just from leveling. If they find a cool spell and you do not want it to just be copied into a spellbook, you may need to consider what will happen when they level and choose that spell.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, my first thought would be "why"? What specifically, is the problem with the scenario you describe? That's literally how wizards operate, and always have operated in all editions of D&D that I've played.

I mean, it's unlikely you have multiple Wizards in the same party. Even if you, it's probably two Wizards, and it's hard to see why that would present a problem, especially given all Wizards copy from the spellbooks of others.

Interestingly it's quite a difficult thing to solve completely without breaking other stuff.

With a scroll, obviously you can say "you copy the spell into your spellbook, and that uses up the scroll", but it's established in 5E (and I think most D&D) that copying from a spellbook does not do the same to the spellbook. Indeed, if it did, master Wizards would not really be able to have apprentices, and you'd be breaking a bunch of D&D lore (though perhaps that's fine).

But you can look at earlier if you just want to make it harder - specifically, you could add in a check to learn a spell as @jgsuden says. You can also make this have a cost in GP for the ink and so on. This could be significant. The cost would be charged each attempt, not only on success.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm looking at starting a campaign that is mage centric. One of the things I would like is some uniqueness to the spell books.
What can I house rule to make this so. As an example, if Dave the Wizard finds a scroll of Ice Storm and copies it into his spell book, how can I prevent that spell from quickly finding its way into Steve the Wizard and Chris the Wizard's spellbooks.
The 5E rules allow this, I would like to at least make this hard. Thoughts?

G

Is the entire world mage heavy, or just the PC group?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Were I to do something like this, I'd treat spellbooks as using different languages...not like elvish, dwarven, draconic, etc., but like programming languages (C#, Java, COBOL, etc.). Now transferring a spell isn't so much just copying line-for-line, but having to re-code and rewrite the whole thing. You could even have specific components tied to each spell code to make it more complicated. So that if a spellbook is written using, oh I don't know, Blood of the Dragon and the PC writes their spells in Seven Demon Script, maybe they need to get some abyssal ink and some dragon blood, and then find a way to work from one to the other.

Of course, sometimes they'd have to get lucky and find spells written using their specific code language.

 

[jgsugden]

Were I to do something like this, I'd treat spellbooks as using different languages...not like elvish, dwarven, draconic, etc., but like programming languages (C#, Java, COBOL, etc.). Now transferring a spell isn't so much just copying line-for-line, but having to re-code and rewrite the whole thing. ...

That is exactly how it works in 5E. Read the spellbook section. YOu're not copying it, per se. You're taking the spell and working it into your arcane method.

 

[Nagol]

I'm looking at starting a campaign that is mage centric. One of the things I would like is some uniqueness to the spell books.
What can I house rule to make this so. As an example, if Dave the Wizard finds a scroll of Ice Storm and copies it into his spell book, how can I prevent that spell from quickly finding its way into Steve the Wizard and Chris the Wizard's spellbooks.
The 5E rules allow this, I would like to at least make this hard. Thoughts?

G

I am curious why you care?

If Steve wants a spell that Dave already has, why is that an issue? And how are you going to arrange for each to have a chance to gain 'better' spells since the spell lists have duds through must-haves at each spell level?

Is it to maintain uniqueness of ability? Will fighters have to pick different armor and weapons to use? "Bob is already using a long-sword, John, so you should choose a spear or maul!" "Alice already called plate. Susean, you can have chain!"

Is it to try to broaden the abilities available in the group? Just use a wide variety of encounter types and foes. Those have a greater effect on spell prep choice and use.

The solution would depend strongly on the perceived problem. My favorite solution would be to drop the idea though. It is more likely to annoy/alienate an affected player than provide fun for the group.

A way to promote uniqueness without adding arbitrary restrictions is to promote creating new spells. If Dave makes a spell, it'll only end up on Steve's book if he wants to share it. Steve is more likely to want to create his own special spells than copy Dave's.

 

[Maxperson]

I am curious why you care?

Flavor, probably. Mages don't share spells and horde magic! Except for these 5 over here, because........PC! Wizards being unique and not all having the same spells changes the flavor of the game.

 

[tommybahama]

I mean, my first thought would be "why"? What specifically, is the problem with the scenario you describe? That's literally how wizards operate, and always have operated in all editions of D&D that I've played.

In the Dying Earth series that gave D&D its Vancian magic, spells were a source of great power and therefore closely held secrets. You didn't trade them around like Pokémon cards. Wizards risked life and limb to gain a new spell from another wizard.

I vaguely remember in 1E that there was a percent chance based on intelligence of learning a new spell that was found. But I'm probably misremembering.

 

[Monayuris]

I'm looking at starting a campaign that is mage centric. One of the things I would like is some uniqueness to the spell books.
What can I house rule to make this so. As an example, if Dave the Wizard finds a scroll of Ice Storm and copies it into his spell book, how can I prevent that spell from quickly finding its way into Steve the Wizard and Chris the Wizard's spellbooks.
The 5E rules allow this, I would like to at least make this hard. Thoughts?

G

Increase the costs and time it takes to add spells to a spell book. Make it 1 week of downtime and 1000gp per level of the spell, for example.

Require an Arcana check for a wizard to properly decipher another wizard's spellbook. Failure means the spell can not be understood or copied.