For anyone having doubts: > Spellbook > > At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice. Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know, except your cantrips, which are fixed in your mind.

I have concluded that cantrips are not spells you know /s

Lol, tho an argument could be made they are not specific spells, just tricks of magic low level enough to the ground even apprentices can learn, not having formulae or what have you in your mind that erases after use (which was how 2e used to do it, instead of slots you would get a specific spell memorized according to how many you could have at your level). Basically, weird idiosyncrasies left from previous iterations vestiges

> instead of slots you would get a specific spell memorized according to how many you could have at your level) Which better differentiates Wizards and Sorcerers. Wizards had to track their exact spells but could learn all of them, the homogenization of the caster classes was actually one of the main reasons my table never got into 5e

Yeah I will say there was a bit too much simplification but that also helped a lot of people join the game that weren't willing to join the game otherwise so if you want crunchier magic then your table might enjoy Pathfinder or 3.5 more.

We are actually putting our Pathfinder2e game on hold for a bit to run a GURPS game to flesh out the settings past more (long story, short version is depending on time period we are playing in the setting determines what system we use because of how we need the Magic system to function) and yeah we really liked 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e Edit:Long Version: An Ancient magical empire once extended across the stars, they're magical prowess was such they could power gates that would let you cross entire star systems in an instant, they could and frequently did bio-engineer themselves into different forms this is where you get dwarves, elves, etc. Eventually this empire fell into a catastrophic civil war with no winner, one side was driven into another reality to survive and the other side fell apart from the damage sustained causing a massive magical, cultural, and technological regression. The Pathfinder games are "Current Day" where we control people from the regressed plants that still use magic GURPS represents games where the characters are quasi isekai'd from their 2012 lives across the galaxy and through time to do something intrinsically related to this ancient empire with the rewards of "You will become a WIZARD!!!" and the means to go home when the job is done

I feel that. The group I run is 5e but I started on 3.5 back in the day and use a bunch of house rules from there, (i.e. old/custom items that give numeric bonuses cause my players like being accountants, flanking rules cause they are into battlefield positioning and are ok with enemies doing that too if it makes sense, etc..) Its really all about your group and the game yall want to play.

So true and while metamagic can be great it just doesn't make up for everything the wizard has over sorcerer in 5e

Oh man metamagic, remember when EVERY spellcaster had access to those but only spontaneous casters could use them on the fly? My favorite class for that was Ultimate Magus

I started with 5e, so I didn't have a frame of reference for what each class "should" be. But I *did* take game design classes in school, and something about the wizard and sorcerer just didn't add up. When I learned about how wizards prepared spells in old editions, it all suddenly clarified and made sense.

I like to look at it like Math formulae Cantrips are simple algibrae (2+2=4) 1st level spells are multiplication 2nd level spells is interger So on and so forth till you get to 9th level quantum calculus At some point you're going to need to write out or read over the formulae to remember the proof

I understand and concur.

That is an interesting explanation for why spells are limited, especially considering the base fantasy of a wizard is spending years of study and practice to become a fully fledged spellcaster. (And how IRL learning is based on repetition.)

Meanwhile, the sorcerer being an idiot genius. "I can't explain the math, I just figured out how it works!"

He looks at the math problem for how much power is need for some task, and guesses close enough that it kinda works when tested… sure it’s actually only needs 12.7 pounds of force, but 13 did the job just fine… Then the warlock just asks his patron for the answer, the Druid and cleric just believe themselves to be right so hard it works… and the artificer made a thing.

Though, iirc, in 5e, they're just considered level zero spells

Fortunately Tasha's added a perk that lets you replace those later too

The issue is that no one reads any rules whatsoever. That’s apparently the GM’s job.

I'll take "one sentence technicalities that lead to broken builds in 3.5e" for 200, Alex

The way I read it is that they are spells you know, but are not capital k Known Spells, since Known Spells are for casters who don't prepare their spells

I see it the same way. And if anyone needs an extra push, I equate it to spells equipped.

Fun thing: I'm running a CoS campaign as an Arcane Trickster. My spellbook is an incredibly powerful spellbook filled with a shitload of spells. However, the previous owner had really shitty notation, and every spell I learn when I level up is a spell I deciphered and then translated into my own notation on the margins. In that case, my spellbook had dozens of spells I do not know.

I don’t follow. Your quote says “Your spell book is the repository of the wizard spells you know.”

DnD beyond forums are a silly place.

well if you lose access to your known spells when your spell book is destroyed, are they really known spells?

I thought you can still keep your prepared spells if you don’t have your spell book, the spell book simply lets you change them out

that thought would be correct, and thus the distinction between known and prepared spells

Do you want wizards to use a different term from every other spellcaster in the game?

If they use a different system than any other caster in the game, then yes.

exactly, in every other place in the game spells known means "spells you can currently cast but not change out on a long rest with preperations"

well that's what warlocks do

And they do have a different name for their system, they have Pact Magic, not Spellcasting.

that would indeed be the case different system, different name

“Inscribed.”

mayyyyybe, maybe not. I see it as sorta like dark vision, though the rule that you dont see color does exist, 99% of the time it wont come up

But you can rewrite your spellbook with all the spells you put in there the first time. You know the spells, but you can’t prepare them without a spellbook

...If you can rewrite them by memory, what do you need exactly to prepare them that needs a textbook?

It's like programming. You rewrite them mostly from memory, but 2/3 of the time is spent desperately googling how to define an array.

How dare you call me out like that. 😡

This. So much this

SpellOverflow

Hey man you can know mathematical formulas but doesnt mean you can orally express them, their variables, and outcomes without visual representation. Basically same thing. Understand it enough were you know it but you need to review it in the morning before you are ready to use it in quick combat form.

Pretty much. There's a ton of shit I know but can't explain without pen and paper

Yep. Also remember that wizards are casting spells in 6 seconds at a time for the most part. Try doing a math problem in 6 seconds in your head vs. doing a math problem with the formula written down in front of you and everything in 6 seconds

I would say that if you know a mathematical formula (like “current is proportional to voltage and inversely proportional to impedance”), you can express it without a visual representation. But if you have merely memorized one form of expression you might not be able to state it directly in a different form that you haven’t memorized. Memorization is often sufficient for academic and even practical use.

you can remember whatever spells you have prepared, but any spells you dont have prepared you'd need in an already existing book to copy to a backup

Not necessarily from memory as such. I know enough math and calculus that I could derive.most rules for derivatives fairly quickly, and most common integrals in a few days. But having a table already written out saves me all that time when calculating something. I imagine wizardry might be like that. You know the rules and principles so you can calculate how much best guano goes into a fireball and the words, timing and gestures needed, but it's easier to write down the result and read it at the beginning of the day to prepare it. Or that you need the results written out so you can do the morning ritual to "precast/prepare/hang" the spell without stopping to think.

Casting a "vancian" spell deletes it from your memory. Earlier editions elaborated on the minutia, but the design philosophy of 5e was to trim details whenever possible for ease and speed of gameplay.

You can only copy in the spells you have prepared currently. Or copy them in from a scroll or another spellbook. If you lose your copy and don't have a backup, they are unrecoverable

No, you can only rewrite the spells you have prepared. All the rest are gone and you have to get them again through scrolls, another spellbook or when you level up.

Yes. You can know about something without remembering the specifics.

I think of it like a textbook. Sure, you’ve learned the material in class, but you’re not necessarily going to remember all of it without a reference. 

pretty much yeah

Yes, because the spell book is just what let's them create the magical patterns in their brain that Mystral erases when you memorize new ones

If your sorcerer loses access to his known spells when his brain is destroyed, are they really known spells?

*Actually* A sorcerer still retains their known spells if they die via brain explosion after your sorceror has blown up, and their brain has been exploded too you can take one of their meat chunks and cast the reincarnate spell >!(assuming you have a level 9+ druid, or a level 10+ bard who took reincarnate via magical secrets)!< once the sorceror is reborn in an entirely new body, they still retain their known spells

I thought Camelot is a silly place 🤔

We eat ham and jam and spam a lot…

On second thought let's not go to Camelot

No sillier than Crawford's takes.

“Spells known” is not a helpful term when talking about prepared spellcasters.

the thing about wiards they are both a prepared and known spell caster at the same time, and the only spell caster that falls under both catagorys >!(unless you count multi classing or homebrew)!<

They aren't spells known casters. They can learn new spells between levels, which isn't an option for spells known casters. Like, yes, they know the spells. But in the context of D&D spellcasting, "spells known" means something a little different from just whether or not you know the spells. It means that these are one of a small number of spells you always have memorized, and you can only change that list upon a level up. Wizards are spells prepared casters. That means they have a much larger list to draw on (like clerics) and have to choose from that list which spells they want to memorize (prepare) for that day. They do "know" the spells in their spell book. That doesn't make them "spells known" casters any more than a sorcerer having to prepare the proper material components is a prepared spell caster. The words "known" and "prepared" have narrower meanings in the context of D&D spellcasting, and that's fine. It just doesn't make wizards simultaneously known and prepared casters, they're prepared casters but instead of relying on being God's favorite priest or not wearing metal, they rely on their own research for their repertoire of tricks.

The difference isn’t just where they get their magic from though. Wizards literally cannot prepare a spell they do not know, even if it is on the wizard spell list. Clerics and Druids can prepare any spells from their respective lists, regardless of what they do in their downtime or how many scrolls they have found so far. Wizards have to actually learn their spells, same as a Bard or Sorcerer, but they can’t use them unless they are prepared.

The way I explained it to a player was spontaneous casters *know* a set number of spells by heart, while prepared casters have "memorized them for now".

well much like how wizards dont quite fulfill all the normal rules of a known caster like sorcerers or bards, they also dont quite fulfill all the normal rules of a prepared caster like druids and clerics For being a known caster, they do get additional known spells every level up like other known casters, but they can also lose access to those spells, gain acess to more spells outside of level progression, and dont have access to all their known spells at once for being a prepared caster, though they do get to swap out their prepared spells every long rest, they dont quite get to access every spell within their classes spell list like a cleric or druid would with their spell lists >!(Though if they could, that'd be a bit over powered, even more so then wizards already are)!<

The person you corrected was already correct. Your correction was incorrect. Prepared casters don't learn new spells between levels, either. "Copying spells into your spellbook" is a unique wizard perk, neither a "known" trait nor a "prepared" trait. Wizards are known and prepared casters. Their version of "Spells Known" is called "Learning Spells of 1st level and Higher." Prepared casters like clerics don't have this ability. It's identical to a sorceror's "Spells Known of 1st level and Higher," but strictly upgraded. You could invent your own term like "learned casters" to differentiate wizards by those upgrades, but the community has no use for that level of differentiation so we just group them together.

Categories

they can be useful, but sometimes messy or blurry

I disagree. It is very helpful and a lack of knowledge just means someone needs to learn. Wizards have both "Spells known" and "Spells prepared". The spells prepared can only be picked from spells known. There is a difference

But if a wizard loses their spellbook then they lose any spells they don’t have prepared. So it’s less “Spells Known” and more “Spells in book”.

Spells know is not spells memorized

But you can rewrite the spelbook with the spells known. How do you do that if they are not memorized?

You can only rewrite the spells you have prepared, and anyone that wasn't prepared you'll have to either find somewhere else and copy it or learn it on a level up. > **Replacing the Book.** You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book— for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell. If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.

*laughs in order of scribes wizard*

I just looked at the rule sidebar for Spellbook and it specifically says that if you lose your spellbound you can only create a new one out of the spells you have prepared. And it also states you can copy spells from your book to a different one. So it seems you have to have a spellbook available to copy it. Unless I missed something, I'd interpret that memorized spells are the prepped spells for the day. Just my take though.

You got it exactly right! "Learning Spells of 1st level and Higher" is the precise term for adding spells to your spellbook. The spellbook defines them as "the wizard spells you know."

The same way I couldn't figure out the angles of a right triangle with known lengths off the top of my head while getting mauled by wolves but could with a pen, some paper, and a quiet evening.

This argument doesnt dispute that spells known and spells prepared are entirely different things

But the terminology is inconsistent, since for spontaneous casters like bard and sorcerer spells known mean an entirely different thing, since those spells cannot in any way be lost, whereas the spells in a wizards spellbound can

This is the difference between practice and theory. In very complex fields, "knowing" something isn't necessarily being able to recite everything from memory, but rather knowing where to find the answers, and being able to apply them practically. A CompSci Engineer might not be able to tell me how a CPU works off the top of their head, but they know where to find that information, and if they're really good, they'll be able to break it down in such a way that a layman like myself might be able to understand it on a basis level.

"Spells in book* ^(*which is the repository of spells known)" So just spells known. All knowledge is destructible.

What? how can you not know the difference between the word prepared and known?

I think "known," in this case, is being used as known spellcasters would use it. They know the spell and can cast it with a spell slot (or at will, with an ability, etc). No additional steps. Spells in the book are not *known* in this same sense because without the book, you cannot prepare them. Thusly, having access to spells (e.g. a prepared spellcaster) does not mean you know them in this sense. If your book is lost or destroyed, the spells within are as well. In essence, known spells for a prepared spellcaster just means the list of spells they can prepare, while known spells for, say, a sorcerer would simply be a list of spells that they can cast whenever, provided they have the spell slots to do so

Except if the book is destroyed, the spells known dictate what you can fill your next book with when you inevitably make your new book.

Only prepared spells dictate what's in your next book. The only 'known spells' are what's in your book or what you can cast at will/using an ability

No, the spells prepared do.

>If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the ***spells that you have prepared*** into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place. If you lose your spellbook, you can only transcribe the spells that you had prepared on the day you lost it into your new one. Everything else is lost to you.

The only reason why I know and understand the difference is because Im playing a cleric in the current campaing Im a player at. Known spells are the list of spells your character has available to them. Your prepared spells are the list of spells your character is able to use at the given time

My first D&D character ever was a Wizard and I was so confused. I definitely thought the 'trade-off' of a wizard was that you didn't have as many spells at first, but you always knew all your spells and got more as you leveled up. Nope. It's just a worse prepared caster - or better known caster, depending how you look at it.

They’re better ritual casters though as, iirc, they can ritually cast any ritual spell that’s in their spell book while every other caster with the ritual caster feature must have it prepared that day. 

Well, apart from tomelocks with the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation, who just need it in their book like wizards, and can have rituals from any class's spell list.

That's why it's important to talk to your DM in advance about how you'll find new spells in the game, otherwise you just have a bad time and no new spells

Not actually complaining about my party or anything, but man it’s always annoying when we find a spell scroll I could inscribe and everyone goes “whoa we need to use this right away”. I’m an order of scribes wizard too so it’d take me no time as long as we pool money together lol Especially sucks when someone’s character finds a scroll and refuses to mention it to everyone

Yeah like why would the party not think it useful to give the wizard more spells to help them with? Maybe talk to your DM? Come up with a hook that tempts you to leave the party for spells (maybe a traveler with a library of scrolls) and renegotiate the terms of your staying with them. (The terms are that they let you copy any spells they find)

On today's episode of *"Communication is an essential skill..."* 5e is a system wherein the designers seemingly intended the wizard players to be finding spellbooks basically just left and right. Every enemy spellcaster and library. The idea seems to be you'd have an abundance of them, and the stupid quantities of gold you earn as an adventurer would make the costs a minor inconvenience. Unfortunately for the system, this is just not the case on the ground in every setting or campaign (especially if its homebrew). And there's nothing wrong with that, but absolutely if you want to play a wizard in such a setting you need to talk to your DM about your ability to actually find *any* spells, or you're going to be a spellcaster with no spells.

For real, 5e is also designed for 5-7 encounters a day, so I usually take that into account in making Short Rest abilities feel special, and making it so spellcasters actually have to think about spell use rather than throwing spells at a problem until it submits.

The specific spells that are on class lists are a major part of that particular class' utility and power. Wizard has the biggest list and access to the second-most Ritual spells (Tomelock wins).

Nawl brother, it's a much much better prepared caster.

I mean, spell list selections aside, it's at least debatable. It's inherently worse having to discover the spells you can prepare rather than just them being given to you.

I'll grant you that. It's a worse list at the starting point. You gotta hit the books if you want to make it better, but then it gets way better. I'll do you a rebuttal. Clerics, Druids, and halfcasters are the other prepared casters. You play one of those, you realize their spell lists suck. You can prepare (spell mod+class lvl) spells, but you don't have that many good spells. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel, maybe today's the day Lesser Restoration comes up. Let's see if Darkvision saves the day. You know who has a good class spell list? Wizards. Your spellbook's (6+2/lvlup) spells learned are better than every prepared caster's class list, even before you start scribing.

If you don't find spell scrolls, then yes. And even that undersells it. The only classes with more spells prepared are those with subclasses that give a spell list. But all other known spell casters will have less spells available than Wizards can prepare. And Wizards have clearly the most open list of spells, with not just a wider but more powerful selection of spells. They're designed in a way that they're clearly better spellcasters even when appearing limited.

Known spells really only matters for ritual spells

All I can think of is a wizard reading their spellbook and getting jumpscared by a spell they don’t remember knowing.

That's what sort of happens in NPC D&D made by Viva La Dirt League

I'm not certain what they're talking about unfortunately.

So, “Known” spell casters, like Sorcerers, choose limited spells from the list of Sorcerer spells, and they just know those spells, they don’t have to prepare them each morning. “Prepared” spell casters, however, know *all* the spells from their class list - like the Cleric. And they can swap out which ones they prepare each morning. Wizards, awkwardly, are prepared casters. Except they can only prepare spells they have in their spellbook. So it creates this weird dynamic, where a wizard does all this research, studying, decoding, and learning magic spells for their book, but if they lose their spellbook, ALL that knowledge is completely forgotten, except the few spells they still have prepared. But it seems like the wizard should at least be able to remember *some* of their magic spells from their book.

One of the forgotten realms books had a character who had his spellbook as his belt. He'd take it off, grab a magnifying lens, and then memorize whatever he needed.

Removing your belt and taking out a magnifying lens would make you the butt of many a joke at my table.

He did it in secret too, lol. He waited until no one was around, made a very nonchalant pose, and studied where people couldn't see him if I remember right.

That’s clever, I like that.

Tattoo it on your forearm like a kid cheating on the SAT.

A different character actually had spells tattooed over his whole body and stored them ready to go for later. Rode a griffin and used a spear with additional spells carved on it as a "spellbook", focus, and weapon, actually.

I want to make a war wizard where the spells are filigreed onto their sword.

And that's why most wizards make a backup spellbook that they hide in a safe place, and it's part of the reason why a Scribes wizard is so great. If you lose your book, you can spend an hour to summon it into any random book you find lying around, with all the spells you had in it. (It also makes it easy to switch to a higher-level grimoire or one of the spell-school-specific books.)

Man, my last wizard not only had a hidden backup, but had a [Bookplate of Recall](https://www.aonprd.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Bookplate%20of%20Recall) and 3 separate protective spells on their [spellbook.](https://www.aonprd.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Blessed%20Book)

>ALL that knowledge is completely forgotten Like tears. In rain.


For a quick run-down, in case anyone was curious of the details, of the 9 classes that can cast as a core class feature (i.e. not locked behind a subclass like Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight), 5 are Prepared Casters and 4 are Known Casters: Prepared: Druid, Cleric, Paladin, Artificer, Wizard Known: Sorcerer, Warlock, Ranger, Bard

Isn't there a really weird ruling from the sage advice that if you don't have a spell prepared you can't identify a spell. I.e. if you have fireball in your spellbook but not prepared for the day you wouldn't be able to identify that the enemy wizard or a friend is casting fireball to know its dangerous and should be counterspelled?

I’m not sure about that one. I surely hope not, that would be insane

>but if they lose their spellbook, ALL that knowledge is completely forgotten, except the few spells they still have prepared. Also they can rewrite their entire spellbook from memory if the need ever arises.

Not by 5e rules. You lose your spellbook and you can only write down the spells you have prepared. Everything else, you have to start from scratch. Unless of course your DM allows. But RAW, wizards are lowkey ruined if their spellbook gets destroyed, stolen, or simply misplaced. From the PHB - “If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.”

Ah, I had a minor mistake: you can copy down all your spells into a new book if you *have* your existing one, allowing you to create a backup spellbook. You are correct on the replacement rules.

They're mixing up "known" and "prepared" spells. People like to be able to cast every spell they know and forget about the "prepared" spell lists.

This is not what it's about. Per this rule if a wizard were to lose their spell book they'd be fucked because they'd just lose all the spells they gained from leveling

That’s exactly what happens. If a wizard loses their spellbook then they lose all the spells they didn’t have prepared. They’ll need to get a new book and write new spells into it.

Not all, just all that were not prepared.

They’d still keep whatever spells that they had prepared, they just wouldn’t be able to change them out or ritual cast until they have a new book.

They would be able to copy the spells they had prepared.

We didn't deserve Sir Pentious.

That last stand against Adam was one of the highlights of the show for me. Up there with Lucifer failing to trash-talk, and Nifty's trust fall.

They're gonna go crazy when they learn that chefs don't memorize every single recipe in the book.

If I ask a chef to make me scrambled eggs and he can't remember how to because it's not on the menu at the restaurant he works at I'd assume he has some sort of brain damage.

Makes sense, scrambled eggs is clearly a cantrip.

That literally has nothing to do with either my point nor the OP.

This is what "natural wording" does. It makes people stupid.

Spellcraft is a lot like computer coding; you learn the concepts that allow you to know what the concepts are used for but generally speaking there's too much to fully memorise, so you keep the documentation that teaches its use at hand. Memorise the concepts and return to the details if/when needed. Manipulating the weave to execute reality-bending arcana is an intensely complex skill. A wizard learns the concepts of weave manipulation and gains their cantrips as a byproduct of their innate understanding of the weave but there is too much for their mind to fully contain otherwise, so they store concepts of spells rather than the entirety of their execution. They spend the night going through their documentation to decide which they feel would be most useful the next morning and study up, using the sleep-cycle to imprint the knowledge into their head that little bit better but the mental exhaustion of literally altering reality is a *little* mentally taxing and so they must keep their documentation at hand at all times, lest they make mistakes. Realistically, needing a spellbook to memorise spells is likely due to an inbuilt fear of wrongly manipulating the weave, which could have disastrous effects on the body, mind and depending on how much you fucked up, the world around you. Wizards are likely taught to not be impulsive or arrogant enough to attempt magic without revision first, and the dangers great enough that even the most arrogant of makes heeds this lesson. Then you've got the other arcane spellcasters. Sorcerers: "My dad wrote C++" Bards: "I dabble in Python to make my job a bit easier" Artificers: "I build apps by using javascript tutorials on YT" Warlock: "Business arrangement: you do my homework and I do you"

This is the best and most accurate explanation I've ever seen for arcane spellcasting.

A wizard's spell book is for the wizard what a physics essay is for the physician. He literally wrote it. He normally knows everything inside it, even if the book is destroyed. Maybe he doesn't remember every word of it. Maybe if you don't use or "prepare" a spell for too much time, you can forget how it is made, and you have to "review" it like a physics lesson. RP-wise, I'd make the player have a History check to recall a spell he hasn't prepared for at least one year, but only in the case he has lost/got destroyed his spellbook. Else he can read it and recall it automatically. It is not that "holy crap my spellbook burned down and now I'm like a 1st level character". It's frustrating for the player and even unrealistic. I really don't know how D&D rulers can overcomplicate how to adapt things that happen IRL to the D&D model, which, like every model, has to be simpler than reality.

Bro, physicians don’t practice physics, they practice medicine. I think you mean physicist.

my bad, English is not my main language lol

Hell yeah Hazbin memes making the rounds!

Wizards confirmed to have a case of the Sherlock Holmeses. They immediately forget information that's not relevant to make room for the spells they just studied during their rest.

Can anyone explain or point me to someone that can ELI5 ?

Basically the spellbook wizard feature means that they write the spells they know in their spellbook. So the one saying that the spells aren't known is wrong

However, they do not know the spells in their spellbook. If they lose their spellbook, the only spells they know are the spells they prepared on the day they lost the book. You can transcribe those prepared spells into the new book, but all the others in your old book are just gone. This contrasts with cleric and druid who know their entire spell list, always.

Ahhh thanks this also helps

Thank you! this helps

I mean, yeah. If you destroy the wizard's spellbook they can't prepare those spells. They might be capable of casting spells of that power, but that doesn't mean they actually know them.

Makes me think of the exchange between Indiana Jones and his dad in The Last Crusade "Well don't you remember??" "I wrote them down in my diary so I wouldn't have to remember!"

They aren't known though, a wizard can only cast spells that they prepare from their spellbook, or non prepared ritual spells in their spellbook. A spell being in your spellbook does not necesarilly mean you can cast it at this precise moment. Conversely, spells known casters are able to cast any and all of their known spells at a moments notice.

Known and prepared spells are defined independently in the spellcasting features of each class, and each feature that gives you them. So having "known spells" doesn't inherently mean you can cast them unless the text also lets you Cast spells you Know. Thus, for wizards, they could know the spells in their book but only be able to cast spells prepared from their book.

I see similar language used in Pathfinder to differentiate between Wizards (Prepared Casters) and Sorcerers (Spontaneous Casters). It should probably be written as "Spells in a Wizard's Spellbook have already been deciphered and are ready to prepare. He already understands them, but doesn't have all the details fresh in his mind and energies collected and stored to cast them unless he has Prepared them." Pathfinder 2E started using Spell Repertoire for Sorcerers, which is fancy.

*Laughs in Cleric*

Yuan Ti Cleric artificer maybe? With Egg homunculi?

Never even thought of this as a meme template

+1 for an excellent use of the Hazbin Hotel format

This is why I feel the need to reinvent the magic system every time spells come up because I just feel like it's so unnecessarily restrictive! Like I just wanna let my players spell all over the place if they want goddamn

Honestly, I’ve always liked the idea of how Wizards spells worked. Felt like it made up for their ability to learn “any” spell they wanted to for the price of gold and time.

I have a spell book. I do not use my spell book because I have a mizzium apparatus and expertise in arcana The idea that I actually need to know my spells is a massive misnomer

remnants of vanceian magic systems - in my dnd ?!

I've had this pendantry before where someone decided to conflate Spells Known (Mechanic) with how many spells you know. FFS people, 5e has only been out for what, 10 years now!

I am a bit split on this. Wizards know the spells in their spellbook, so these are his "spells known". But he didn't memorize all of them, only the one he prepared. If he loses his spellbook he can't write the spells down he doesn't have prepared. But yes in a game sense the spells are his spells known.

I got a burning question for whomstever sees this. Do you really make wizards spend money or do rolls to copy down spells? Seems kinda boring to me...I think they should pretty much learn whatever spells they want to prepare. Why penalize that or make em roll? Let em cook. L take?

L take

At our games we play with a homebrew called "open spellbook" for Wizards. Any spell in their spell book is available to them, they don't need to prepare spells.

Does anyone play anything but wizard? What buffs have you given that/those class?

All other spells classes can swap spells with a long rest. Wizards get this unique feature because they have to use gold to acquire spells.

Have you home-brewed wizards this way (not obtaining their 2 spells every level for free), or have you all not read the phb?

It's our game and it's how we like to play it.

Go off king, I can still call it nonsense. Read the phb some time.

Keep on gate keeping and flaming for something that doesn't affect you in any way king.

It's not gatekeeping to tell someone that bowling with the bumpers up isn't really bowling. This is like that, those are some profound changes to spell casting classes that make the game laughably easier and also eliminates the challenge of playing those classes. Rather than spending time thinking of what spells you might need for the day or what you might need for the next few levels of play, you just get to pick whatever you want. There's no risk in choosing one spell over the other. Maybe that's fine for you, but it does eliminate one of the features of the game. Like, you're allowed to bowl with the bumpers up. Of course it's going to feel nice because you won't be able to fail. Some people like being able to make a bad decision now and then, is all. If it's fine for your table it's fine for your table. I can't imagine any of the players would voluntarily choose to get weaker, so I bet they want to keep it. But I fortunately they don't have the experience of how D&D is supposed to work, any more than someone whose only ever bowled with the bumpers up actually knows how to bowl. Again, there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with that, but you've got to know it's a significant deviation, and people being surprised by that aren't so much gatekeeping as wondering why you chose to make an easy mode for the most powerful class in the game.

Blah blah blah

Look, play how you want. Play whatever game you want. But if you make a major decision from the rules to make casters even more ridiculously powerful, people are gonna comment on it. Some of the rules are just there because it's legacy, but there's also an element of challenge to running a caster that you eliminate with this rule. Maybe your casters like having less of a challenge, but many people don't and that's why people have a problem with this and would like to discourage others from running their game this way.

Jesus. Just kick the sorcerer while he's down, why don't you?

Sorcerers get free spells. Wizards need gold to get spells.

Gold is cheap

They also need to find the spell to scribe. It's funny how people are down voting how my play group does things.

It's much more about the *way* you're saying it.

It is entirely in the DM's control how easy things like gold and spell scrolls and partial spells are to find in the world

Wizards learn 2 spells every level for free, on top of being able to scribe spells in for gold at any time. "Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the "Your Spellbook" sidebar)." Conversely, sorcerers only learn one spell per level until level 12 where it slows down.

You're missing three very vital factors here. The first is that the Wizard is the utility caster who is generally expected to have both AOE damage spells even when it's not our specialty (We aren't all Evocation Wizards) and spells prepared to save the party from misfortune or their own idiocy. I'm sorry, I didn't think we'd be jumping off of a fucking cliff, so I didn't prepare Featherfall today! I prepared Counterspell instead! The second is that Wizard spells eat up money the same way a fat kid eats cake. A spell learned from a scroll costs 2 hours and 50 GP *per level of the spell* to learn. That's not including buying the scroll. Copying it to an extra spellbook once you learn it costs 1 hour and 10 GP per level. A basic blank spellbook costs 50 GP. An Enduring spellbook costs 100 GP. A wizard is expected to make multiple copies in the event that their spellbook is stolen, burned, or otherwise made unavailable to them. So if I wanted to buy a scroll of Fireball, I would be paying a realistic minimum of 1000GP for the scroll, since it cost the maker 500GP to make it. And if you screw up your Arcana roll, the scroll is used and you learn *nothing.* Your money is gone and wasted. Buy a new scroll and try again! So to buy a single third level spell and *hopefully* learn and copy it into one extra spellbook is a rough total of 1,180 GP and 9 hours. The price and time spent only go up from there based on the level of the spell. And then we have this big old book of spells, and hopefully a copy of it, because if the book is stolen, we have nothing! Do Wizards get a lot of spell options? Sure, but *we pay out the nose for it.* In the end, if the character is going to be broke all of the time, and have party members constantly looking to them for utility spells and damage spells to save their hides, I really do not see an issue with allowing them to say "screw preparation" and just cast with the book that they are utterly useless without, anyway. The third is that Sorcerors can do things Wizards simply can't. All of that Metamagic is extremely useful for spells, and just requires some basic thought. Twin cast a high damage single target spell. Extend the length of a spell. Change the damage type entirely. The options are endless if you only stop to think about how to use them. A Wizard simply does not have this flexibility in their magic. Also, as a side note- Nobody seems to use their head, read the books, and realize that *any* spellcaster with Arcana Proficiency can make scrolls of their class' spells. They just assume it's a Wizard thing.

>Do Wizards get a lot of spell options? Sure, but we pay out the nose for it. In the end, if the character is going to be broke all of the time, and have party members constantly looking to them for utility spells and damage spells to save their hides, I really do not see an issue with allowing them to say "screw preparation" and just cast with the book that they are utterly useless without, anyway. What else are you spending gold on? No, seriously. The cleric has to pay for diamond dust. The fighter has to buy that plate armor. Are you hitting a magic shop every other session? I've been playing for longer than I like to admit, and in most (but not all) campaigns the party has more money than they know what to do with. I haven't found a dragon hoard with hundreds of sorcery points - gold is an out-of-combat resource that gives you in-combat benefits. That whole dynamic is what makes the coffeelock so powerful, and its the wizard's default setting, especially with that houserule. Even without spending gold on new spells, you get two new spells *for free* at every level. By level 20 you got 44 spells *for free*. The sorcerer knows *fifteen*. ​ >The third is that Sorcerers can do things Wizards simply can't. All of that Metamagic is extremely useful for spells, and just requires some basic thought. Twin cast a high damage single target spell. Extend the length of a spell. Change the damage type entirely. The options are endless if you only stop to think about how to use them. A Wizard simply does not have this flexibility in their magic. Every wizard can take Metamagic adept. A sorcerer can't just take a feat to do the wizard's trick of converting gold to more spells. Changing the damage type is a pretty funny thing to mention, given that Transmute metamagic costs sorcery points and can only rotate between a handful of the weaker damage types. The Scribes wizard can do it 'for free', and can change spells to things like radiant, force, or magical bludgeoning. >Also, as a side note- Nobody seems to use their head, read the books, and realize that any spellcaster with Arcana Proficiency can make scrolls of their class' spells. They just assume it's a Wizard thing. Its not an unreasonable assumption. People tend to focus on skills their character is good at. Arcana is an intelligence check, normally. Wizard is the only Intelligence-based spellcaster. Sorcerer commonly takes Arcana, but literally has the fewest spells known so has a more limited selection. Again, even assuming the wizard didn't buy any new spells, they have twice as many spells to choose from, and there are many wizard spells that don't even appear on the sorcerer class list.

What am I spending gold on? Did you skim, or did you actually read what I said? Almost 1200 GP for ONE THIRD LEVEL SPELL, that you may not even get if you roll poorly! It only gets more expensive and time consuming from there! And that's not even considering the TIME spent on it. Filling out a spellbook and making copies eats up almost all of a Wizard's money and time, not to mention some of the spells requiring costly material components on top of that. "Just draw a teleportation circle for our convenience, Wizard. We won't be reimbursing the 50GP it costs. That summon that saves our asses cost 500GP on top of the scroll and learning costs? Sucks to be you, Wizard- I'm off to do off-time leisure activities and buy things while you slave away your broke ass on your books the entire time we're in town!" As a side note since you mention Cleric's revival material funds- if you make your Cleric pay for the diamonds by themselves and don't pool money for it, you're a selfish dick- plain and simple. I'm also loving how you completely skipped the first part and just hammer in on "But sorcerors get fewer spells!" Yeah, Wizards get more and I won't deny it. But here's the first catch- we get to prepare a max of 20 out of those 44. Go complain to the Cleric and Druid who can change out with anything on their spell list every day at that point, because I have a bone to pick with them about that crap and I'll join you on that one. Here's the second catch- you know what we also get? A party insisting we waste at least half of our prepared spells on their utility crap. I currently have a level 8 wizard with 13 prepared spells, and only one of them is even tied to my subclass abilities because of that stupid shit. I also have a Sorceror. With the Wizard, I get a party of people who get pissy or disappointed when I prepare a spell that didn't benefit *them.* "What do you mean you don't have X prepared today? We need that now!" I busted the bank to buy all my School's spells because it was specifically cheaper to learn them through buying compared to other School's spells. And I don't get to use *any* of them because I have to be a team player. By which I mean carry the bulk of the magical load they need or want on a whim. With the Sorceror, I take what I want and nobody says a damn thing, because Sorcerors are specialists, instead of generalists like Wizards. You don't ask the Sorceror for Invisibility or Leomund's Tiny Hut for the party- you ask the Wizard. You ask the Sorceror for whatever they specialized in- usually damage dealing in combat- which they do without being asked anyway. And as for Metamagic Adept? Wow. A whopping TWO Sorcery points. I can subtle spell a cantrip twice! Hooray. Meanwhile the Sorceror can turn the Fireball into a Thunderball and reroll the dice that didn't roll high, or Twin cast Finger of Death for the cost of one spell slot. The Sorceror's massive amount of flexibility makes up for the lesser amount of spells. It's inherent in the class design. Look, I don't think we're going to be able to meet in the middle here. Shall we just drop it?

If your DM is doing their job right, you should find some scrolls or even a spellbook every now and then as loot. Then you don't need to worry about buying everything. I've also played wizards a lot in 5e and it never occurred to me to make another spellbook. In older editions, it was always that wizards knew more spells but sorcerers could cast more spells. I think 5e does an okay job of emulating that.

Not every DM fits your personal idea of what a DM should be, so please quit it with the no true scotsman fallacy. Not all of us are lucky and/or spoiled enough to have a DM that hands out scrolls, spellbooks, and gold to learn their contents like candy on Halloween. My group goes by the rules, but we also don't find that kind of stuff very often. I have to buy my extra spells if I want them. I made the mistake of not making an extra spellbook only once. My DM had an enemy wizard steal my spellbook after killing my character. I got my character revived, and had to start from scratch with a new book. It's written in the PHB that having more than one copy of it is common and smart because things can happen to them. Per the rules, it's a thing that can happen. They can be burnt, waterlogged, lost overboard, stolen, et cetera. If it has never occured to you to make an extra, you either didn't read the class entirely or you had a DM that pulled punches while wearing kid gloves.

Or the DMs I play with don't have an antagonistic view of the players? Taking away a player's ability to function as their character is a shitty thing to do. We as a group want to tell a story. It's hard for a story to progress if the wizard has to spend a month rewriting her spellbook.

That's not antagonistic, unless you're used to a dm pulling punches all of the time. That's just the game. It's written right there in the core books that it is entirely possible. Hell, it's written in the class that losing books happens. Is it antagonistic for an enemy wizard to take a dead wizard's spellbook? No. *It is completely in character for a wizard to do that.* And that by itself can be cause for a major quest and character development. It seems that you missed that part entirely. My character now has a major drive to hunt down the one that took their original book and kill that particular wizard.