You can also learn any/all spells you find on arcane scrolls and in spellbooks you find/capture.

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).

Thanks, I think by nature I filter out things that make no logical sense.  
Maybe there IS magic after all and maybe, just by being a wizard, some spells can just appear in your spellbook. 
This might also contribute to explanations of how those multiclassing to wizard get their custom inscribed spellbooks.

Quote from Wren_the_Munificent >>

Quote from GergKyae >>

Thanks, I think by nature I filter out things that make no logical sense.  
Maybe there IS magic after all and maybe, just by being a wizard, some spells can just appear in your spellbook. 
This might also contribute to explanations of how those multiclassing to wizard get their custom inscribed spellbooks.

 think of it more as two spells that you've figured out on your own over the past level based on personal research.

 Please don't railroad peoples' thinking.

Personal research wouldn't account for 100gp worth of ink necessary just if those 2 spells were 1st level.  That's the value of 50 days wages for a skilled hierling.
None the less RAW states, "Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free."  You may have done just a day or two's adventuring to get from level 1 to 2 and yet you can add these spells without needing to find them or any of the transcription costs.

There may be a variety of explanations as to how such valuable developments might happen ... or DMs could instead homebrew contexts in which perhaps inks are cheaper and where all spells need to be found and transcribed.  

Quote from Wren_the_Munificent >>

Quote from GergKyae >>

Quote from Wren_the_Munificent >>

Quote from GergKyae >>

Thanks, I think by nature I filter out things that make no logical sense.  
Maybe there IS magic after all and maybe, just by being a wizard, some spells can just appear in your spellbook. 
This might also contribute to explanations of how those multiclassing to wizard get their custom inscribed spellbooks.

 think of it more as two spells that you've figured out on your own over the past level based on personal research.

 Please don't railroad peoples' thinking.

Personal research wouldn't account for 100gp worth of ink necessary just if those 2 spells were 1st level.  That's the value of 50 days wages for a skilled hierling.
None the less RAW states, "Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free."  You may have done just a day or two's adventuring to get from level 1 to 2 and yet you can add these spells without needing to find them or any of the transcription costs.

There may be a variety of explanations as to how such valuable developments might happen ... or DMs could instead homebrew contexts in which perhaps inks are cheaper and where all spells need to be found and transcribed.  

 If people are that easily railroaded, then they've got bigger problems.

 We've all got problems. :D
I'm openly looking for a solution as to how otherwise, costly content can get added in a spellbook for without typically expected costs.

Welcome to the magic of a game mechanic. Especially when multiclassing. WOtC simply says you get the spellbook, 6 free spells of your choice when you become a wizard, and 2 more free spells of your choice at each level as you progress. HOW that gets done is upto the DM and the player. The easiest way is to fill in the back story so a multiclass character has already undergone most of the training and experimentation required before they start adventuring. Even if they start as a fighter you can write into the backstory a training with a local hedge wizard that they nearly completed and then a short polish with the same or a different wizard when ready to become a classed wizard. I’m sure others can come up with equally effective stories that could manage to cover the mechanic.

The short answer is that it is a game mechanic that was created to not unduly disadvantage the wizard class compared to other magic-casting classes. As you already noted, a DM can come up with any roleplaying reason for why it works the way it does within the game world.

As a wizard you are a magic scholar/scientist, which I believe means you are consistently engaged in magical tinkering, experimenting and researching during most of your available free-time/down-time.  When you level up, something "clicks" from all your magical studies/experiments and you learn to cast a new spell, which you record in its finalized version in your own unique magical formula in your spell book.  I think you are too broadly applying the rule for copying spells, a different process, and not thinking about why the rule exists as a game mechanic. (Also, the rule says the 50 gp cost is for all components used to copy/learn the spell, not just for the ink to record it).  The copying rule is designed to maintain game balance by not making it too easy to copy any spell you might discover/steal, or perhaps simply glance at, while adventuring, while still providing a clear and not overly complex process for learning a spell you find when adventuring.  

In contrast, with the spells automatically gained when leveling up, the idea is the learning is a cumulative effect of experimenting that results in an "ahah!" moment.  You may have been experimenting to create a particular magical effect/spell from the day you left the wizard academy (if you attended one), and your "ahah" moment for that particular spell may not come until after you level up multiple times, while you may figure out other spells much earlier when advancing in wizard levels.  During this long period of researching and experimenting, you have been using small amounts of components and inks (writing and revising your formulas), over many months or even years.  And, while the cumulative cost of your experimenting/research might be similar to what you would spend when copying a spell out of another wizard's spell book, each individual experiment done for "leveling up" spell learning only uses a negligible amount of components and ink, so it would not be worth tracking a "per study/experiment" cost.  This is probably the easiest way to explain things for roleplaying purposes.  At the end of the day, you are playing a fantasy game, not running a realistic simulation of the world, so you are not going to come up with a "perfect" in-game explanation for why the game mechanics work the way they do.

Quote from Wren_the_Munificent >>

I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure.   Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this.  Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.

 

This may be a bit late to the conversation, but this sounds like a HORRIBLE idea.  Are you going to also restrict the other players class features if you are all but eliminating the wizard gaining spells since the wizards spells are really their class features?  Are you going to compensate the wizard somehow for stripping them of such a fundamental class ability?  Are you also going to adjust every other casters spell list so that there is no overlap in spells from list to list so they don't duplicate spells too?   

It's not your job as a DM to keep the wizard from feeling distinct from other casters in the group if more than one person takes a spell.  Let the players worry about playing their character how they want and how their characters interact.  This rule strikes me as being extremely heavy handed, fun killing,  and anti-wizard to me.  I fail to see how exactly this rule would do anything to improve the game or make it more fun for anyone?

While it is up to the DM to decide how often the wizard should find spells the player needs to have the right expectations.

If the player choioses to be a wizard so he can choose between a lot of spells which he will prepare that day and then finds be only gets the 2 spells (maybe with an extra one at level 6 when the cleric gets  an amulet of the devout) might not be fun for him and make him wish he was a sorcerer so he could more more powerful things with his limited number of spells.

I once did a campaign as a tomelock taking the book of ancient shadows invocation (at level 3). I found it very frustrating that we did not find one spell scroll containing a ritual spell all campaign it certainly lowered the level of fun for me.

Perhaps, my post came across as a bit antagonistic which was not my intent considering your hostile reaction.  However, I stick to my point that regardless of whose table people are playing at that the DM should not be telling the players what to do with their characters. If the players choose to duplicate spells on their characters and end up being similar, that is the players choice to do so.  if you are forcing players to play in a manner that you wish over their preferences because you don't think there is enough variation than I don't need to play at the table to know whether its right or wrong.  Whether or not players go along with such rulings doesn't change the fact.

I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure.

If you did not mean to imply that you thought wizards shouldn't gain additional spells, your post leaves the opposite impression.  I realize that there is no RAW ruling on just how often wizards should find new spells from spellbook, scrolls, etc.  However, people do not generally choose to play a class like a wizard where its primary feature is its versatility of spells to end up having their primary class feature being strangled to death through the inability to find new spells.  I'm not saying that wizards should find a ton of new spells all the time, but if they were not meant to find a reasonable amount of new spells why did WOTC even give them the ability to learn and add new spells to their spellbooks beyond those gained on level up? 

I know you mentioned you could turn finding spells into the equivalent of finding magic items, but how is that supposed to be fun or fair to the player?  So the other players get to find a cool new Rare magic cloak, or cool Legendary magic ring, but that's ok because the wizard found a scroll of "Leomund's Tiny Hut" or "Skill Empowerment"?  I know wizards are a powerful class, but if they were not intended to get their fair share of magic items in addition to spells why did they even include magic items such as the Staff of the Magi for wizards in the game or give them the ability to attune up to three items at a time?  Do you treat allowing clerics and druids access to their full spell list the same as allowing wizards access to their spells?  What about Sorcerers, do you limit their ability to exchange known spells when leveling up too?  Do you not give other spell casters magic items too because their spells should be treated like magic items?  If you are not doing anything to limit the spell access to other spellcasters I don't know how you can say you are not targeting wizards spell availability and ignoring their class ability that allows them to add more spells?

I've actually played in a game very similar to what you advocate for wizards where the DM "forgot" to inform me of his anti-wizard rules until after leveling up the first time and can not tell you just how much I hated it or how unfun these sort of rules made it.  

One thing to consider is magic items are rarer than scrolls and spell books. Until the Artificer, there was really no way of making magic items. It’s like magic items were left over from ages past and the ability to make them was lost. Or at least greatly diminished. 

Scrolls and spellbooks are easily made with time, money, and materials. 

why should such an easily made item be just as rare as a flame tongue longsword?

And artificers are limited to having no more than 6 max items active at a time - they basically provide for themselves not for others.

Let’s see where  the 2/L rule actually puts us at various levels. You get “x” slots ( I’ll pull this from the PH), 6+2/L (after L1) spells known and can prepare IB+L spells. So using a wizard that starts at L1 with a 16 Intelligence (IB=+3):

L1 - spells known = 6; spells prepared = 4; spell slots =2 - not too bad to start out
L5 - spells known = 14; spells prepared = 9; spell slots =9. ASI used to make INtel 18 (+4 IB) but we are just matching prepared and slots
L9 - spells known = 22; spells prepared = 14; spell slots = 14. ASI used to intel 20 (+5IB) and we are still just holding even on slots and prepared
L10 - spells known = 24; spells prepared = 15; spell slots = 15
L15 - spells known = 34; spells prepared = 20;  spell slots =18 prepared is once again pulling ahead so you have a few extra spells prepped in case 
L20 - spells known = 44; spells prepared = 25; spell slots =22 3 extra spells prepped.
at all points you do have more spells learned than you can prep and either the same number of prepped spells and slots or a few extras prepped. It’s not class killing to do this but at the same time it’s fairly nasty since part of the challenge is to pick the spells, especially the noncombat spells and having more makes that choice harder. Telling the player that extra spells beyond this are part of the (limited) magic items they are going to get just hurts.

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

And artificers are limited to having no more than 6 max items active at a time - they basically provide for themselves not for others.

 That depends on how selfish they are and what happens to things the party find. If the artificer is not providing magic items to others, I do not think he should get a share or magic items the group find, or at least not an equal share. When I did a campaign as an artificer I also gave a couple of party members an infusion where they could benefit from it more than me. I also had a bag of holding which was really a party item as it held the party loot. Having said that if we found something that was appropriate to me I would take it.

Wizards list of "known" is already severely hampered compared to other full prepping spellcasters like Cleric or Druid. It is expected the wizard finds more on their travels. This limit and scribing mechanic is to account for the versatility of the spells available to choose from - so it provides a base line of "free" spells and lets the DM control the rate of the scribe spells so they progress those extra at a suitable pace. That's a suitable pace, not zero pace. 

Here is a table showing the spells known (what the caster gets to pick for their daily spells) without factoring scribing. It may be one or two off as I haven't broken down specific by every subclass that might allow an extra one or two. Same for cantrips. I did separate Druid as two subclasses allow more spells as "auto prep". 

You can clear see the difference. By disallowing Wizards to scribe you are removing a class feature and severely limiting them compared to other classes, as seen below. Bare in mind that Wizards get less base and subclass features compared to Clerics or Druids. The Cleric has a lot of Wizard spells on their spell list, so the "variety" of the Wizard spell list is not as grand to make up for this limited known spells . This should show just how important scribing actually is for a Wizard and why outright removing this just shows a fundamental lack of understanding the Wizard class, balancing mechanics and is a severe flaw in your DMing, in my opinion.

I'm presenting it as a factor which it definitely is. The wizard has a stronger spell list for the most part (there's actually a lot of crossover with the Cleric list, and many of the domain spells come off the Wizard list and some domains even let you pick your choice of Wizard spells, like the Arcana domain does so the disparity you're going for isn't as strong as you think, bud).

You also factor base class features: of which Wizard gets less and weaker ones. And subclass features of which Wizard gets less and mostly weaker ones. 

Their somewhat stronger spell list is already the reason for hampering the wizard by their free-known spells, weaker class and subclass features, but to then also remove the scribing feature on top (which by the way, also removes a subclass feature from most subclasses too, and for Order of Scribe wizard even further hampered!) you are going to an unbalanced extreme. 

You get this is a false comparison?

You're giving the fighter a bonus entirely for free.

Even if you give the wizard a scroll - they have to still pay to scribe it.

Magic Items already describe their rarity and the magic item distribution guide in the DMG already covers factoring this in (because the designers spent years balancing this for you). 

No matter how much you want to compare apples and potatoes - they remain different. 

Wizard are meant to scribe spells -- this is why they have the feature. If it was unbalanced for them to do so IT WOULDN'T BE THERE.

The fact this has to be explained is embarassing.

Quote from Wren_the_Munificent >>

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

You get this is a false comparison?

You're giving the fighter a bonus entirely for free.

Even if you give the wizard a scroll - they have to still pay to scribe it.

Magic Items already describe their rarity and the magic item distribution guide in the DMG already covers factoring this in (because the designers spent years balancing this for you). 

No matter how much you want to compare apples and potatoes - they remain different. 

Wizard are meant to scribe spells -- this is why they have the feature. If it was unbalanced for them to do so IT WOULDN'T BE THERE.

The fact this has to be explained is embarassing.

 You are making a straw man. I did not say not to give the wizard additional spells.

If you are going to keep making strawmen then this conversation is of no interest to me

 
This conversation has been entirely about your earlier statement of "I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure."

This is what I and everyone is arguing against.

The later "soft restriction" of finding spells as part of loot is not being contended - nor is it a restriction, it's the RAW and what you're supposed to do. So obviously we're not concerned with that. It's your statement that you are "pro" on not allowing anything outside the "per level up" freebies. 

It is not a strawman to contend with something you have said. 

And as has been pointed to you, I am contending with the part where you said you restrict to the free spells and don't allow finding new ones. This is what we are all discussing. We have been clear with that. This isn't a strawman - we are responding specifically to that (as we agree on the rest, as does most people, because it's the RAW and this isn't the Rules forums).

It has jack shit to do with 'your table'. We are not telling you how you must DM. You do you. Play your way. We're providing our reactions and opinions on the matter as a point of personal interest. If you post it, we can discuss it. If you don't want us responding to something you post on a public forum then don't post it. This how public forums work. 

Quote from Wren_the_Munificent >>

And I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me how restricting our wizard to two spells per level gained ends up making them weaker than the fighter

 
Who gives a **** about the fighter? Why compare apples to potatoes? That is irrelevant. A spellcaster is compared to other spellcasters.