That said, I still don’t feel comfortable calling it RAW. The feature doesn't explicitly state that it removes the cost, and in 5e, we’re generally used to seeing those exceptions spelled out, especially when overriding something as established as the 50 gp per spell level rule.
Ok, try looking at it like this and see if it helps.
I'll base these observations again on the 2014 rules since those were the rules in use when Tasha's came out -- the issue of backward-compatibility with the 2024 rules is sort of a separate issue.
Anyway, if you read it closely, it's really not the overall activity of "Copying a Spell into the Book" that costs 50 gp. It's not meant to be like a video game where you press a button that says, "Copy Spell" and that results in a reduction of 50 gp from your possession and the addition of a spell in your spellbook although many tables will hand-waive this whole thing in some similar way.
Instead, it's the process that costs 50 gp when following the specific procedure that is outlined in the Your Spellbook sidebar for completing the necessary tasks. This default procedure is available to all Wizards.
The way that it's written is like this:
First, the text mentions that one of the things that you can do with your spellbook is that you can copy spells into it.
Second, it is explained that the activity of copying a spell involves the completion of a series of necessary steps, which are: Decipher / decode the encrypted source text and then write / encode text into your spellbook using your own notation.
Third, a process for completing these steps that is available to all Wizards is presented, which is: Spend a bunch of time and money reading, deciphering, recreating a basic form and then continuing to experiment and practice until that basic form and understanding is improved and refined into full mastery of the spell. Then, another bunch of time and money is spent slowly and carefully writing the spell in your own notation using expensive inks. Again, this is the default process for achieving the necessary steps that are needed to copy a spell.
The Scribes Wizard has a subclass feature that magically creates a special quill which changes that process so that the steps are completed in a different manner. Since it's the process that costs 50 gp and the Scribes Wizard is not using that process, that cost doesn't apply.
For reference, these are the 2014 rules:
Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.
One final thought on this subject. If you are a player and you wish to play a Scribes Wizard, but you anticipate a problem with a potential DM interpretation or ruling then really the best thing that you can do is to discuss this situation with the DM during Session 0. If you find out that your DM stubbornly insists on using a combination of homebrew and rules misinterpretations to severely nerf the core feature of the Subclass that you intend to play, then it's far better to find that out ahead of time. At that point, your choices are to go along with the DM Ruling or to choose to play a different character instead or to choose to play in a different game with a different DM instead. For example, there are plenty of DMs that will declare that all of Tasha's is simply off the table and not allowed in that particular game. These things happen. Just communicate before the game begins and see if you can come to an agreement on such things.
In fact, at my own table, the DM and I came up with a similar workaround: we agreed that the Wizardly Quill can magically transmute precious metals or gems into appropriate transcription materials of equal value, allowing for in-dungeon spell copying without needing a store. It's a thematic and mechanical compromise.
That's a solid house rule
The sticking point (for me, anyway) with claiming that reducing transcription costs is even RAI is the fact that the UA version of Order of Scribes did reduce those costs, and they deliberately removed that wording for the published version of the subclass
There's really no clearer signal they could have sent as to what their intentions were on that front
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
On the contrary, the fact that one of the feature specifically mention it affect gold cost and not the other means only one feature does.
I see what you're saying, but I need you to expand on that point a little more, otherwise the conversation risks getting stuck in a loop of "because it's not written, it doesn't happen" versus "but it makes sense narratively." That’s not very productive. Also, I think that confronting the Master Scrivener privilege, which is a 10th level one, with the Wizardly Quill, that is the main subclass feature, doesn't really prove your point. That's why I said that your previous post was a little bit of a red herring.
What you’re expressing is a superficial justification of the RAW, and I actually agree with you on that front: by the book, the cost is still there, because the Wizardly Quill feature doesn't explicitly remove it. That doesn't automatically mean that the rules aren't ambiguous!
But what I’m trying to discuss here is not the RAW — it’s the RAI and the narrative logic behind the design, and the need for an official clarification on the matter. Considering THIS thread and the previous ones on the matter, wouldn't you agree that the rules are not spelled in the clearest way possible?
By logic, the fact that WotC themselves removed a line in the final version of the feature that, in previous Unearthed Arcana, explicitly mentioned a reduced cost could mean one of two things: either they intentionally left it ambiguous for balance reasons, or they relied on context to imply that the cost no longer made sense.
Thank you so much up2ng! You defended your argument really well, and for that I really appreciate the time you spent typing this out. I honestly feel the same way you do and think that your thoughts really do answer my question, but you must admit that this is just not enough of an argument to present to a really strict and only-RAW DM :(
We DO need an official clarification on the matter for all of our fellow Wizards of the Order of the Scribes players.
But what I’m trying to discuss here is not the RAW — it’s the RAI and the narrative logic behind the design, and the need for an official clarification on the matter. Considering THIS thread and the previous ones on the matter, wouldn't you agree that the rules are not spelled in the clearest way possible?
While it could have been spelled out more clearly, i believe it was intended for only one of the feature to refer to gold cost effect in final after two feature did during playtest. That change was very deliberate to me.
The narrative logic behind the design is that the cost to copy spells isn't solely based on ink to begin with.
Hi everyone, thank you again for all the discussion and feedback. I’d like to post a final summary for clarity, using the exact wording from the rules.
Before diving into this detailed analysis, I want to clarify that the goal of this post is not to prove one interpretation right or wrong, but rather to gather and summarize all the relevant information, arguments, and reasoning surrounding the cost of copying spells as a Scribes Wizard.
Over the course of several threads, videos, rulebooks, and forum replies, two main positions have emerged — one aligned more with the RAW (Rules As Written), and the other based on RAI (Rules As Intended) and narrative logic.
Both positions have valid reasoning behind them, and what follows is a comprehensive look at each perspective. I’ll include every relevant argument that has been brought forward for both sides, using a practical example to test the implications of each interpretation.
The aim is to help players and DMs understand the full scope of the issue so they can make an informed ruling at their own table.
Copying a spell into the Book:
Player's Handbook (2014), p. 114
When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it. Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote il. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation. For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.
Player's Handbook (2024), p. 167
When you find a level 1+ Wizard spell, you can copy it into your spellbook if it's of a level you can prepare and if you have time to copy it. For each level of the spell, the transcription takes 2 hours and costs 50 GP. Afterward you can prepare the spell like the other spells in your spellbook.
Now, the Wizardly Quill description:
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020), p. 77
As a bonus action, you can magically create a Tiny quill in your free hand. The magic quill has the following properties:
• “The quill doesn’t require ink. When you write with it, it produces ink in a color of your choice on the writing surface.” • “The time you must spend to copy a spell into your spellbook equals 2 minutes per spell level if you use the quill for the transcription.” • “You can erase anything you write with the quill if you wave the feather over the text as a bonus action, provided the text is within 5 feet of you.”
This quill disappears if you create another one or if you die.
The RAW (Rules As Written) interpretation:
Scenario 1:
Quentin Scribentino, a young and eager Wizard of the Order of Scribes, ventures deep into an ancient dungeon with his companions. Along the way, the party faces a creature vulnerable only to force damage — but none of them, not even Quentin, have the means to produce it. Just when hope seems lost, they stumble upon a scroll of Magic Missile. Salvation! Quentin pulls out his Wizardly Quill, ready to do what he does best — but then pauses. Did he remember to pack the right materials? The rare inks? The precious reagents?
If yes, he nods solemnly and transcribes the spell in moments, saving the day.
If not… the spell remains out of reach. The scroll can be used only once. The creature advances.
And Quentin can do nothing but clutch his empty hands and whisper, “If only…”
According to the rules, the cost to copy spells into a wizard’s spellbook is an intentional balance mechanism. Wizards can increase their versatility by expanding their spell repertoire, and the 50 gp per spell level cost represents not only rare inks but also the experimentation and practice required to master and transcribe the spell in their own notation.
In the case of the Order of Scribes wizard, the Wizardly Quill subclass feature modifies only one part of this process: the time. With the quill, copying a spell takes 2 minutes per spell level instead of 2 hours, which is just 1.67% of the original time. However, the feature does not mention any change to the gold cost, and thus under RAW (Rules As Written), the cost remains the same.
As a result, a Scribes wizard preparing to enter a dungeon must bring the required materials in advance if they want to be able to copy spells during the adventure. This restricts the in-field utility of the subclass and ties its flexibility directly to preemptive planning and gold management rather than spontaneous adaptability. In many campaigns — especially one-shots or dungeon-crawls — you can go entire arcs without ever encountering a merchant. If the subclass still relies on bought materials, its features become inaccessible in precisely the scenarios they were built for. That undermines both design and narrative logic.
And this leads us to the real question that started this whole "issue":
What was the Order of the Scribes subclass designed for?
Looking at various threads across forums, watching analysis videos on YouTube, and especially reading the official flavor text in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, it becomes clear that this subclass was built around the idea of a wizard who is obsessed with the transcription, study, and decoding of magical formulas. A true arcane scholar, a magical cryptographer — the kind of person who doesn’t just value their spellbook, but forms a deep, magical bond with it, turning it into their most trusted ally. Here the exact quote:
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020), p. 77
Magic of the book—that’s what many folk call wizardry. The name fits, considering how much time wizards spend buried in tomes and scribbling theories about the nature of magic. It's rare to see a wizard without scrolls and books spilling from their satchel, and a wizard would go to great lengths to build a personal archive of arcane knowledge. Among all wizards, the Order of Scribes is the most bookish. This tradition may have many faces across different worlds, but its mission remains the same: to record magical discoveries so that arcane knowledge can be preserved and passed on. While all wizards respect their spellbooks, a Scribes wizard magically awakens their book, turning it into a trusted companion. All wizards study their books — but a wizardly scribe converses with theirs.
This is not just any wizard. This is a wizard whose love for magical texts becomes a fundamental part of their identity and utility. They don't just cast magic. They decode it, reshape it, and speak with their book like it’s a sentient companion.
The RAI (Rules as Intended Interpretation):
Scenario 2:
Quentin doesn't hesitate. His fingers tighten around the Wizardly Quill, and he lowers himself beside the altar, opening his Spellbook. He looks at the scroll and starts transcribing, the ink swirling on its own as the quill writes.
No reagents. No alchemical steps. Just understanding — immediate, instinctual, magical. Quentin isn't as mighty as his fellow specialist Wizards, but that's exactly why he decided to dedicate himself to the Order of Scribes. In two minutes, the spell is his.
When the adventurers will rest, he will take the time to prepare his new spell and possibly give his companions a chance against the creature.
Starting with the flavor text on page 77 of Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, we see that this wizard is a sort of arcane scholar, a magical archivist whose bond with their spellbook is so strong it becomes a trusted companion. They're built to be flexible, responsive, and efficient in dealing with written magic — especially in the field.
So, what about the gold cost to copy a spell?
1. The Wizardly Quill replaces both time AND materials
The Wizardly Quill explicitly states that it doesn't require ink. In the 2014 rules (and implicitly in the 2024 revision), the 50 gp per spell level cost includes rare ink and materials used for experimentation. If the ink isn’t needed anymore, and the experimentation becomes obsolete thanks to the Quill’s built-in translation and automation, then the cost no longer applies. The feature effectively replaces the entire transcription process — why would you pay for steps you’re no longer taking?
2. The design supports in-field usage
This subclass lets you copy a spell in 2 minutes per level instead of 2 hours — which strongly implies a narrative intention for field utility. But this design loses much of its impact if you still need to bring dozens of gp worth of rare inks into a dungeon. If your subclass’s identity is built around reacting to spells found on the battlefield or in ancient ruins, but you still need downtime and a supplier to do so, the subclass fails at fulfilling its narrative role.
3. The removed UA description could support the interpretation of which at n°1 ⭡
The original Unearthed Arcana version of the Wizardly Quill explicitly mentioned a reduced cost to copy spells. That line was removed in the final version. Why? Possibly for balance reasons — leaving it ambiguous. But it's also possible that the writers considered the mechanical changes (removal of ink use and experimentation) so complete and intuitive that no further clarification was needed. It simply replaces the process entirely.
4. The ACTUAL in-game balance doesn't blow up if the cost is reduced to 0 gp
Removing the gold cost for spell transcription does not break the balance of the game, especially when we consider that Scribes Wizards do not benefit from the free spells granted by other wizard subclasses (such as Abjuration, Evocation, Illusion, etc.). These other subclasses receive one free spells of their associated school at every new level slot they unlock — a mechanical advantage that the Order of Scribes entirely forgoes.
In exchange, the Scribes Wizard gains the ability to copy spells faster and, under the RAI interpretation, possibly without transcription cost. However, they still must find the spell and take the time to transcribe it. And like all wizards, they remain limited by their number of prepared spells per day.
So while the Scribe might be able to expand their spellbook more efficiently, this doesn’t inherently make them more powerful in play. Their flexibility comes from planning and preparation, not from raw combat potency — and unlike clerics and druids, who can completely change their spell list after every long rest for free, wizards must earn every spell they add to their book.
Conclusions:
This debate has shown that both RAW and RAI offer reasonable — and quite different — interpretations of how the Wizardly Quill interacts with the cost of copying spells.
RAW, as it stands, makes no mention of removing or reducing the gold cost. Therefore, under a strict reading of the rules, the 50 gp per spell level remains in effect — with the only modification being the time reduced from 2 hours to 2 minutes per level. This view is supported by the structure of the PHB and the absence of explicit wording in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything.
RAI, however, draws on several contextual clues. The Quill removes the need for ink and automates the translation process, bypassing both of the cost-justifying components mentioned in the PHB. When taken together with the thematic and mechanical role of the Scribes Wizard — a subclass designed to be reactive, scholarly, and mobile — removing the cost seems consistent with its intended identity.
Ultimately, this is a case where narrative logic, subclass fantasy, and game balance intersect — and diverge. The rules could have been written more clearly (despite what people in this and other threads said :P), and the ambiguity leaves room for table-by-table rulings. What matters most is that players and DMs understand what each interpretation implies, both mechanically and narratively, and choose what best fits their campaign.
This summary is not meant to force a conclusion, but rather to equip others with the information needed to make that decision themselves.
So... what do we do?
Unfortunately, no definitive clarification has been issued by Wizards of the Coast so far. But there are a few ways — even if they don’t guarantee a reply — to try and get one.
I’ve personally reached out via direct message to theofficial D&D Instagram page, and I’ve also sent an email tosageadvice@wizards.com, hoping that this long-standing ambiguity will finally be addressed.
I encourage all fellow Order of Scribes wizards to do the same. We deserve clarity on this issue — not only because it affects how we build and play our characters, but also because it’s clearly a topic that sparks disagreement and confusion among players.
Let’s make some noise (politely)! Maybe then we’ll get the official word this subclass has been waiting for. If anyone knows other ways to directly contact the design team, it would be really appreciated. Please, do not underestimate the importance of this matter. Just do a quick google search and you'll notice that the confusion has widely spread since the release of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
The narrative logic is that when one feature describes using a special kind of ink and another feature does not specifically say it produces that special kind of ink, one can logically conclude that the second feature does not meet the parameters of the first.
The narrative logic is that when one feature describes using a special kind of ink and another feature does not specifically say it produces that special kind of ink, one can logically conclude that the second feature does not meet the parameters of the first.
If you personally see no ambiguity, that’s fine — but please don’t assume the many players who’ve raised this issue over the years are just misreading the rules.
The 2024 PHB no longer mentions ink or material components in the transcription process, which clearly shifts the context. If you’re going to reply, I’d appreciate it if you actually read my final summary post. This isn’t a made-up problem — it’s a mechanical inconsistency that’s been left unresolved for too long.
And if you moved past the “if it’s not written, it doesn’t work”, we might get a more meaningful discussion. Otherwise we get stuck in a loop. Critical reasoning and argumenting is welcome.
Again, NOT TRYING TO CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND. I understand and believe that RAW, the cost for transcription still stands.
P.S.: it does say so. Okay it's not "fine ink" but that doesn't really make a point, given the fact that there's no mentioning of that specific kind of ink in ANY official pubblication from Wizards of the Coast.
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020), p. 77
• “The quill doesn’t require ink. When you write with it, it produces ink in a color of your choice on the writing surface.”
the 50 gp per spell level cost represents not only rare inks but also the experimentation and practice required to master and transcribe the spell in their own notation.
That's exactly correct, as written in the 2014 ruleset.
In the case of the Order of Scribes wizard, the Wizardly Quill subclass feature modifies only one part of this process: the time. With the quill, copying a spell takes 2 minutes per spell level instead of 2 hours, which is just 1.67% of the original time. However, the feature does not mention any change to the gold cost, and thus under RAW (Rules As Written), the cost remains the same.
No, that's incorrect. The Order of Scribes Wizard has a subclass feature which allows the Wizard to magically create a Tiny quill which has some explicit properties. Those properties allow this Wizard to follow an entirely different process for Copying a Spell into the Book. The process that is written for the Wizard class is available to all Wizards. This subclass allows for a different process. The original process costs 50 gp for reasons that are explicitly written (10 gp for ink, 40 gp for experimentation materials). The new process costs 0 gp, first of all because no cost for that process is mentioned, and second of all because none of the reasons for the original cost apply to the new process.
Upon reviewing the text again, what I said before about this being a Specific vs General exception is probably not actually the most accurate way to interpret these rules. Instead, the Scribes Wizard simply has a new process available to him in order to complete the specific tasks that are required to be able to copy a Spell. So, the original rules are not really being "replaced" or "modified". Instead, the subclass feature is used "instead of" the original process. In other words, the Scribes Wizard now has two different methods available to him. if he wants, he can use his class feature to Copy a Spell, which would cost him 2 hours and 50 gp per level. Or, if he wants, he can use his subclass feature to accomplish the same task and that method would cost him 2 minutes and 0 gp per level -- it's his choice which of his own features he wishes to use.
No "change" to the gold cost is mentioned because nothing is changing -- a new process is being added that can be used instead of the existing process. The new process doesn't mention any cost because there is no cost. You don't typically mention a cost when the cost is 0.
1. The Wizardly Quill replaces both time AND materials
The Wizardly Quill explicitly states that it doesn't require ink. In the 2014 rules (and implicitly in the 2024 revision), the 50 gp per spell level cost includes rare ink and materials used for experimentation. If the ink isn’t needed anymore, and the experimentation becomes obsolete thanks to the Quill’s built-in translation and automation, then the cost no longer applies. The feature effectively replaces the entire transcription process — why would you pay for steps you’re no longer taking?
But this design loses much of its impact if you still need to bring dozens of gp worth of rare inks into a dungeon.
Wait, why in the world would a Scribes Wizard do this? He has a subclass feature that allows him to magically create a Tiny quill that has a property whereby it provides the ink:
Wizardly Quill
At 2nd level, as a bonus action, you can magically create a Tiny quill in your free hand. The magic quill has the following properties:
The quill doesn't require ink. When you write with it, it produces ink in a color of your choice on the writing surface.
The original Unearthed Arcana version of the Wizardly Quill explicitly mentioned a reduced cost to copy spells. That line was removed in the final version. Why?
. . .
But it's also possible that the writers considered the mechanical changes (removal of ink use and experimentation) so complete and intuitive that no further clarification was needed. It simply replaces the process entirely.
Yes, this is the reason. A "reduced" cost made no sense. What would such a cost be FOR? The original cost explicitly represents the cost of the ink and the experimentation materials. The new process doesn't mention needing any of these things. So why would there be a cost? That's why it was changed. The final published version has no cost at all because why would there be?
RAW, as it stands, makes no mention of removing or reducing the gold cost. Therefore, under a strict reading of the rules, the 50 gp per spell level remains in effect — with the only modification being the time reduced from 2 hours to 2 minutes per level. This view is supported by the structure of the PHB and the absence of explicit wording in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything.
This is incorrect. It's not accurate to think of the new feature as "removing" or "reducing" or "modifying" anything and only certain things "remaining in effect". Instead, an alternate process for completing the steps necessary for copying a spell is provided and that new process specifies the time and cost that is needed to use it.
The Rules as Written explain that copying a spell involves accomplishing the tasks of decoding the source text for the spell and encoding and writing the spell into the Spellbook. The Rules as Written also present a class feature that provides a process for accomplishing those tasks which is available to all Wizards. That process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp per level.
The Rules as Written also present a subclass with a subclass feature that provides another process for accomplishing those same tasks and that process is only available to members of the subclass. That process takes 2 minutes per level and doesn't mention anything about any associated cost so there isn't one.
Imagine for a moment that you are studying to become a (2nd level) Scribes Wizard. The instructor is discussing the tasks involved in copying a spell into your Spellbook. He hands you a chart of the options that you have available to you to go home and study. The chart reads like this:
Copying a Spell into the Book:
-- Option 1 = Process #1: 2 hours, 50 gp
-- Option 2 = Process #2: 2 minutes
Now, you go home and study that chart. When it comes time to take the exam, based on what you've learned from that chart, how would you answer an exam question that asks how much it would cost in gold pieces to choose Option 2 which is to execute Process #2? The correct answer of course is 0 gp. Did the chart actually SAY 0 gp? No. It doesn't have to.
. The original process costs 50 gp for reasons that are explicitly written (10 gp for ink, 40 gp for experimentation materials). The new process costs 0 gp, first of all because no cost for that process is mentioned, and second of all because none of the reasons for the original cost apply to the new process.
. The original process costs 50 gp for reasons that are explicitly written (10 gp for ink, 40 gp for experimentation materials). The new process costs 0 gp, first of all because no cost for that process is mentioned, and second of all because none of the reasons for the original cost apply to the new process.
Where are you getting this 10/40 business?
It's not a super important detail for this discussion, but these costs can be easily deduced by looking at the entirety of the "Your Spellbook" sidebar in the 2014 ruleset.
The process for copying a spell from an outside source is described like this: "For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it."
The process for copying a spell from your own spellbook (which is already written in your own notation, so there is no decoding and experimentation required) into another spellbook is described like this: "You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book . . . 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." It's the exact same spell as in the first process, but the decoding / mastering portion of the process is already done. All that remains is the actual writing of the spell, so the only cost in this case is the ink. Therefore, the amount of ink needed to actually write down a spell of this level is 10 gp / level. The remainder of the 50 gp (and the remaining 1 hour) in the first process therefore must be dedicated only to the first half of the process -- the decoding, experimentation, and mastery through practice. So, that requires 1 hour and costs 40 gp / level. Perhaps coincidentally, the general equipment charts list an item that is a 1-ounce bottle of ink which sells for 10 gp.
It's worth noting that some of these details are less explained in the 2024 ruleset.
You’re assuming the only thing you need to write out at any point is the spell- logically if learning the spell for yourself requires experimentation you would need to document your experiments, ergo requiring additional ink. However, this is all irrelevant anyways. RAW and RAI both say there is no crunch of specific numbers hidden behind the totals for this; they’re simply flat rates that exist, and are only modified by features that expressly say they modify them. Wizardly Quill does not say that, so it does not. The endless ink is very clearly a ribbon, not a massive hack for spell scribing. Extrapolating an active feature from the negative space of what something doesn’t specifically prohibit is not how the rules work, you need outright proof positive.
I agree with ace. Rules do what they say. They do not imply, infer or open themselves to deductions. The money and time spent is there as a balancing mechanic. They’re not trying to track how much ink you use. There’s no in-game logic to the rules; there doesn’t have to be. It just is. To me it seems like people are kind of over-analyzing this to invent a rules exploit.
Scribes wizards can put a spell in their spellbook faster, because the subclass description says they can. It doesn’t say anything about cost, so the cost remains the same. Then at 10th level, they can make a scroll both faster and cheaper than normal, because that’s what the subclass says they can do.
I agree with ace. Rules do what they say. They do not imply, infer or open themselves to deductions. The money and time spent is there as a balancing mechanic. They’re not trying to track how much ink you use. There’s no in-game logic to the rules; there doesn’t have to be. It just is. To me it seems like people are kind of over-analyzing this to invent a rules exploit.
Scribes wizards can put a spell in their spellbook faster, because the subclass description says they can. It doesn’t say anything about cost, so the cost remains the same. Then at 10th level, they can make a scroll both faster and cheaper than normal, because that’s what the subclass says they can do.
I get where you’re coming from — and yes, I agree it could be interpreted as an exploit if someone tries to twist it for major advantage. But personally, I don’t see it as a particularly game-breaking one.
The only “advantage” would be saving some gold over time and gaining flexibility in dungeon scenarios — something that feels thematically appropriate for a subclass designed around transcription and magical study. So even if the intent was to leave the cost untouched, the fact that this doubt keeps surfacing suggests the design could’ve been more explicit. It’s not about exploiting a loophole — just about trying to understand how far the subclass flavor was meant to go mechanically.
You’re assuming the only thing you need to write out at any point is the spell- logically if learning the spell for yourself requires experimentation you would need to document your experiments, ergo requiring additional ink. However, this is all irrelevant anyways. RAW and RAI both say there is no crunch of specific numbers hidden behind the totals for this; they’re simply flat rates that exist, and are only modified by features that expressly say they modify them. Wizardly Quill does not say that, so it does not. The endless ink is very clearly a ribbon, not a massive hack for spell scribing. Extrapolating an active feature from the negative space of what something doesn’t specifically prohibit is not how the rules work, you need outright proof positive.
I see your point and I appreciate the clarity in your reasoning. That said, I’m curious — if one of your players brought this question to your table and made a case based on subclass flavor, and the broader logic around how the subclass functions… how would you handle it?
Would you simply say “the cost stands as written” and leave it at that, or would you be open to adjusting it if the player made a compelling narrative and mechanical argument? Just genuinely interested in how you'd rule it in practice. And if you don't actually play as a DM, would you really make a case against a player that actually thinks the subclass works in the RAI interpretation I presented in my previous summary post?
For what it’s worth, here’s how I handled it at my table (my character is a Wizard of the Order of the Scribes, lv. 3):
Personally, I don’t think it makes much sense to pay a cost that supposedly covers experimentation, when the feature lets you copy a 9th-level spell in 18 minutes. There’s just no room for that kind of process. That said, I also believe in maintaining balance and meaningful resource management. So I talked with my DM, and we agreed that my Wizardly Quill can transmute precious metals or gems into appropriate materials for transcription — effectively letting me “carry” the cost in a flexible, in-world way.
That way, the theme of a wizard who can transcribe on the go is preserved, and we still respect the idea that versatility has a price. It’s a middle ground that fits both the mechanics and the flavor, at least for us.
Do you know of any other ways people approach this matter during a campaign? How the people that posted in this thread would deal with the matter? Would you still consider this solution we adopted an "exploit"?
Glad it worked with your DM. Personally i don't even bother when i put a spellbook for a Wizard in my campaign, i just let them be added to it's spell list and handwave any cost or time required, just like i do for restocking ammunition, food and water etc..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, try looking at it like this and see if it helps.
I'll base these observations again on the 2014 rules since those were the rules in use when Tasha's came out -- the issue of backward-compatibility with the 2024 rules is sort of a separate issue.
Anyway, if you read it closely, it's really not the overall activity of "Copying a Spell into the Book" that costs 50 gp. It's not meant to be like a video game where you press a button that says, "Copy Spell" and that results in a reduction of 50 gp from your possession and the addition of a spell in your spellbook although many tables will hand-waive this whole thing in some similar way.
Instead, it's the process that costs 50 gp when following the specific procedure that is outlined in the Your Spellbook sidebar for completing the necessary tasks. This default procedure is available to all Wizards.
The way that it's written is like this:
First, the text mentions that one of the things that you can do with your spellbook is that you can copy spells into it.
Second, it is explained that the activity of copying a spell involves the completion of a series of necessary steps, which are: Decipher / decode the encrypted source text and then write / encode text into your spellbook using your own notation.
Third, a process for completing these steps that is available to all Wizards is presented, which is: Spend a bunch of time and money reading, deciphering, recreating a basic form and then continuing to experiment and practice until that basic form and understanding is improved and refined into full mastery of the spell. Then, another bunch of time and money is spent slowly and carefully writing the spell in your own notation using expensive inks. Again, this is the default process for achieving the necessary steps that are needed to copy a spell.
The Scribes Wizard has a subclass feature that magically creates a special quill which changes that process so that the steps are completed in a different manner. Since it's the process that costs 50 gp and the Scribes Wizard is not using that process, that cost doesn't apply.
For reference, these are the 2014 rules:
One final thought on this subject. If you are a player and you wish to play a Scribes Wizard, but you anticipate a problem with a potential DM interpretation or ruling then really the best thing that you can do is to discuss this situation with the DM during Session 0. If you find out that your DM stubbornly insists on using a combination of homebrew and rules misinterpretations to severely nerf the core feature of the Subclass that you intend to play, then it's far better to find that out ahead of time. At that point, your choices are to go along with the DM Ruling or to choose to play a different character instead or to choose to play in a different game with a different DM instead. For example, there are plenty of DMs that will declare that all of Tasha's is simply off the table and not allowed in that particular game. These things happen. Just communicate before the game begins and see if you can come to an agreement on such things.
That's a solid house rule
The sticking point (for me, anyway) with claiming that reducing transcription costs is even RAI is the fact that the UA version of Order of Scribes did reduce those costs, and they deliberately removed that wording for the published version of the subclass
There's really no clearer signal they could have sent as to what their intentions were on that front
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I see what you're saying, but I need you to expand on that point a little more, otherwise the conversation risks getting stuck in a loop of "because it's not written, it doesn't happen" versus "but it makes sense narratively." That’s not very productive. Also, I think that confronting the Master Scrivener privilege, which is a 10th level one, with the Wizardly Quill, that is the main subclass feature, doesn't really prove your point. That's why I said that your previous post was a little bit of a red herring.
What you’re expressing is a superficial justification of the RAW, and I actually agree with you on that front: by the book, the cost is still there, because the Wizardly Quill feature doesn't explicitly remove it. That doesn't automatically mean that the rules aren't ambiguous!
But what I’m trying to discuss here is not the RAW — it’s the RAI and the narrative logic behind the design, and the need for an official clarification on the matter. Considering THIS thread and the previous ones on the matter, wouldn't you agree that the rules are not spelled in the clearest way possible?
By logic, the fact that WotC themselves removed a line in the final version of the feature that, in previous Unearthed Arcana, explicitly mentioned a reduced cost could mean one of two things: either they intentionally left it ambiguous for balance reasons, or they relied on context to imply that the cost no longer made sense.
Thank you so much up2ng! You defended your argument really well, and for that I really appreciate the time you spent typing this out. I honestly feel the same way you do and think that your thoughts really do answer my question, but you must admit that this is just not enough of an argument to present to a really strict and only-RAW DM :(
We DO need an official clarification on the matter for all of our fellow Wizards of the Order of the Scribes players.
While it could have been spelled out more clearly, i believe it was intended for only one of the feature to refer to gold cost effect in final after two feature did during playtest. That change was very deliberate to me.
The narrative logic behind the design is that the cost to copy spells isn't solely based on ink to begin with.
Hi everyone,
thank you again for all the discussion and feedback. I’d like to post a final summary for clarity, using the exact wording from the rules.
Before diving into this detailed analysis, I want to clarify that the goal of this post is not to prove one interpretation right or wrong, but rather to gather and summarize all the relevant information, arguments, and reasoning surrounding the cost of copying spells as a Scribes Wizard.
Over the course of several threads, videos, rulebooks, and forum replies, two main positions have emerged — one aligned more with the RAW (Rules As Written), and the other based on RAI (Rules As Intended) and narrative logic.
Both positions have valid reasoning behind them, and what follows is a comprehensive look at each perspective. I’ll include every relevant argument that has been brought forward for both sides, using a practical example to test the implications of each interpretation.
The aim is to help players and DMs understand the full scope of the issue so they can make an informed ruling at their own table.
Copying a spell into the Book:
Now, the Wizardly Quill description:
The RAW (Rules As Written) interpretation:
Scenario 1:
According to the rules, the cost to copy spells into a wizard’s spellbook is an intentional balance mechanism. Wizards can increase their versatility by expanding their spell repertoire, and the 50 gp per spell level cost represents not only rare inks but also the experimentation and practice required to master and transcribe the spell in their own notation.
In the case of the Order of Scribes wizard, the Wizardly Quill subclass feature modifies only one part of this process: the time. With the quill, copying a spell takes 2 minutes per spell level instead of 2 hours, which is just 1.67% of the original time. However, the feature does not mention any change to the gold cost, and thus under RAW (Rules As Written), the cost remains the same.
As a result, a Scribes wizard preparing to enter a dungeon must bring the required materials in advance if they want to be able to copy spells during the adventure. This restricts the in-field utility of the subclass and ties its flexibility directly to preemptive planning and gold management rather than spontaneous adaptability. In many campaigns — especially one-shots or dungeon-crawls — you can go entire arcs without ever encountering a merchant. If the subclass still relies on bought materials, its features become inaccessible in precisely the scenarios they were built for. That undermines both design and narrative logic.
And this leads us to the real question that started this whole "issue":
What was the Order of the Scribes subclass designed for?
Looking at various threads across forums, watching analysis videos on YouTube, and especially reading the official flavor text in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, it becomes clear that this subclass was built around the idea of a wizard who is obsessed with the transcription, study, and decoding of magical formulas. A true arcane scholar, a magical cryptographer — the kind of person who doesn’t just value their spellbook, but forms a deep, magical bond with it, turning it into their most trusted ally. Here the exact quote:
This is not just any wizard. This is a wizard whose love for magical texts becomes a fundamental part of their identity and utility. They don't just cast magic. They decode it, reshape it, and speak with their book like it’s a sentient companion.
The RAI (Rules as Intended Interpretation):
Scenario 2:
Starting with the flavor text on page 77 of Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, we see that this wizard is a sort of arcane scholar, a magical archivist whose bond with their spellbook is so strong it becomes a trusted companion. They're built to be flexible, responsive, and efficient in dealing with written magic — especially in the field.
So, what about the gold cost to copy a spell?
1. The Wizardly Quill replaces both time AND materials
The Wizardly Quill explicitly states that it doesn't require ink. In the 2014 rules (and implicitly in the 2024 revision), the 50 gp per spell level cost includes rare ink and materials used for experimentation. If the ink isn’t needed anymore, and the experimentation becomes obsolete thanks to the Quill’s built-in translation and automation, then the cost no longer applies. The feature effectively replaces the entire transcription process — why would you pay for steps you’re no longer taking?
2. The design supports in-field usage
This subclass lets you copy a spell in 2 minutes per level instead of 2 hours — which strongly implies a narrative intention for field utility. But this design loses much of its impact if you still need to bring dozens of gp worth of rare inks into a dungeon. If your subclass’s identity is built around reacting to spells found on the battlefield or in ancient ruins, but you still need downtime and a supplier to do so, the subclass fails at fulfilling its narrative role.
3. The removed UA description could support the interpretation of which at n°1 ⭡
The original Unearthed Arcana version of the Wizardly Quill explicitly mentioned a reduced cost to copy spells. That line was removed in the final version. Why?
Possibly for balance reasons — leaving it ambiguous. But it's also possible that the writers considered the mechanical changes (removal of ink use and experimentation) so complete and intuitive that no further clarification was needed. It simply replaces the process entirely.
4. The ACTUAL in-game balance doesn't blow up if the cost is reduced to 0 gp
Removing the gold cost for spell transcription does not break the balance of the game, especially when we consider that Scribes Wizards do not benefit from the free spells granted by other wizard subclasses (such as Abjuration, Evocation, Illusion, etc.). These other subclasses receive one free spells of their associated school at every new level slot they unlock — a mechanical advantage that the Order of Scribes entirely forgoes.
In exchange, the Scribes Wizard gains the ability to copy spells faster and, under the RAI interpretation, possibly without transcription cost. However, they still must find the spell and take the time to transcribe it. And like all wizards, they remain limited by their number of prepared spells per day.
So while the Scribe might be able to expand their spellbook more efficiently, this doesn’t inherently make them more powerful in play. Their flexibility comes from planning and preparation, not from raw combat potency — and unlike clerics and druids, who can completely change their spell list after every long rest for free, wizards must earn every spell they add to their book.
Conclusions:
This debate has shown that both RAW and RAI offer reasonable — and quite different — interpretations of how the Wizardly Quill interacts with the cost of copying spells.
RAW, as it stands, makes no mention of removing or reducing the gold cost. Therefore, under a strict reading of the rules, the 50 gp per spell level remains in effect — with the only modification being the time reduced from 2 hours to 2 minutes per level. This view is supported by the structure of the PHB and the absence of explicit wording in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything.
RAI, however, draws on several contextual clues. The Quill removes the need for ink and automates the translation process, bypassing both of the cost-justifying components mentioned in the PHB. When taken together with the thematic and mechanical role of the Scribes Wizard — a subclass designed to be reactive, scholarly, and mobile — removing the cost seems consistent with its intended identity.
Ultimately, this is a case where narrative logic, subclass fantasy, and game balance intersect — and diverge. The rules could have been written more clearly (despite what people in this and other threads said :P), and the ambiguity leaves room for table-by-table rulings. What matters most is that players and DMs understand what each interpretation implies, both mechanically and narratively, and choose what best fits their campaign.
This summary is not meant to force a conclusion, but rather to equip others with the information needed to make that decision themselves.
So... what do we do?
Unfortunately, no definitive clarification has been issued by Wizards of the Coast so far. But there are a few ways — even if they don’t guarantee a reply — to try and get one.
I’ve personally reached out via direct message to the official D&D Instagram page, and I’ve also sent an email to sageadvice@wizards.com, hoping that this long-standing ambiguity will finally be addressed.
I encourage all fellow Order of Scribes wizards to do the same. We deserve clarity on this issue — not only because it affects how we build and play our characters, but also because it’s clearly a topic that sparks disagreement and confusion among players.
Let’s make some noise (politely)! Maybe then we’ll get the official word this subclass has been waiting for. If anyone knows other ways to directly contact the design team, it would be really appreciated. Please, do not underestimate the importance of this matter. Just do a quick google search and you'll notice that the confusion has widely spread since the release of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Thank you all!
The narrative logic is that when one feature describes using a special kind of ink and another feature does not specifically say it produces that special kind of ink, one can logically conclude that the second feature does not meet the parameters of the first.
If you personally see no ambiguity, that’s fine — but please don’t assume the many players who’ve raised this issue over the years are just misreading the rules.
The 2024 PHB no longer mentions ink or material components in the transcription process, which clearly shifts the context. If you’re going to reply, I’d appreciate it if you actually read my final summary post. This isn’t a made-up problem — it’s a mechanical inconsistency that’s been left unresolved for too long.
And if you moved past the “if it’s not written, it doesn’t work”, we might get a more meaningful discussion. Otherwise we get stuck in a loop. Critical reasoning and argumenting is welcome.
Again, NOT TRYING TO CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND. I understand and believe that RAW, the cost for transcription still stands.
P.S.: it does say so. Okay it's not "fine ink" but that doesn't really make a point, given the fact that there's no mentioning of that specific kind of ink in ANY official pubblication from Wizards of the Coast.
I don't assume. I know they are because if the feature changed the cost it would say so, like every other example of one that changes the cost.
TBH Order of Scribes is a subclass from a pre-2024 rulebook which is very unlikely to get an errata or Sage Advice clarification at this point.
Better chance to get republished in a future release IMO.
Yeah that's probably what will happen in the future. IF they republish it :')
I disagree. Everything that I've said is based on the rules as they are written. The relevant rules have been quoted directly word-for-word.
That's exactly correct, as written in the 2014 ruleset.
No, that's incorrect. The Order of Scribes Wizard has a subclass feature which allows the Wizard to magically create a Tiny quill which has some explicit properties. Those properties allow this Wizard to follow an entirely different process for Copying a Spell into the Book. The process that is written for the Wizard class is available to all Wizards. This subclass allows for a different process. The original process costs 50 gp for reasons that are explicitly written (10 gp for ink, 40 gp for experimentation materials). The new process costs 0 gp, first of all because no cost for that process is mentioned, and second of all because none of the reasons for the original cost apply to the new process.
Upon reviewing the text again, what I said before about this being a Specific vs General exception is probably not actually the most accurate way to interpret these rules. Instead, the Scribes Wizard simply has a new process available to him in order to complete the specific tasks that are required to be able to copy a Spell. So, the original rules are not really being "replaced" or "modified". Instead, the subclass feature is used "instead of" the original process. In other words, the Scribes Wizard now has two different methods available to him. if he wants, he can use his class feature to Copy a Spell, which would cost him 2 hours and 50 gp per level. Or, if he wants, he can use his subclass feature to accomplish the same task and that method would cost him 2 minutes and 0 gp per level -- it's his choice which of his own features he wishes to use.
No "change" to the gold cost is mentioned because nothing is changing -- a new process is being added that can be used instead of the existing process. The new process doesn't mention any cost because there is no cost. You don't typically mention a cost when the cost is 0.
Yes, this is exactly correct.
Wait, why in the world would a Scribes Wizard do this? He has a subclass feature that allows him to magically create a Tiny quill that has a property whereby it provides the ink:
Yes, this is the reason. A "reduced" cost made no sense. What would such a cost be FOR? The original cost explicitly represents the cost of the ink and the experimentation materials. The new process doesn't mention needing any of these things. So why would there be a cost? That's why it was changed. The final published version has no cost at all because why would there be?
This is incorrect. It's not accurate to think of the new feature as "removing" or "reducing" or "modifying" anything and only certain things "remaining in effect". Instead, an alternate process for completing the steps necessary for copying a spell is provided and that new process specifies the time and cost that is needed to use it.
The Rules as Written explain that copying a spell involves accomplishing the tasks of decoding the source text for the spell and encoding and writing the spell into the Spellbook. The Rules as Written also present a class feature that provides a process for accomplishing those tasks which is available to all Wizards. That process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp per level.
The Rules as Written also present a subclass with a subclass feature that provides another process for accomplishing those same tasks and that process is only available to members of the subclass. That process takes 2 minutes per level and doesn't mention anything about any associated cost so there isn't one.
Imagine for a moment that you are studying to become a (2nd level) Scribes Wizard. The instructor is discussing the tasks involved in copying a spell into your Spellbook. He hands you a chart of the options that you have available to you to go home and study. The chart reads like this:
Copying a Spell into the Book:
-- Option 1 = Process #1: 2 hours, 50 gp
-- Option 2 = Process #2: 2 minutes
Now, you go home and study that chart. When it comes time to take the exam, based on what you've learned from that chart, how would you answer an exam question that asks how much it would cost in gold pieces to choose Option 2 which is to execute Process #2? The correct answer of course is 0 gp. Did the chart actually SAY 0 gp? No. It doesn't have to.
Where are you getting this 10/40 business?
It's not a super important detail for this discussion, but these costs can be easily deduced by looking at the entirety of the "Your Spellbook" sidebar in the 2014 ruleset.
The process for copying a spell from an outside source is described like this: "For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it."
The process for copying a spell from your own spellbook (which is already written in your own notation, so there is no decoding and experimentation required) into another spellbook is described like this: "You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book . . . 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." It's the exact same spell as in the first process, but the decoding / mastering portion of the process is already done. All that remains is the actual writing of the spell, so the only cost in this case is the ink. Therefore, the amount of ink needed to actually write down a spell of this level is 10 gp / level. The remainder of the 50 gp (and the remaining 1 hour) in the first process therefore must be dedicated only to the first half of the process -- the decoding, experimentation, and mastery through practice. So, that requires 1 hour and costs 40 gp / level. Perhaps coincidentally, the general equipment charts list an item that is a 1-ounce bottle of ink which sells for 10 gp.
It's worth noting that some of these details are less explained in the 2024 ruleset.
You’re assuming the only thing you need to write out at any point is the spell- logically if learning the spell for yourself requires experimentation you would need to document your experiments, ergo requiring additional ink. However, this is all irrelevant anyways. RAW and RAI both say there is no crunch of specific numbers hidden behind the totals for this; they’re simply flat rates that exist, and are only modified by features that expressly say they modify them. Wizardly Quill does not say that, so it does not. The endless ink is very clearly a ribbon, not a massive hack for spell scribing. Extrapolating an active feature from the negative space of what something doesn’t specifically prohibit is not how the rules work, you need outright proof positive.
I agree with ace. Rules do what they say. They do not imply, infer or open themselves to deductions.
The money and time spent is there as a balancing mechanic. They’re not trying to track how much ink you use. There’s no in-game logic to the rules; there doesn’t have to be. It just is. To me it seems like people are kind of over-analyzing this to invent a rules exploit.
Scribes wizards can put a spell in their spellbook faster, because the subclass description says they can. It doesn’t say anything about cost, so the cost remains the same.
Then at 10th level, they can make a scroll both faster and cheaper than normal, because that’s what the subclass says they can do.
I get where you’re coming from — and yes, I agree it could be interpreted as an exploit if someone tries to twist it for major advantage. But personally, I don’t see it as a particularly game-breaking one.
The only “advantage” would be saving some gold over time and gaining flexibility in dungeon scenarios — something that feels thematically appropriate for a subclass designed around transcription and magical study. So even if the intent was to leave the cost untouched, the fact that this doubt keeps surfacing suggests the design could’ve been more explicit. It’s not about exploiting a loophole — just about trying to understand how far the subclass flavor was meant to go mechanically.
I see your point and I appreciate the clarity in your reasoning. That said, I’m curious — if one of your players brought this question to your table and made a case based on subclass flavor, and the broader logic around how the subclass functions… how would you handle it?
Would you simply say “the cost stands as written” and leave it at that, or would you be open to adjusting it if the player made a compelling narrative and mechanical argument? Just genuinely interested in how you'd rule it in practice. And if you don't actually play as a DM, would you really make a case against a player that actually thinks the subclass works in the RAI interpretation I presented in my previous summary post?
For what it’s worth, here’s how I handled it at my table (my character is a Wizard of the Order of the Scribes, lv. 3):
Personally, I don’t think it makes much sense to pay a cost that supposedly covers experimentation, when the feature lets you copy a 9th-level spell in 18 minutes. There’s just no room for that kind of process. That said, I also believe in maintaining balance and meaningful resource management. So I talked with my DM, and we agreed that my Wizardly Quill can transmute precious metals or gems into appropriate materials for transcription — effectively letting me “carry” the cost in a flexible, in-world way.
That way, the theme of a wizard who can transcribe on the go is preserved, and we still respect the idea that versatility has a price. It’s a middle ground that fits both the mechanics and the flavor, at least for us.
Do you know of any other ways people approach this matter during a campaign? How the people that posted in this thread would deal with the matter?
Would you still consider this solution we adopted an "exploit"?
Glad it worked with your DM. Personally i don't even bother when i put a spellbook for a Wizard in my campaign, i just let them be added to it's spell list and handwave any cost or time required, just like i do for restocking ammunition, food and water etc..