D&D 5E Am I too strict?

[Mort]

Nope this is an example to clarify why I made this ruling. Would you make the spell just appear in the spell book. The wizard does not have any ink, not even a feather write with. So how does the spells appear? I am curious about the mechanic of spell writting itself in a spell book.

To paraphrase Oofta: Free of charge, not of copying.

You do realize he was criticizing your ruling not agreeing with it?

And what about the side bar? It does not say:"Except those you had free from leveling."
Like Oofta said. Free of charge, but not of shipping.

"On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the "Your Spellbook" sidebar)." In the sidebar it first mentions spells you research on your own, not mentioning any cost. It then talks about other spells you find as distinct from spells you gather on your own (as in spells someone else researched that you find. The cost of copying is as to those spells.

I find both passages clear, it is certainly not clear that it is the other way around and that you have to pay for spells you get with level.

 

[Helldritch]

You do realize he was criticizing your ruling not agreeing with it?

Yep, But I did like the analogy.

"On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the "Your Spellbook" sidebar). In the sidebar it first mentions spells you research on your own, not mentioning any cost. It then talks about other spells you find as distinct from spells you gather on your own (as in spells someone else researched that you find. The cost of copying is as to those spells.

I find both passages clear, it is certainly not clear that it is the other way around and that you have to pay for spells you get with level.

So far no one answered my question. How do the spells appear in the book if you have nothing to write them with in the first place.

They magically appear? So what is the need for the side bar explaining the cost of copying?

They were there in the first place? Then it should be determined before hand as a spell book has a limited amount of pages and these pages can be filled up very quickly.

Do not assume that I do not know how to read. I know. I know the RAW and I know the RAI. We are talking about a house rule here. This is my attempt to reduce the amount of wizards that are made at my table and it fails. Should I drop it? Or should I keep it in the hopes to see more of the other casters? They do not pay for the free spell, but they pay to copy them in their spell book. This is two different things.

 

[MGibster]

My PCs generally have more money than they know what to do with. I imagine they'd just shrug and go with it even if they didn't like the ruling.

 

[Lanefan]

For the first time, a player called me too strict for a ruling I made.
Here is the ruling:" Although the wizard learns too free spells to add to his spell book, I ruled that the wizard still have to pay for the materials (inks) to write it in his spell book." I also ruled that you can only add spells during downtime unless you want to risk a failure in case you are attacked during the transcription.

My reasons are two folds.
1) By Raw, the spells are free to add. But right in the side bar they say that whenever you find a new spell you have to copy in your spell book.

2) The spells do not appear out of nowhere. You have to have the special inks to put them in your spell book.

I gave the following example: A group is in the desert. They barely have enough food to get by. They have a weapon, an empty backpack (almost, the dried camel is stored in their backpack) and in case of caster, they have a spell focus. The group rise in level, they are now level 3! Yeah! The wizard adds two spells to his spell book but where did the ink came from? Did the spell appeared out of nowhere?

IMO you're not strict enough.

The Wizard shouldn't get those new spells at all while in the field, and should have to wait until downtime. (as in, training!) But then yes, the spells would come as part of the training fee, with no chance of failing to learn them.

EDIT to add: reading on, I see your players voted against training rules - well, of course they did! Players rarely if ever vote for anything that's going to cost their PCs time and-or money, and-or add restrictions to what they can do. Not something I'd have ever made negotiable.

I am a bit old school. Spells costs a lot in my campaign. First and second level spells cost 50 gold pieces per level just to copy. You still need to have the inks to copy them.
third through fifth level cost 250 gp per levels and 6th to 8th level are 1000 gold per level. A single spell of 9th level costs 15,000 gold and that is IF the other caster is friendly, very friendly to you (as in, (s)he owes you BIG TIME).

I use a more generic 300 g.p. per spell level as a baseline, varied by factors such as spell rarity, spell legality (in some cases), favours owed or denied, and so forth. I also have page counts for each spell, for purposes of tracking ink consumption.

 

[Li Shenron]

@Helldritch in this case I believe you got it wrong. Those 2 spells learned when levelling up are not "copied" (which implies a source to copy from), they are added directly. The "copying a spell into the book" section refers to spells you find, and you don't "find" the spells you learn when levelling up.

The reference to "inks" being one of the reasons for the cost of copying is misleading. It's one of those unfortunate turd-ish legacies from past editions that designers like to keep around because think they're funny flavor, without carefully thinking that they might be taken too literally.

OTOH if you like ruling like that, I don't think it's bad, and I would be fine playing a Wizard in such a game. Costs more money but 5e PCs more often have a problem of how to spend their money rather than having not enough money to spend.

I find your ruling would make players not choose this class and choose one that is not burdened by a book.

If it makes Sorcerers more popular, then it's a good house rule!

 

[Seramus]

It doesn't seem like the rule adds any fun. I wouldn't call it "too strict" as intensity of strictness, but I would call it "unnecessarily strict" as in mostly pointless and somewhat frowny.

 

[Mort]

So far no one answered my question. How do the spells appear in the book if you have nothing to write them with in the first place.

They magically appear? So what is the need for the side bar explaining the cost of copying? They were there in the first place? Then it should be determined before hand as a spell book has a limited amount of pages and these pages can be filled up very quickly.

The 2 spells per level are the result of the wizard experimenting and researching during adventure and downtime. They appear because the wizard is scribbling and writing in his free moments which results in the 2 free spells per level.

The sidebar is there (and necessary) because other wizards, wizard libraries and found spellbooks are something characters find and represent a shortcut to possibly obtaining more spells than the 2 per level. (Edit: these are the spells that are copied as opposed to researched - very well laid out by the post above mine)

Do not assume that I do not know how to read. I know. I know the RAW and I know the RAI. We are talking about a house rule here. This is my attempt to reduce the amount of wizards that are made at my table and it fails. Should I drop it? Or should I keep it in the hopes to see more of the other casters? They do not pay for the free spell, but they pay to copy them in their spell book. This is two different things.

You stated it was a ruling and that it was the clear intent of the rules when people pointed out RAW and RAI you argued your ruling was crystal clear from the books not that it was a house rule.

As a house rule - it's a bit strict. How strict depends on how cash starved the characters actually are. If they have easy access to gold etc. then rule isn't that impactfull, if they are constantly trying to find any amount of gold - then it means the wizard isn't getting his spells transcribed anytime soon. What it likely means in practice: early levels will be rough and spell starved for the wizard but the issue will sort itself out by mid to high levels as gold becomes less of an issue.

Edit: If it's laid out at the beginning of the campaign, I don't think I'd have a problem with it. Wizards get lots and lots of advantages and this just compensates a bit.

 

[prabe]

Yeah, as a houserule it's ...a houserule, and it apparently doesn't deter your players from playing wizards (though if it's been as clear "from the beginning of 5E" as you say, I wonder why you have a player complaining about it now ...) but I don't think you can legitimately claim it's a clear reading of the rules.

As someone who plays in a campaign where the wizard roughly never finds spells she's interested in copying, and can only afford to copy what spells she does want to copy by spending party treasure (with party permission) to do so, I don't see this as necessary if you just want to keep wizards in check a bit.

 

[Charlaquin]

So far no one answered my question. How do the spells appear in the book if you have nothing to write them with in the first place.

They magically appear? So what is the need for the side bar explaining the cost of copying?

They were there in the first place? Then it should be determined before hand as a spell book has a limited amount of pages and these pages can be filled up very quickly.

Presumably the wizard is spending time between periods of action (I would say “down time,” but that has a specific rules meaning, whereas I’m speaking informally of “off-camera“ moments like during rests or other moments between the dramatic action) practicing, experimenting, and making notes. The cumulative result of this is that by the time they level up, they’ve mastered two new spells and have the necessary detail written in their spell book. The bit about copying spells is for, well, copying them. The rules for doing so also account for experimentation, including expending material components, the cost of which presumably makes up more of the cost of copying a spell than ink does.

Of course, all of this is handwavium. The rules function the way they say they do, come up with whatever narrative explanation for them you like.

Do not assume that I do not know how to read. I know. I know the RAW and I know the RAI. We are talking about a house rule here. This is my attempt to reduce the amount of wizards that are made at my table and it fails. Should I drop it? Or should I keep it in the hopes to see more of the other casters? They do not pay for the free spell, but they pay to copy them in their spell book. This is two different things.

Whether or not you should keep the house rule depends on what you are trying to achieve with it. Is the goal to try to discourage players from making wizards? If so, it seems effective at that and you might as well keep it. Is the goal to satisfy your personal sense of verisimilitude? Then I would ask your players if their sense of verisimilitude is also harmed by RAW on this matter and if so, how they would like to see the issue addressed. If not, maybe just let it go. Do you have some other goal? Evaluate how you feel this house rule is helping you accomplish it, and if you could accomplish it in a better way.

 

[ZeshinX]

My take is too strict. Granted, 'tis your game/table to run as you see fit, but I would find it too strict. If it's a class ability to gain new spells as part of gaining a new level, then I'm not going to make it harder for them to acquire those spells (they did work for them and earned them by playing and levelling up).

Any spells they want to add to their spellbook beyond what they gain as part of levelling, those they'll need to go through the process of adding to their spellbook in the prescribed manner.

I've always just rationalized such new spells known as something the character was researching during the course of adventuring, "behind the curtain" as it were. It's well enough for me to leave it as such. If I wanted simulationist level of detail where everything has a plausible explanation (plausible for fantasy anyway), I'd still be playing 3.x/PF1e. I find 5e went back to what I used to call the "nonsense rules" approach (rules that existed simply to satisfy mechanics/balance but made little sense outside that...like classes being restricted to certain races, racial level limits, etc).