D&D 5E Am I too strict?

[Umbran]

I don't know. In the games I've run and played in, we paid attention to what other people were doing and declaring. It seems strange to me that someone would play a collective game like D&D and then check out of the game when it's not his turn to speak.

If you are playing the party wizard, do you keep track of how much the rogue spends on arrows? Seriously?

They don't check out of the game. They check into their own part of the game. Downtime, restock shopping, upkeep and leveling up are not times of close tactical coordination or something. They are times when individual players deal with their own character-maintenance business.

 

[Maxperson]

If you are playing the party wizard, do you keep track of how much the rogue spends on arrows? Seriously?

They don't check out of the game. They check into their own part of the game. Downtime, restock shopping, upkeep and leveling up are not times of close tactical coordination or something. They are times when individual players deal with their own character-maintenance business.

No, but if I'm playing the wizard I am aware each and eve
every time the rogue goes to buy arrows, and when he tells the DM that he's using up 2 arrows in combat. Similarly, I would be aware as the rogue that the wizard was spending money on ink, and when the wizard tells the DM that he's marking off X ink to scribe the spells he just got from leveling.

 

[cmad1977]

It’s a bad rule. But do whatchalike.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Just curious, what was the point of this thread? You asked people if they thought it was too strict, and most people here seem to think it is (a lot agree with you but it seems most don't). Then the OP posts comments to the disagree-ers trying to explain why he does this rule.

Honestly, none of our opinions matter. Maybe you should ask the player who complained why he thinks its unfair, as this affects them rather than us?

 

[Chaosmancer]

But again, not only wizards, but every class at the table, including those the player played all had additional upkeep costs. The other wizards at the table would also have had to periodically announce that they were going to buy ink for their spells. I don't see how he could have been unaware that wizards had this additional upkeep.

I also don't see wizards using their dagger all that often, or being all that costly if they do. And most components have no cost at all. All he has to do is avoid picking the super costly ones and he's golden. Outside of the wizard ink costs anyway.

If you've been following the math, the other classes upkeep costs (outside of magical items and potions) max at around 160 to 175 gold. That is platemail, shield, and multiple weapons.

The wizard starts between 50 and 100 and goes up to 900 or more.

And, if the rule is, you have to pay upkeep costs for your weapons at every level up, then it doesn't matter how often they use their dagger, it is added to their ink costs. And, if you are going to have the upkeep costs be just for "equipment" then that would include the wand, staff or orb being used as well, which gets added to the ink costs.

And if magical items get included (which is the only way for the other classes to even approach the wizard's ink costs) then that gets added to the wizard's ink costs as well, and they could end up looking at over a thousand gold in upkeep and accessing their class abilities.

Just curious, what was the point of this thread? You asked people if they thought it was too strict, and most people here seem to think it is (a lot agree with you but it seems most don't). Then the OP posts comments to the disagree-ers trying to explain why he does this rule.

Honestly, none of our opinions matter. Maybe you should ask the player who complained why he thinks its unfair, as this affects them rather than us?

Helldritch has indicated that they consider the player in question a power gamer who is upset they can't afford their labratory as quickly as they wanted, because of these houserules.

The lab was mentioned once, the power gamer status of the player has been mentioned repeatedly.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Helldritch has indicated that they consider the player in question a power gamer who is upset they can't afford their labratory as quickly as they wanted, because of these houserules.

The lab was mentioned once, the power gamer status of the player has been mentioned repeatedly.

I'll reiterate that Helldritch isn't going to solve his problem by talking to us; he should talk to his player about the complaint.

 

[jayoungr]

You asked if the house rule was too harsh. Yes it is, it adds additional penalty to the class

So I'm partly just playing devil's advocate here, but the OP did mention wanting to discourage players from playing wizards. Does that make it okay?

To answer my own question, the problem is probably that it's a case of trying to solve an out-of-character problem with an in-character penalty. Which rarely, if ever, works.

 

[Blue]

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.

The sidebar that only applies to spells you find? Since these aren't spells you find, it doesn't apply.

 

[Helldritch]

1) All expanses are stated at the table. We have very cooperative gaming groups where treasure is seperated in 7 parts. The 7th part is for group spending or if a character is a bit short on change. Book keeping on this matter is out of normal of what I do, but strangely I have two accountants in my groups (one in each) that love such accounting (and I mean realllllllly love that sort of thing). So we indulge them and guess what? Some of the other players are doing it too. Just in case that the rogue accountant is not totally honest...

2) The player was very well aware of the rule. We roll for who will choose first pick of character as we try to have balanced groups. It is the first time in 6 years that he gets to pick the wizard. He is a power gamer and a very good manipulator at that (no insult meant to him. He is quite good at debating his points, I mean, very good). He told me the rule was too strict and he wanted a, shall we say, exemption for him. Before I met all players I wanted advice on how people here see the rule. I should've given more details in the opening posts about the context of our groups, my mistake.

3) Yes the cost are a bit high but the campaign so far have been enjoyable by all players. Even the "power gamer". What costs you, you can charge to an NPC too. Services in downtime are resolve relatively fast, about 20 minutes per players. We use Xanathar's table as well as some old tables I did years ago and some others for temples, monasteries, baronies, thieves guilds and laboratories. Even living expanses are accounted for, as cash is very important to acquire for the above end game.

4) Many characters and groups ends with the ownership of a barony, temple, fiefdom or whatever. We usually do a few sessions and depending on the group's synergy and mood, we either end the campaign around level 15 or we go up to 20 if the characters would continue. We have had so far 5 different groups that went for the 20th level play. The rests stopped at level 15 when main campaign was achieved and castle and what not were build, up and running.

5) The rule in itself is a bit harsh. I know wizards are intended to be more versatile than the other casters. It was an attempt at reducing the number of wizards and it failed. Players are doing sorcerers and warlocks only for a little change of pace and only if there is already a wizard in the group. The utility spells that are brought into play by a wizard seem to be too good to pass on for my players. And I am not the only DM that sees this in his groups in my area. I have no trouble with wizards being so popular, but I would like to see more of the other casters into action to better judge what type of encounters will work best with them.

The rule is not to gimp wizards, the costs goes both ways as the characters can sell the right to copy from their spell book to NPCs. It is quite a common occurence that usually makes it equal to the other characters in terms of cashflow. The ink problem vanishes as soon as the character gets to about level 5. At this level, they have the inks prepared well in advance before adventuring. I reiterate that otherwise, the wizards is exactly as in the PHB.

Do you see this in your gaming groups? That is a predominance of wizards vs other arcane casters?

PS: And a vote passed that players, not me, decided to keep this rule (along with the expanses in upkeep and down time) 11 to 1. Guess who's the one was? And two other wizards voted on that.)

Edit: Modified the last sentence of #3 as it read weird. Damn autocorrector...

 

[TheSword]

Nope, sorcerers and warlocks far outweighs wizards in our campaigns (that’s across three groups playing weekly/fortnightly).