D&D 5E Am I too strict?

I also disagree with the notion that once a player agrees with a house rule or a rulling the discussion is over, and they have to stick with that verbl contract. Maybe the player didn't know at the time how the rulling would bother them, or how it would subtract from their enjoyment of the game. If a player brings up a problem with a rulling they had agreed at the start of the campaign I'd reopen the discussion with them (before or after the gamming session of vourse) and try to acomodate their feelings, evaluating if my goal with the rulling was met and if I can help the player feel better about the game. No rulling agreement is more important than the overall enjoyment of the game in my opinion, and everything is up to discussion and revision at any time (expect in the middle of the game, if it can be avoided).

It sounds to me like what the situation really needs here is better, clearer communication. If a DM doesn't want to have wizards in their party, the DM should just say "no wizards". If you're strict at character creation, that prevents the problem. Even if you don't want to fully ban wizards, you should say specifically that you are making this houserule just to make wizards less powerful. From a player perspective, if a DM tells me that they have special houserules for a particular class, I would suspect that the DM has special plans for that class and that they do want a party member of that class. Maybe the DM has plot reasons in mind or maybe they're just playtesting a homebrew idea.

However, at this point you're already well past the character creation stage and you already established your houserule. That kind of houserule is fair, but only as long as your players have a reasonable chance to actually get the money or downtime they need to finish leveling up. That doesn't mean you have to railroad them into it, but the opportunity does have to be there. Being stuck in the desert and not getting the new spells right away is one thing, but there must be some way for the party to make it to an oasis or something where they can spend the gold and get the spells. It's not fair to your players to let them play wizards, but never let the wizards get the spells they earned by leveling up.

Coroc said:

nope absolutely not, if you got a working economic which i assume, but that goes for all characters: The fighter has to pay for his weapons and armor, no wonderous starting gear but som 200 gold for everyone instead.
---

you also have to carefully balance how much dosh the players aquire and the relation of e.g. Cost of plate armor vs a third level spell.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the math on this doesn't work at all.

Assuming you can't buy magical gear, let us take a rogue, a cleric and a fighter.

They all start with the best weapons they can buy, shields, and armor. Assuming the fighter and cleric both buy Splint, then Full Plate and the rogue buys Studded Leather, they spend 3,445 gp. Arrows or javelins might add up to another 100 or so. But that doesn't matter.

The Wizard, just from the two level up spells per level, and never finding any spells they want to copy, is spending 10,700 gp over the course of the campaign. In practice, probably a little less, if they never take a spell outside their school they can cut this in half, but even then it is more than the entire rest of the party combined.

So, unless you are selling a few thousand gold worth of magical items to everyone else and not the wizard, then the wizard is paying more, and since magical items are something the wizard would want as well...

I'm playing a wizard in our Eberron campaign, and I've been paying for all of my spells after 1st level. I don't feel mistreated. It makes sense for my character, since he is technically "remembering" spells that he used to know. He's not attending a university or receiving formal instruction or anything, so nobody is "giving" him anything.

(Long backstory made short: he used to be a 20th level wizard during the Last War, but fell on hard times and struggled with a drug addiction after the war ended. He sold his spellbook for drugs, burned a lot of bridges with his House, and forgot most of what he ever knew. He's been clean for about 2 months now, and he's slowly remembering the things that the drug made him forget. The spells he gets when he levels-up are the spells he used to know and now suddenly remembers, so he runs out to buy ink and parchment and etc., and gets to scribing.)

It's expensive trying to afford spells and their components, but I like the whole 'atonement' vibe it gives to the character. YMMV.

Whenever a topic like this comes up (making wizards pay gold for daily operations) I always fall back to the same thoughts.

Are you charging the martial characters for weapon/armor upkeep and repair? Does the cleric have to tithe?

In this particular case, the GM seems to have instituted the ruling partially in response to allowing the PCs to level up without downtime spent. Since almost every other spellcasting class isn't penalized the same way that a wizard is by this ruling, it seems unfair to me. What are you "charging" the other classes to allow them mid-adventure level ups?

CleverNickName said:

I'm playing a wizard in our Eberron campaign, and I've been paying for all of my spells after 1st level. I don't feel mistreated. It makes sense for my character, since he is technically "remembering" spells that he used to know. He's not attending a university or receiving formal instruction or anything, so nobody is "giving" him anything.

(Long backstory made short: he used to be a 20th level wizard during the Last War, but fell on hard times and struggled with a drug addiction after the war ended. He sold his spellbook for drugs, burned a lot of bridges with his House, and forgot most of what he ever knew. He's been clean for about 2 months now, and he's slowly remembering the things that the drug made him forget. The spells he gets when he levels-up are the spells he used to know and now suddenly remembers, so he runs out to buy ink and parchment and etc., and gets to scribing.)

It's expensive trying to afford spells and their components, but I like the whole 'atonement' vibe it gives to the character. YMMV.

Click to expand...

It's great when it's your idea as a player, or when you are ok with the rulling. But being made to agree with a strict debuff of your class because "it was clear 6 years ago and you agreed" seems a luttle strict hahaha

Bolares said:

It's great when it's your idea as a player, or when you are ok with the rulling. But being made to agree with a strict debuff of your class because "it was clear 6 years ago and you agreed" seems a luttle strict hahaha

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to call this a "strict debuff," it's more like a "tax," like how fighters have to buy their own healing potions. But I otherwise agree with the sentiment. The DM and the player need to be on the same page with the rules and how they are going to be interpreted.

CleverNickName said:

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "strict debuff," but I otherwise agree with the sentiment. The DM and the player need to be on the same page with the rules and how they are going to be interpreted.

Click to expand...

Well, it is a strict debuff... It does make the class worse... there is no upside to taking it (unless that is the story you want to tell as a player)

The players in both my campaign do not feel this as a debuff to the wizard. They see it as a continuity from previous editions. Only one player brought this up and this is his first wizard in 6 years. The player is rather on the power gaming side with a lot of rule lawyering mixed in. Yes my interpretation is strict and more like a house rule but we did away with down time for many reasons.

You have to understand that the rule was unanimously accepted by all of them six years ago. That player was not concerned by this until he made his first wizard in six years. He had agreed because he felt he was gaining something for nothing. Now that he is the one with the "tax" as he calls it, he wanted it to be thrown away. As I said earlier, we did voted again and the other players voted to keep the rule (5 to 1 and no I don't vote on these matters unless there is a tie).

From what I can see, there are 3 sides on the appreciation of this rule.
1) The rule seems not to go far enough for some. In fact, some DM seems to have done away with the two free spells per level. As Oofta said, free of charge but not of shipping. In my case, the spell is free but not the copying. I am not in the camp of those that accept that the spell appear out of nowhere in the book. I am more of the type: The character has a flash of insight, so he learns two spell spontenaously. I see the two spell per level are there to ensure that the character has some spell to work on. The side bar is for every spells, even those that are gained through leveling. To get other spell, the wizard must pay for research, the right to copy from another caster, a captured spell book, a scroll, a boon, a reward for a quest or anything else that comes to your mind.

2) The rule is a bit stretched but acceptable if the players are warned ahead of time and if they agree. Fortunately for me I am a democratic DM and my players voted on all optional rules. Even tough the rule acceptance was luke warm at first, most player would not have it any other way. The versatility of the wizard is such that they prefer it that way (save one, obviously). The gain of instant leveling without downtime or training was too good to pass.

3) The rule is an absolute digress from the rule and I am a monster for doing so. I do admit that this reading of the rule is a very strict one and I agree that it should fall on the house rule territory. Many think that I have imposed this rule with an iron fist where nothing could be further from the truth. It was voted upon by all players. Players know it before making a wizard. The only strictness is in the application of the rule. No exception for anyone.

Now since players knew and voted for it, I don't feel that I am a monster. Not since I have seen that some agree (with various degrees) with me. The rule was there to force the players to vary arcane caster so that we would see more of the warlock and the sorcerer. It failed but not entirely. After discussion with both groups, players were clear, If I remove this rule, we will only see wizards as arcane casters (again only one dissent in that statement).

I asked if I was too strict because that one player made me think that I was. I wanted the advice on that ruling and I got it. I did not want to be judge on how I DM as some did. I wanted the appreciation of this house rule.

To those that explained their views on the rules, gave an opinion on it and gave examples: Thank you.

I certainly do not think you are a monster. As I mentioned before, the rule isn't "too strict" in the sense that it's overly strict. It's just unnecessary and slightly irritating without gaining anything in return.

I always try to do mental math when I make a house rule. What am I gaining? What am I losing? In this case, it seems like the rule is a net loss.