D&D 5E Am I too strict?

bulletmeat · Jun 29, 2020

How about an INT check; pass & no cost, fail & you need more study, retry w/new materials, etc.
Might be a compromise?

Bolares · Jun 29, 2020

Helldritch said:
Wizards' versatility is hard to beat in the mind of my players...

Isn't this a hint that they like versatility? Why punish something they like?

aco175 · Jun 29, 2020

Bottom line is that if your group and you the DM are ok with it, then you do not need to change it.

I did not count, but it looks like 3/4 think this goes too far. By asking the question, you can at least go back to your group which is what you done. Good for you.

Urriak Uruk · Jun 29, 2020

Helldritch said:
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?

Nope, the new spells are a sudden inspiration. The wizard knows them, he gets them in his mind but now if he wants to change them, he needs to find ink to copy them in his spell book. Yes, they were free as in he did not buy them from an other wizard, he did not have to capture the spell book of an enemy, he did not have to make a quest to know it. But otherwise, he has to abide by the side bar.

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).

Is this too strict? Money to copy and acquire spell is a big money sink in my games and that is at all levels.
I have the feeling that he wants them totally free only to make more low level scrolls during downtime.

Sorry, you're charging 15,000 gp for a 9th level spell... and your reasoning is that it costs that much for inks?

Hell yeah that's strict.

Now I get it can cost time to copy it down, or the material components are expensive... but your reasoning here for ink is bananas.

Your game your rules of course, but if I was one of your players I would definitely not want to be a spellcaster with those rules.

Helldritch · Jun 29, 2020

Urriak Uruk said:
Sorry, you're charging 15,000 gp for a 9th level spell... and your reasoning is that it costs that much for inks?

Hell yeah that's strict.

Now I get it can cost time to copy it down, or the material components are expensive... but your reasoning here for ink is bananas.

Your game your rules of course, but if I was one of your players I would definitely not want to be a spellcaster with those rules.

???????????????
I am not the one that says that ink is too much. Quite the contrary. 15k gold for buying a 9th level spell means that the player can save 120k with his 9th level free spell knowledge. And one player would cringe at the cost for the ink? AND you only buy if you have no other choice. More often than not, a quest, a service or simple exchange spell for spell is made for additional spells. It pays to be kind with other wizards.

And strangely, almost the enterity of all wizards that played at my table were quite ok with this rule. Satisfied enough that the great majority of the casters are wizards and not warlock or sorcerer. I guess that my tax on versatility is not big enough...

On second reading, it seems you are confusing spell cost and ink cost. These are unrelated in my games. You pay the spell, then you pay for the ink to write it down. The free spells you gain each level are just that, free spells. You still have to copy them though. This is not a big cost when you think about it (unless your DM is starving you of money, which I am not).

CleverNickName · Jun 29, 2020

On the inverse of this issue: what happens when the party defeats a cabal of evil wizards, and confiscates their spellbooks? Do they get to sell them for the value of those spells enscribed within? Or do the evil wizards conveniently "forget" to bring their spellbooks to the battlefield?

Because with this rule interpretation, the spellbook of just a 1st level wizard would be worth its weight in gold, and the spellbook of a 13th level wizard could easily be worth a king's ransom.

Helldritch · Jun 29, 2020

Yep, they get to sell them. I usually get to pay about 10 to 15%% of the value of the book or up to 50% if the players are ready to be paid in goods. A wizard's spellbook is litteraly, at very high level, almost worth a kingdom. They are usually well hidden, trapped and protected. More than one spellbook has been destroyed with careless handling. Even player's spellbooks are so protected. It would be too long to go on the specifics but let's just say that a high level spellbook on sale brings a lot of problems and unwanted customers. But once the sale is done, the players have a lot of money. It goes both ways.

Inchoroi · Jun 29, 2020

Eh. I wouldn't rule that way.

DND_Reborn · Jun 29, 2020

Yeah, spellbooks in my D&D games (all editions) have always been better than gold! Even if a Wizard only picks up a spell or two, the book can usually be sold for something afterwards.

As I said before @Helldritch , I don't think this is a bad house-rule at all if your game resources match it. In our main game, we are drastically looking for things to spend our gold on and having a heck of a time finding things. We decided just to rebuild a ruined castle and make it our base of operations.

jayoungr · Jun 29, 2020

prabe said:
So you're saying that "add to your spellbook for free" doesn't mean "add to your spellbook for free"? I just want to be clear that's what you're saying.

It could be argued that "for free" refers to the cost of acquiring the spells themselves--for example, it means you don't have to go out and buy or otherwise earn a scroll to copy them from.

D&D 5E Am I too strict?

bulletmeat

Adventurer

Bolares

Hero

aco175

Legend

Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone

Helldritch

Hero

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing

Helldritch

Hero

Inchoroi

Adventurer

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin

jayoungr

Legend

Similar Threads