D&D 5E Am I too strict?

[Helldritch]

But they can't because there are two other wizards in the group, that's why I am confused by what @Helldritch is saying

We have two group. 12 different players. Both groups voted on the rule.

IME, metamagic and invocations are HUGE and offer enormous benefits to those classes. Nothing says loving like dropping darkness on a foe and having advantage to hit him with EB and he has disadvantage to hit you at the same time. And the Shadow Magic Sorcerer who creates darkness with spell points can also see into it, gaining the advantage on his attacks as well; and it frees the Warlock to concentrate on Hex. Arguably, there are only a handful of invocations I think are really awesome, but they are there.

I see a lot of Subtle, Distance, Quicken, and Twin spells for metamagic as well as using swapping slots for points both ways.

Although versatility is also huge and always "on", you still need a long rest to prep new spells when you want to change them out. IMHO, the Wizard's ritual casting is their REAL strength. Every other ritual caster needs to still have those spells prepared, and being able to cast them without needing to prepare them is SO big for Wizards. Versatility is great, but 90% of the time the Wizard typically has the same spells prepared. I hardly ever change them out on my wizard unless I know I will need something, but I use ritual casting a lot!

Anyway, I think bumping Warlock and Sorcerer known spells maybe to 18-20 would be good. I don't know if going to 22 like Bard would be balanced--it might be too much. Of course, with our house-rule for Expanded Spells for Warlocks, they can know up to 25 spells, even if 10 are predetermined. With that in mind, really only Sorcerer's need a bump IMO. Maybe something as simple as start them with 2, give them +1 known spell per level, up to 17, and stop it there? Then they would have 18 spells and could do 2 per spell level if desired.

Yep fully agree on that. This is exactly why I see so many wizards and so few someting else. Yet, I am afraid to unbalance things. The lower number of spell know is there for a reason. My rule may not be for all, but it does make the other classes seen a bit more. Before the rule, no one wanted to play an other arcane caster. The hit on versatility isn't that big. It is just a slow down on the acquisition of spell other than the free ones. And even then, a good player can circumvent it by being a good seller of copying rights.

Do what you want at your table. But you asked if you were too strict. IMO this rule is terrible. I would never want to play at a table with a rule like this.

As you were. But I do hope you read the whole thread there was an update and more explanations. Seems that my players are quite ok with the rule and even the plaintif rallied. If you judge a game by one rule, you might miss a lot more than you think.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So far I have played in four distinct "games" in the last 18+ months of playing 5E. Here is the breakdown between casters. There is some overlap within a game due to the high amount of multiclassing (but our MCing requires levels remain even, so there is never more than a 1 level difference between two caster classes for a PC):

Main campaign (level 15 currently):

• Bards: 2
• Clerics: 3
• Druids: 2
• Sorcerers: 1
• Warlocks: 1
• Wizards: 2

CoS campaign: (level 9 currently):

• Bards: 1
• Sorcerers: 1
• Warlocks: 1

"City" campaign (level 5 currently):

• Artificer: 1
• Warlocks: 1
• Wizards: 1

"Animal Monks" campaign (level 1, just started):

• No casters. Everyone is playing a different monk subclass.

So, in total:

• Artificers: 1
• Bards: 3
• Clerics: 3
• Druids: 2
• Sorcerers: 2
• Warlocks: 3
• Wizards: 3

While our group see the versatility and ritual casting of the wizard being awesome (it is!), we also easily see the benefits of metamagic and invocations.

Sometimes, it seems like your players are just not really into being "tied down" in spell selection. You've talked mostly about wanting more sorcerers and warlocks, but what about Bards, Clerics, and Druids? Do those casters see as much love as Wizards?

 

[Magister Ludorum]

As you were. But I do hope you read the whole thread there was an update and more explanations. Seems that my players are quite ok with the rule and even the plaintif rallied. If you judge a game by one rule, you might miss a lot more than you think.

I've read the whole thread. I was just replying to the question you asked in the OP.

I don't like games where house rules penalize one class over another. I also don't like to play in games where there's too much accounting.

We have lots of downtime between stories in most of our games, and with the exception of one game no one levels until the end of the adventure.

We give away less treasure than the rules recommend because D&D economy breaks our suspension of disbelief. Characters have jobs or practice their trades between adventures. We don't use down time rules, we just assume regular upkeep is taken care of. If someone wants to make scrolls or something, they have to pay upkeep for those weeks.

I really dislike complex accounting and tracking of all expenses in game. That's why we don't have our characters file taxes every game year and compute annual devaluation of their equipment, or account for the fluctuating value of coin based on the quality of metal in any given year of minting.

There are lots of "realistic" systems players use that are deal breakers for me. Everybody has deal breakers. This rule definitely would qualify for me.

Wizards research new spells in downtime. They get two free every time they level because researching spells is what they do.

In my group we are immersive role-players who focus on playing characters within the world, making them part of the world and interacting with the NPCs.

If your table is like that, I would probably feel regret at missing out on the game, but I would miss out. I don't like role-playing the nitty gritty of everyday life and counting every expense (that's why our Traveller Free Trader game feel apart).

I would also miss out because your group rolls to see who gets to play what class. I've run games where everyone is a wizard and it was great fun. Party balance is IMO overrated. Good stories are the goal.

 

[Magister Ludorum]

I should also mention that many of the players in my home game group have been with us since 1980. Two others have been with us since 1992. The others have been with us since 2002. This group plays once a week.

I have another group that consists of only family members, including my three kids (20, 20 and 17) that had been playing further for 10 years. This group plays twice a week (four times a week during the summer).

This is not an attack on your style. If it works for you, keep it up.

There is no one in either group who would be happy with a rule that penalized one class over another, that required such detailed accounting or that required us to randomly determine character class.

 

[TheSword]

Which is maybe a symptom as to why I see so many wizards.

And I must reiterate my thanks. All opinions were welcomed and I fully exposed the three sides of the discussion to my players. I did state that most here were finding it a harsh rule but my players decided to support the rule wholeheartedly (saved one, but he rallied, so...).

Again, it is not that I do not want to discourage wizards (well, yes and no) it is more akin that I want to see more of the other classes. We discussed it in our messenger group and they agreed that if a second arcane caster is chosen, one should choose something other than a wizard. But they want to keep the rule! Playing this way suits them (as well as I).

It sounds like you have a mature group that approaches things sensibly and talks out their concerns. I suspect there is very little your table can’t make work with what is clearly a well run dynamic!

 

[Helldritch]

Sometimes, it seems like your players are just not really into being "tied down" in spell selection. You've talked mostly about wanting more sorcerers and warlocks, but what about Bards, Clerics, and Druids? Do those casters see as much love as Wizards?

Bards are numerous, so are clerics and druids. For druids, the moon circle is really loved (probably has a lot to do with D2...)

 

[cbwjm]

No. But we try to be as balanced as possible.

Okay, fair enough. I think a lot of groups tend to look to "fill in the gaps" so to speak when playing. It's kind of how we ended up with the meme of someone being stuck with the cleric.

 

[Lanefan]

Does your group play with a no more than 1 of each class rule?

Why would anyone restrict the players with a rule like that?

Just because I'm playing a Cleric now doesn't necessarily mean I want to play one for the whole campaign; and if someone else has a Cleric it means I (or the other player) can cycle my Cleric out.

That, and there's some classes (as in, Fighter) you can flat-out never have too many of.

 

[Lanefan]

Do what you want at your table. But you asked if you were too strict. IMO this rule is terrible. I would never want to play at a table with a rule like this.

If I may ask: is this a) due to the (perceived or real) imbalance with other classes in that particular game? Or b) due to dislike of the idea of having to pay to level up in general?

I can maybe see a bit of an argument for a). I have no problem whatsoever with b), however; I've always had (and enforced!) training rules. And training comes at a not-insignificant cost in money and usually forces a week or two of downtime; and if for some reason you can't train (e.g. you're still in mid-adventure in the field) you just gotta wait.

EDIT to add: I see you largely answered my question a few posts up.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay, fair enough. I think a lot of groups tend to look to "fill in the gaps" so to speak when playing. It's kind of how we ended up with the meme of someone being stuck with the cleric.

One of these - looking to fill gaps in the lineup - does not automatically lead to the other - someone being stuck playing something who would rather be playing something else.

Filling lineup gaps is what adventuring NPCs are for. Play what you want, and then if there's glaring holes go do some recruiting to fill them.