D&D 5E Am I too strict?

[Chaosmancer]

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

Ah, I wouldn't have let a separate group vote at all. I mean, 12 player players, six at each table. If one table was unanimous but only two at the other table liked the rule, then the majority of one table would have been left unhappy.

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

I still don't understand how you are rolling for classes, that preventing one player from playing a wizard for six years, but you can also have multiple of the same class.

This is really boggling me, because this either means you had three people who wanted to play wizards (and only two got to) or that by the time he got a chance to pick a PC, he had to play either a sneak or a healer because all of the other "roles" were taken.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

Some groups don't want to run with adventuring NPCs and are happy to fill in any perceived gaps. I have had players ask before if there was anything the party needed, I don't require it in my games but it is often the players that initiate the conversation.

 

[Immoralkickass]

This kind of question sounds similar to 'Am I the naughty word?' threads. Anyway, my answer to this is: Yes, you are too strict.

I generally don't like DM nerfing things with houserules, but if they have good reason for it, then fine, I will accept. I don't think this is the case with Wizard's ability to learn new spells. There's never a good reason to nerf it, and here's why.

This feature is 100% in the DM's power. No player would roll a wizard and go like, 'Now i can learn all the spells i want." First of all, the DM can control how much gold he gives out as treasure. Less gold available=less spells copied. Then there's the actual spell scrolls found as loot. DMs have total control over this as well. If you never give out a single spell scroll or spell book, a player can hardly complain, because it might be due to the circumstances or situation that the party is in.

The other part of the feature is the Arcana check to see if the spell is successfully copied. By RAW, a failed Arcana would mean that the spell is not copied AND the scroll is destroyed. This alone makes the feature unreliable, therefore needs no nerfing.

Its like, lets say you hate players having too many magic items, so you nerf the standard Attunement slots from 3 to 2. But you can just give out less magic items instead, or even have homebrew magic items with class requirements if you want to make sure that the Fighter isnt hogging all the magic items.

Another thing i dont like is DMs justifying their nerfs with 'but that doesn't make sense' argument. You say it doesn't make sense that the spell automatically appears in the spell book. But the same can be said for anything else. How does the Eldritch Knight suddenly have spells and spellcasting once he reach level 3? How can you apply Sneak attack when you are not sneaking? This is usually one of my red flags for bad DMing, that they hate a certain class and wants to screw you over for playing it. Even if they don't think so (every DM thinks they are fair), their houserules shows.

My point is, there are better ways to go about implementing your biases. We all have them, but its how they appear in the eyes of the players that matters.

 

[Helldritch]

Ah, I wouldn't have let a separate group vote at all. I mean, 12 player players, six at each table. If one table was unanimous but only two at the other table liked the rule, then the majority of one table would have been left unhappy.

Group composition can be fluid. Playing in one group does not mean that you will play with the same group next campaign. They all know each other.

I still don't understand how you are rolling for classes, that preventing one player from playing a wizard for six years, but you can also have multiple of the same class.

This is really boggling me, because this either means you had three people who wanted to play wizards (and only two got to) or that by the time he got a chance to pick a PC, he had to play either a sneak or a healer because all of the other "roles" were taken.

Circumstances? When he wanted to play a wizard he rolled low and high when he did not wanted to play one. As I said earlier, he is the type to play rogue like characters, rangers and druids. Just about anything that can sneak when you look at it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

This is an interesting side question to explore.

FWIW, is this even an out-of-character problem? If the issue is that the wizard is too powerful (a view I have a lot of sympathy for), you can definitely justify weakening them, although I’m not sure this houserule is the best way to do it.

If instead, the problem is that the players don’t want to play full casters other than the wizard, than maybe the DM should respect the players choices instead of pushing them to sorcerers, bards or warlocks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Group composition can be fluid. Playing in one group does not mean that you will play with the same group next campaign. They all know each other.

That changes nothing about my point?

If at the table it was 4 to 2 against, then the majority of that table for that campaign would have voted against the rule. And been invalidated because six people not in that campaign voted to keep it.

It doesn't matter at all (to me) if next campaign those four were split up between the two tables and only two people at each table were against it, they were voting for this campaign.

Circumstances? When he wanted to play a wizard he rolled low and high when he did not wanted to play one. As I said earlier, he is the type to play rogue like characters, rangers and druids. Just about anything that can sneak when you look at it.

Okay, so if you roll low, you are not allowed to take a wizard? How does that help you make a more balanced party, what if everyone rolls low.

Because it sounded to me like you were rolling for the order you picked, and between two tables there are three wizards. Which means one table, they have two wizards, and you said that you were not playing with the "every party can only have 1 of a given class" rule.

So, again, did you just have three people at every table wanting to roll wizards? More? Because six years is a lot of game time and I just don't understand what this system is or how it is fair.

 

[BluejayJunior]

I agree. Sounds like this player has been shafted out of playing a wizard when he's wanted to and now that he finally gets to, he's forced to play with a rule he doesn't like. And his opinion doesn't even get to count because non-wizards and people who aren't even in his group have voted him down.

 

[Umbran]

Filling lineup gaps is what adventuring NPCs are for.

Filling lineup gaps is how I do some of my most creative character building.

 

[Helldritch]

That changes nothing about my point?

If at the table it was 4 to 2 against, then the majority of that table for that campaign would have voted against the rule. And been invalidated because six people not in that campaign voted to keep it.

It doesn't matter at all (to me) if next campaign those four were split up between the two tables and only two people at each table were against it, they were voting for this campaign.

Ok, let me summarize. 6 players. 1st pick goes to highest roll. If two rolls are equal, roll between the two to get an order. Both tables vote for the rules because I don't want to remember which rule apply to which group. I am good at keeping notes, but I don't want to have a binder of notes for each groups. It was even more important when I had three groups. Rule variation can become quite a nightmare, especially when groups can interact with each others. I have a Greyhawk calendar and if both groups are in the same town at the same time (more or less) they can often trade in magic, spells, hints and whatever else (unless they are doing the same adventure as was the case in CoS where interaction between the groups is not possible).

Edit: Yes that means 12 people at the table. My basement is big enough for that.

Okay, so if you roll low, you are not allowed to take a wizard? How does that help you make a more balanced party, what if everyone rolls low.

Because it sounded to me like you were rolling for the order you picked, and between two tables there are three wizards. Which means one table, they have two wizards, and you said that you were not playing with the "every party can only have 1 of a given class" rule.

So, again, did you just have three people at every table wanting to roll wizards? More? Because six years is a lot of game time and I just don't understand what this system is or how it is fair.

Not necessarily, if you roll the lowest, you get to choose last. It is both a blessing and a curse. As the last person often have the choice of doing anything he wants simply because all other "roles" (and take that word very lightly, have been filled. This is why in a group there are two wizards. The last one is a fighter/wizard.

I agree. Sounds like this player has been shafted out of playing a wizard when he's wanted to and now that he finally gets to, he's forced to play with a rule he doesn't like. And his opinion doesn't even get to count because non-wizards and people who aren't even in his group have voted him down.

He was not voted down. Many players have played the wizard and intend to play one next campaign. He has had many opportunity to do one but so far prefered to play rogues, rangers and druids (mainly, but I remembered he played a monk and a barb a few years back).

Filling lineup gaps is how I do some of my most creative character building.

This is often the case in my games too. We do not take into account the "roles" too much. We do prefer a balanced group over an unbalanced one but everyone is free to do whatever he wants. I do not enforce anything about character creation/choice.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

Okay, just read the entire thread front to back. Started out pretty against Helldritch but am coming closer to his side here at the end (though still ultimately on the player's side). My campaigns are usually low on gold so this sort of rule in my game would give me a grand total of zero wizards which is what informed my original instantaneous disdain for the rule.
The things I would ask players to vote on are:
Would you like to spend downtime leveling up or spend gold on this chart to level up:
2: 100gp
3-4: 200gp
5-6: 300gp
7-8: 400gp
9-10: 500gp
11-12: 600gp
13-14: 700gp
15-16: 800gp
17-20: 900gp
Gold spent on this table can be put aside for armor, weapons, spell-scribing, or material components for spells but must be spent on your class features.

If the question is between training to level for everyone or gold to level for 1/12 classes obviously nearly everyone is going to choose gold for one class. If I asked whether we should double the price on all food or quadruple the price on apples I bet you'd get a majority of people saying apples.

Seems like a weird case though. I give Wizards 2 free spells per level as RAW and yet I've had 3 wizards since 5e came out and 4-8 each of sorcerers, bards, and warlocks. Charisma is just a way more useful stat than Intelligence in 5e.

edit: removed some sass